After a she made a contentious comment about WUWT and me personally on another blog, I reached out and had a nice exchange a few weeks back with Georgia Tech’s Dr. Judith Curry. In that exchange she discussed the possibility of doing her own blog. I offered my advice. I’m glad she chose wordpress.com as I suggested, as it will ensure a more reliable experience than blogger.com or self hosting.
As you see above, this week, she took the plunge.
Her blog is at www.judithcurry.com which I’ve added to my blogroll.
I welcome her and look forward to reading what she has to say. If past missives have been any indication, she’s likely to bring the lightning her way.
Read her first post here
From a purely utopian standpoint, I do like this “blog rules” item of hers, which is rather unique:
If you make a mistake, acknowledge it. Email me if you would like a “take back”, which is strikethrough of your comment that absolves you from any further expectation of defense or discussion of the comment.
It will be tough to make it happen in the first place and to enforce that after the fact though, as I’ve learned here at WUWT that some people have a hard time giving up on entrenched arguments, and will take any mistake, real or imagined, and turn it into a weapon of derision for months or years to come.
Putting a strikethough in something said on her blog won’t prevent Climate Progress Real Climate Open Mind DeSmog Blog Climate Depot other bloggers from taking “offending words” and turning them into weapons of derision. /sarc
“The blogosphere has untapped potential for educating the public”
Should one laugh or cry when reading this?
So,,, Judith is entering the fray by making a foray into blogdom. Good stuff!
Anthony: Take heed of what Tallbloke is implying!
(“Foray” is the wrong word; “Fray” is wanted.)
REPLY: It was intended as pun, TB got a chuckle, but since it appears not everybody gets it, I’ll make it “fray” too 😉 -Anthony
I’m really glad Judith’s made this leap. More than any other climate scientist, Judith has made the effort to connect with the science-sceptical community. On her blog Judith promises to continue that effort and I think we, as science-sceptics, should embrace the endeavour and vigorously encourage her accordingly.
It’s interesting that you categorized her as Lukewarmer rather than Pro AGW.
REPLY: That’s my view of her position. If she wants me to change the category, I’ll gladly do so. – Anthony
Visit and be nice.
ask tough questions and listen.
Has anybody seen ‘Invasion of the Bodysnatchers’?
REPLY: ah, ah, ah, no finger pointing! – Anthony
I say give Ms. Curry time with, say, thirty years and an infinite source of papers in any -ology and let the data explain the certainties of world-wide climate. This mis-use of C02 forcing as a warming progenitor and subsequent need for countless trillion quid re-shuffle is high scam, but don’t go looking for any appointee to address the glaringly obvious discrepancies between observation and adopted policy. Oh no – We understand enough to cite impending catastophre.
Was it never thus?
Please be nice/polite to Judith..
I have come to realise she has the very best scientific intentions..
Everyone here, may not agree with her on many things…
But by the shear amount of grief and vitriol poured onto her, by the commentors at RealClimate, Stoat (Judith Curry jumps the shark), Deltoid, and many other, shows she has an open mind, particulary after she challenged them to read.
‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’ – A W Montford – aka Bishop Hill blog.
To quote Bishop Hill. (a good sense of humour)
“Judith Curry has decided to formalise her longstanding campaign to get people on both sides of the global warming debate to fling foul abuse at her. Her new blog is called Climate etc .
Welcome to the blogsphere Judy!”
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/9/11/judy-blogs.html
Lets us very sceptical people of the CAGW delusion extend her the utmost courtesy, if ONLY to show up the other ‘extreme’ CAGW side of the debate….
AND, If the other ‘extreme’ side of the debate, then decides to be courteous as well (less they look bad) then we have all won, at least to the extent a civilised debate can start…
Possibly around these comments from a UK Member of Parliament, with respect to one of the ‘climategate enquiries, that is being used to sya, the science is vindicated…..
‘THAT IS JUST NOT SCIENCE, BUT LITERATURE”
this SHOULD go down in history
(ref Briffa and the fact that not even Briffa/CRU could reproduce his OWN results)
MP Graham Stringer in full…
He is important, a member of the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee questioning Lord Oxburgh (Oxburgh Climategate enquiry)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/10/oxburgh_science_select_committee/page2.html
The Register:
Stringer says the practices exposed at CRU undermine the scientific value of paleoclimatology, in which CRU is a world leader.
“When I asked Oxburgh if [Keith] Briffa [CRU academic] could reproduce his own results, he said in lots of cases he couldn’t.
“That just isn’t science. It’s literature. If somebody can’t reproduce their own results, and nobody else can, then what is that work doing in the scientific journals?”
————————–
Some comments and analysis of the above at Harmless Sky blog.
