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.
This statement from the original article puzzles me:
Since that time progressive climate sites have begun to increasingly attack Curry
Why on earth are these sites called “progressive”?
Can anyone explain to me the meaning of the word in American english — as it doesn’t make sense in that sentence in New Zealand english..
Thanks. Margaret
Robert M says @ur momisugly August 20, 2010 at 1:11 pm
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.
I agree totally. I can only assume that it’s departmental policy to put her name on anything her department produces; and, she IS paid to support the department’s work. She’s not going to say at a press conference “This is just junk. We have to produce so many reports per year and there isn’t always anything worthwhile to say; and, besides, our paymaster wants evidence for AGW. Do you want me to lose my job?”
If I could make an honest woman of her 😉 I’d get her another job.
I’ve made this point before to Leif, who has a Paypal account. The interweb could enable scientists to fund their research outside the politicizing corruption of government funding. If Judith opened a Paypal account, we could all donate $10 and she could become independant of her Federal paymasters.
BTW you can also drop a few bucks on Anthony’s and Leif’s donate button.
William @ur momisugly August 20, 2010 at 1:59 pm
You’re being a bit naive, or mis-informed, I’m afraid to say. Realclimate was set up for propaganda purposes by Environmental Media Services
My common sense meter registers positive on this. Please, Ma’am, may I have some more?
Typo last sentence guys, as bolded below:
… RC for was setup for the express purpose of defending the hockey stick int he first place.
In her interview Dr. Curry says this:
“Sea ice can melt from both above and below, either heating from the ocean below or the atmosphere above. In the case of the Arctic most of the melting is driven from the warmer atmosphere above. In the Antarctic most of the melting has been driven from the ocean below. ”
In fact in the Arctic most of the sea ice melting would be due to warmer water below as it drifts from the Gulf Stream past Spitzbergen and then circulates around the Arctic Ocean under the ice.
In the Antarctic the sea ice is probably mostly nibbled away at around the periphery by winds from the more northerly regions surrounding it.
In both cases there is obviously a mix but I really think she has it the wrong way round.
Then there is that issue of precipitation. She seems to separate that from evaporation and in my opinion goes to an incorrect assumption as a result. Evaporation is a cooling process as well, more so than falling precipitation but she ignores it as an inevitable feature of a faster hydrological cycle.
Puzzling from someone so experienced and increasingly open minded.
Demma gals demma no understand da gravy train business.
(Regarding Margaret says:
August 20, 2010 at 3:33 pm)
“Progressive” is just another euphemism for the political left. As a political label it’s been lurking around for a while, but seems more popular lately.
Yeah, some (hasten to add blah blah blah) complain constantly about how no one in the whole world can be a good broker, when Dr Curry was being one, right under our noses.
Margaret – I’m an aussie, living in canada, so I have some understanding of the confusion you might be experiencing.
The word “progressive” here means “communist, socialist, totalitarian, thought control, behaviour control, etc.”
Of course, I wouldn’t presume to be judgemental here. After all, what’s wrong with self-appointed arbiters of right and wrong telling us what to think.
IT could be that everyone at RealClimate is just taking their annual 10 weeks leave…
George E. Smith says:
August 20, 2010 at 1:28 pm
“… Having never been to CP I have no idea what Joe the plumber is up to.”
Don’t bother. I make it a ritual every day possible to visit WUWT and CP. The latter has become the consummate echo chamber in which any questioning of their version of climate orthodoxy is greeted with venom and, usually, deletion. The ad hominem flows freely for the likes of Monckton, Inhofe, Lindzen and, yes, Watts among others. Of course, their reverence for Al Gore continues albeit somewhat subdued lately.
CP is the creation of George Soros and John Podesta and their Center for American Progress (CAP), which is lovingly described in Wikipedia at http://tinyurl.com/2vdu7lu
It’s safe to say that Joe Romm’s writeup within that Wiki piece is autobiographical. Obviously a talented scientist, it is rather sad to see him so consumed by this purely political endeavor.
Kudos again to Dr Curry. Now it is important to ensure we do not damage the WUWT brand when someone/anyone engages us skeptics on this, or any other, forum.
Judith Curry strikes me as a real scientists. She’s more interested in the truth, than proving that she is right. She also realizes that science is not always cut and dry, and that uncertainty exists, and that uncertainty should not just be swept under the rug.
Good on you Judith .. from a fellow Scientists, though, in the biological field.
Robert M says @ur momisugly August 20, 2010 at 1:11 pm
“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.”
The study isn’t about southern SST warming, she was less then clear on that.
The study is about how precipitation works in the Southern Ocean and Antarctica.
