Dr. Curry is a lightning rod, but she does have the courage to speak her mind: Via Tom Nelson
[Q] Yes, you’ve certainly been raked over pretty good by certain sites like Real Climate and Climate Progress.
[Curry] Oh yes. Those guys are directly involved in Climategate so that’s not a huge surprise. (note: Joe Romm, of Climate Progress, was not directly involved in Climategate as his private e-mails were not published. Gavin Schmidt, of RealClimate, points out that he was the victim of a crime and not guilty of anything.)
[Q] Do you think those kinds of sites are helpful in trying to build public confidence in climate scientists?
[A] That’s a tough one. Real Climate, I think they’ve damaged their brand. They started out doing something that people liked, but they’ve been too partisan in a scientific way. Their moderation hasn’t been good. There was a lot of rudeness toward me on one thread that was actually encouraged by the moderators. I don’t think that has served them well.
…
[Curry] We really don’t understand the potential or impact the blogosphere is having. I think it’s big and growing. The sites that are growing in popularity are Watts Up With That, which really have huge traffic. I think there’s a real interest in the subject…With the IPCC, and the expectation that scientists hew to the party line, it was getting pretty evangelical. When I speak up about maybe there’s more uncertainty, some people regard that as heresy. That’s not a good thing for either science or policy. We’ve got to lose that.
======================================
Speaking of RealClimate, I note there is still no response at RC to the McShane and Wyler paper which I find odd, since RC for was setup for the express purpose of defending the hockey stick in the first place.
UPDATE: After a week of being “preoccupied” Real Climate finally breaks radio silence here. It appears to be a prelude to a dismissal with a “wave of the hand”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think Judith’s right on this. I think she has the measure of RC. Many of us have first-hand experience of RC that has led us to the same conclusion. It’s perhaps a little satisfying to have our suspicions confirmed by a bona fide scientist. 😉
Regarding the M&W paper, there is a lot of bluster around-about, but it’s mostly just arm-flailing.
Zorita’s complaint is that the statisticians should have asked to work with the climatologists before attempting to interpret the data, which is a bit of a laugh after Steve McIntyre was told by climatologist Ammann that working on a paper with him would be “bad for his career”. Climatologists have an established pattern of disregarding the contributions of statisticians when it comes to performing complex statistical analysis. Straaaaange, but trooooo.
Bottom line is that M&W used the latest data that Mann promoted as the best of the best for analysis. I’m still at a loss to figure what useful contribution a climatologist thinks he can make in helping a statistician perform statistical analysis.
What I don’t understand is why she comes across as so rational in the interview and then has her name on that unbelievable study on the Southern Ocean SST warming. It is obvious if you look at the data that the only warming going on is in their overheated fantasies. Everything else shows no warming or a slight cooling trend.
“There was a lot of rudeness toward me on one thread that was actually encouraged by the moderators. I don’t think that has served them well.”
And the more they do it, the less effect they are going to have. In general, people find that type of behavior off-putting…
Dr. Judith Curry deserves recognition for her honesty, her integrity and for her willingness to “stick her head above the parapet”.
She’s taken shots from both sides of the AGW equation and come out still fighting for what she believes is the right way to “do Science”.
If only all involved in this rather messy and antagonistic debate were as straight-up as Dr. Curry.
I applaud her and wish that there were a lot more like her. On both sides of the debate.
This all is getting more & more confused… We know that the ‘AGW-religion’ is a big con, probably the worst ever in the scientific history, and yet… sic… there seem to be some ‘scientists’ , i.e. Dr. Curry, who do not know/or show/ in which tub of ‘truth’ to put their/her/ foot into.
And all of this is due to a superbly easy query: Is CO2 [‘man-made’] causing/influencing the ‘climate’. Not!
Brdgs from Sweden!
//TJ
Not sure who’s saying what in the above; but I would agree with Dr Curry on RC.
Having never been to CP I have no idea what Joe the plumber is up to.
While we do sling around a lot of sarcasm at WUWT (and I do my fair share) it does relate to breaking the ice; and I never do it with personalities in view. (well I hope not)
Once Dr Curry gave us access to the C&L paper so we didn’t have to laugh at the Georgia Tech cartoon page; then we could look seriously at the message behind their paper.