Judith Curry is correct that realclimate has damaged its brand. Originally it was actually fairly balanced, though with a clear bent toward supporting the “consensus.” Reviews of papers from skeptics were civil and reasonably coherent. However, it has now become a shrill and strident mouthpiece of no value to the debate, indeed an embarassment to serious scientists such as Dr. Curry. Perhaps this is the result of cognitive dissonance arising from the spate of developments disfavoring the “consensus.”
As for Dr. Curry, there is a need for voices of reason and moderation with a focus on the science, whether it favors the consensus or the skeptical view. She is to be commended for taking this path, for it is not easy.
She has real grit.
Sorry, but that’s rubbish. This was secret science from the start.
George E. Smith says:
August 20, 2010 at 1:28 pm
“I need to get some sort of understanding of just how EOFs are used;”
I’m not sure how you mean this but an explanation (somewhat related) is shown here:
http://www.ess.uci.edu/~yu/class/ess210b/lecture.5.EOF.all.pdf
Some understanding of matrix algebra and correlation is needed.
There may be a less algebraic explanation available that some would enjoy reading. Suggestions, anyone?
What is the brand of realclimate.org? If you look at the whois record for the domain name, you’ll see the domain name is leased by Environmental Media Services, ems.org, and is based in Washington DC. So following the trail, a quick Google search reveals that EMS was founded by someone who was a part of the Environmental Defense Fund. EMS is also closely aligned with Fenton Communications, so close they share an office space and personal And what does David Fenton stand for? The link below explains that.
http://activistcash.com/biography.cfm/b/2807-david-fenton
In short, realclimate.org is thick as thieves with the rich left-wing activists. They are not short on cash. Dr. Curry needs to be aware that realclimate.org is not about the issues, it is about propaganda. There is nothing to damage because it is already broken and has been broken for a long long time.
The beauty of the internet is that, to quote one of my favorite movies Serenity, “you can’t stop the signal”. Look at all the connections realclimate.org has, and yet sites like this and climateaudit.org that are devoid of rich lobbyist funding are stronger than they are. You can’t censor the internet. You can try, but you will fail. Sites like this take on MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the BBC, the Weather Channel, realclimate.org, Climate Progress, the UN IPCC, the WWF, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, EDF, just to name a few and it comes out victorious. Dr. Curry, the conglomerate of Big Environment and its allies have been damaged and corrupt for a long time. That which is crooked cannot be made straight (The Bible says that at Eccl 1:15 and is one of my favorite sayings); like a tree, Big Environment started off fine, but now that is has gotten bigger it is crooked. You can’t fix a crooked tree and you can’t fix a crooked organization unless you cut down the tree.
(P.S. Make sure your whois record isn’t telling the world more than you want it to know.)
I’ll add my voice to others: Dr. Curry, please visit us here often. We may not agree with you on everything, but we admire and respect you, and welcome your posts and comments anytime.
———-
latitude says:
August 20, 2010 at 1:37 pm
“On the one hand”
“On the other hand”
Hah! “On the Gripping Hand!” Always nice to see a Larry and Jerry fan!
——-
Wade says:
August 20, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Thanks. That’s a puzzle piece I’ve been waiting to see. I’ve seen the spot where it fits in the puzzle for some time now. Now if we could just find a few more of these puzzle pieces.
Reading posts on this issue I came across the abbreviation CP; lo and behold when I tried to complete the words to the capitals and thought of ‘climate’ and ‘progress’ I found:
http://climateprogress.org/
(Honestly I did not know. Also, as a European, I thought Obama would be an improvement after Bush)
There I found this statement:
“Last week, the anti-science crowd were touting …”
This really struck me. All my life I have been trying to put myself under the rigours of scientific thinking; to put aside prejudice and to give up previous convictions.
But here we are, I and you; ‘we’. The anti-science crowd. Our world of wonder and doubt apparently has been hijacked by those who pretend to know.
Perhaps we should claim another term to describe what we are really up to: scierandus, wannaknow, seer is believer: maybe a seeliever, maybe a knowerandus. Bachelor and certainly Master of Science sound suspicious to me, way over the top; I wouldn’t want to be called either one of them, although I am.
Almost as long as I can remember I have been able to take apart a motorcycle and put it back together so it would run again. I even got my head around relativity and quantum physics. I’ve also known that science has it’s limitations when it comes to bigger things, and I know the extent of these limitations will haunt us for a long long time.
But where did they find the impudence to call us the anti-science crowd?
Bah!
To put it into perspective, Roger Waters sang:
Us and them
And after all we’re only ordinary men
Or maybe it was David Gilmour:
Me and you
God only knows it’s not what we would choose to do
Yes, it’s very odd. We’re called “anti-science” because we ask questions, because we want to see the data when none is forthcoming, we want to see the methods and are told we’re not qualified, we ask about uncertainty and are told it doesn’t matter.
Which sounds more anti-science to you?