I still haven’t fully read the actual paper; so I haven’t really commented on the “science” of it either; which is why I stored it in my preferred materials folder for further study.
I need to get some sort of understanding of just how EOFs are used; and how specifically they were used by C&L.
Certainly in the blogosphere, we can shovel away a lot of B&S in a hurry; to get to the meat.
And I for one am glad that C&L decided to hang in here despite being the center of an Italian firing squad.
I don’t envy Dr. Curry one bit.
One the one hand, she has to make money. I know, she’s paid by the university, but her students and the university both have to be paid too.
One the other hand, she’s caught between a rock and a hard place trying to be honest and open, and then dictated to by the university and grants.
I think the world of her, and admire her, she’s someone worthy of that.
“On the one hand”
“On the other hand”
Cat out of the bag
On wings of a butterfly.
Gavin beats retreat.
=========
She actually spoke out against real-slime:ate? Absolutely brilliant! Climate Shield Maiden then like Jo the super nova.
After reading the entire interview, two refreshing things that were stated:
“The other thing I’m seeing is that two of the professional societies, the American Meteorological Association and the American Geophysical Union, are talking about ensuring that skeptical papers get through if they’re of the right quality. Some people were getting their papers rejected because they disagreed with the IPCC. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. Papers were getting rejected for the wrong reason. It’s good that professional societies are taking this seriously. Those are some good things that have happened in the science community.”
and
“One of the other positives that I think has come out of Climategate is a realization of what other bloggers like (Steve) McIntyre (of Climate Audit) are actually up to. This isn’t a Merchants of Doubt, oil-company-funded effort. It’s a grassroots effort. These are people who are interested, they want to see accountability. They have a certain amount of expertise and they want to play around with climate data. There’s no particularly evil motives behind all this.”
RC’s been quiet for a week. My guess is PTSD.
My impression is that Judith Curry is independent, honest and skilled.
I sympathize with the Realclimate core group. When they started their blog they believed based on what was known at the time, in the extreme global warming paradigm, which was fed and supported by the incorrect GCMs. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the scientific and political positions to change.
As it appears the facts and analysis no longer supports that paradigm, they need to start looking for a way out.
1) Observed warming is less than 40% of what is predicted by the general climate models.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI3461.1
2) Feedbacks are negative rather than positive
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Forcing-Feedback-AGU-09-San-Francisco-final.pdf
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-and-Braswell-08.pdf
Point 2 explains observation 1.
3) Climate in the recent past were warmer than current. Climate in the recent past varied cyclically. The current warming is not unusual.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/17/breaking-new-paper-makes-a-hockey-sticky-wicket-of-mann-et-al-99/
Bill Tuttle says:
August 20, 2010 at 1:49 pm
RC’s been quiet for a week. My guess is PTSD.
========================================
Bill, ditto, you know they read here. So my guess is that the longer Anthony leaves it at the top, the longer they will be quiet. Plus, Anthony’s site is the most read.
Kudos to Dr. Curry again!
RC has damaged their brand? I beg to differ. The RC brand today is exactly what it was intended to be; an AGW PR site. The heavy handed moderation and censorship at RC didn’t suddenly pop up out of nowhere and slowly grow over time. It has always been that way , and on purpose.
RC exists for the sole purpose of promoting the existence of AGW, just like climateprogress, (but with less spittle).
Integrity
Now that’s a word I don’t normally associate with climate scientists (or is that scientist/activists?). But it is an attribute I think describes Dr. Curry. That and a certain fearless openness in daring to write in to CA & WUWT. The full interview from the Houston Chronicle made for an interesting read; she came across as quite articulate in discussing the Antarctic study in terms the average layman could comprehend. You don’t have to agree with her to admire and respect her.
The warmists have been getting on Curry’s case. I found some pretty disparaging stuff that you’ll see if you search on “Currygate” http://www.google.com/search?q=Currygate. Among other things, she supposedly made “unbearably lame comments” at RealClimate, and spread “disinformation” in Brazil. “Disinformation” means deliberate misinformation. And, in a further Currygate scandal, at RealClimate in a comment on “The Montford Delusion” post of July 22, 2010, she classified RealClimate and ClimateProgress in terms C. S. Peirce’s four methods of inquiry (which she summarized well from the Wikipedia summary in “Scientific method” and only one of which is the scientific method). “Currygate” seems to be a pun not only Watergate etc. but also on the word “Currygate” floating around, e.g., an Indian takeout store and an incident in Yorkshire involving the attempted consumption of curry by town councillors in a chauffeured car.
If I ever meet Ms. Curry (I won’t), I think I’ll avoid the subject of climate altogether and treat her to the local Thai curry. Their orange-red penang curry beats all!
Bill Tuttle says:
August 20, 2010 at 1:49 pm
RC’s been quiet for a week. My guess is PTSD.
If you look on the sidebar Anthony has 15 posts listed going back 3-4 days. If you go to RC and scroll back 15 posts you end up back in the middle of June on a post about the Sunday Times retraction of its “Amazongate” story. They’ve been pretty quiet for quite some time. Given the lame quality of the 15 posts they have made, they’re probably better off that way. As in the old saying “Better to keep quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it”
Nice interview. Did she ever comment on Liu and Curry 2010? I sure wish she’d explain a bit more on that. The study seemed like it had a few holes.
Here is my take. RC is an involved party, due to the presence of Mann in the cadre. Mann is most likely under embargo to not make comments on the M&W article because his comments will be included with the publication of the MW article. This is not too dissimilar to McIntyre not being able to defend himself with his comment to Nature a few years back. He could not say anything publicly for fear of losing his ability to have a published rebuttal to MBH in Nature. Of course, as things played out Nature punted, but Steve M. lost almost a year in defending his analysis. IMO the tables have turned.
As far as Dr. Curry.. I think she is trying to play both sides against the middle here. She obviously has the integrity to see that there are valid points being raised on the skeptical side of the aisle, but she is also maintaining her ‘street cred’ with the establishment with articles like the recent one. I can’t blame her for trying to cover her bases while appealing to all parties for some sanity. After reading many commentaries and statements from her I believe she truly is attempting to be an ‘honest broker’ in the climate debate.
Dave Wendt says: As in the old saying “Better to keep quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it”
I would say this is probably the reason for the sound of crickets at RC. However given that RC is funded by Soros through Fenton communications for the express purpose of spreading climate propaganda, the saying, “Sometimes silence is not golden – sometimes it is just yellow.” is also applicable.
OT – Those in Australia should remember to vote for the Climate Sceptics on the senate paper today. I know this means numbering over 80 boxes, but WUWT readers are good with lots of numbers. Or visit http://www.belowtheline.org.au to organize your own senate crib sheet before you go to the booth.
Robert M says: “What I don’t understand is why [Judith Curry] comes across as so rational in the interview and then has her name on that unbelievable study on the Southern Ocean SST warming. It is obvious if you look at the data that the only warming going on is in their overheated fantasies. Everything else shows no warming or a slight cooling trend.”
I took the trouble of reading much of “Accelerated Warming.” It would seem that many people here misinterpreted the intended scope of the paper. Unless I’ve misread it, it is an attempt to rationalize model behaviour with warming of the Southern Ocean [only] and simultaneous increase in the Antarctic ice mass. The title seems to blame for the rather overblown expectations of observers here and could have been better phrased. Considering the inherent limitations of models and adding the necessity of working with very sparse data, the scope of the paper becomes fairly narrow, realistically so, in my opinion. Apologies to JC if my curbstone opinion is off the mark.
Brego says: “RC has damaged their brand? I beg to differ. The RC brand today is exactly what it was intended to be; an AGW PR site. The heavy handed moderation and censorship at RC didn’t suddenly pop up out of nowhere and slowly grow over time. It has always been that way , and on purpose. RC exists for the sole purpose of promoting the existence of AGW, just like climateprogress, (but with less spittle).”
Well put. I think you’re 100% correct. The snark is deliberate. I always raise my spittle shields before visiting any AGW propaganda sites.