Lord Oxburgh caught in the headlights
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=327#comments
Josh (cartoons) has a new one as well… (Judith Curry – backing up Andrew Montford)
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/9/12/josh-40.html
Roger @ 8:11 am
Nope, ‘foray’ is appropriate and correct. It’d be daft to mount a ‘fray’ which is your implication.
Anthony(?)
You mentioned ‘a contentious comment about WUWT and (you) personally on another blog’. I think your mentioning it here warrants providing a link so that we can all see it. After all, you are asking us to accept Judith with open arms.
REPLY: Fact is, at about a month ago, I can’t recall exactly which blog and which thread it was on. Might have been Bart’s or Kloor’s, not sure. I did a cursory search here, but the email is at my office and I don’t feel like driving over there on a Sunday morning. Maybe later.
Also, I said nothing about “open arms”, that’s your take, my take was “simply announcement and welcome”, (note the tag) as a professional courtesy. Had it been fully “open arms”, I wouldn’t have called her on an unenforceable blog policy. – Anthony
Jackie says:
September 12, 2010 at 8:03 am
“The blogosphere has untapped potential for educating the public”
Should one laugh or cry when reading this?
My reaction was to roll my eyes and ignore the link to her public education site.
I get the feeling that Judith Curry has been set-up over the last couple of years to play the nice policeman role in the AGW propaganda blitzkrieg. Perhaps a soft female hand inside an iron glove will work more effectively than the Real Climate jackboot at educating the public.
———————
Anthony,
I remember it. I think it was at KK’s blog in the last month, not Bart’s. I don’t go to Bart’s anymore after VS left there except by reference from here, and I recently have been spending some time at KK’s, Let me search.
John
That is an interesting development.
I have been interested in her comments because she appears to be reasonably independent in her thoughts, even when she is at least a “lukewarmer” the entire time. One where she does not appear to be running on a “warmist ideology script”. That I think would be a good development indeed.
I agree that whatever she blogs, good or bad. They should be met with civil replies and reasoned thinking. The desirable outcome is to increase understanding on the subject of the climate.
However she will need good moderators like we have here, to weed out the “blog gatecrashers”. I hope she has prepared to protect herself and her new blog.
I hope Dr. Curry, that you take care of your newborn blog and nurse it along with trusted helpers to rational adulthood in consistency and be noteworthy for climate discussions.
If so you would then be only the SECOND AGW hypothesis-supporting blog that I will visit. I ignore all others because of their immature behavior. I despise blogs where the owner allows such rancor to continue unmolested and uses unfair and biased censorship of thoughtful counterpoints.
Wish you well, Dr. Curry.
Where is JO NOVA on Climate, Etc.?
Nice gestures and all…..why would I need to go to someone else’s blog when I can get pretty much all the references and discussions of the actual science right here at WUWT??
Via Tom Nelson a quote from 2006:
“Joe Romm brings a unique combination of expertises in climate science and energy technologies and policies to address the challenges of enabling a clean energy future and reducing our addition to oil. HELL AND HIGH WATER is an important and timely contribution that deserves careful consideration in the dialogue and debate on U.S. energy and climate policy.”
– Judith Curry, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
Probably related to this:
“Third, “Hell and High Water, 2050-2100.” Sea-level rise of 20-80 feet will be all but unstoppable by mid-century if current emission trends continue. Some 100 million people will be displaced. All the US gulf and Atlantic coast cities will be below sea level and facing super hurricanes.”
Aw c’mon guys. I have always found her articles and arguments to be informative and indicative of someone who hasn’t taken an entrenched position.
Her first big post on here some months ago was very good. Many of us tried to punch holes in her statement but she responded well and gave ground where appropriate. Compare that with folk like GM and it should be obvious she is worth a few moments of interest at the very least.
—————–
Anthony and team,
Why categorize your blogroll at all? Certainly those who spend any time here are skeptical enough to sort out for ourselves, and newbies probably don’t come here by coincidence. We can find our way now, partly thanks to your longstanding venue and openness.
Imagine: The blogosphere squad car pulls up with its siren on. Over a bullhorn we hear, “Anthony Watts, put the categorizer on the ground, your hands in the air and step away from that categorizer.” The scene ends and it shows you walking serenely into the non-categorical night with a smile on your face. : )
John
REPLY: would it help if I added a “rant” category? – Anthony
Anthony,
In response to my comment above of September 12, 2010 at 9:41 am, you said:
” REPLY: would it help if I added a “rant” category? – Anthony”
Ahhh, maybe I am overly sensitive, but did you intend to categorize me by your comment?
Or are you making a generalized statement about some aspect of the type of rant blogs in the blogosphere or something?
I would appreciate knowing.
John
REPLY: There are some blogs that I don’t link to, because they fall into the “angry rant” category. That’s what I was referring to. By adding that category, I then don’t leave out a segment of the climate
rantoblogosphere- Anthony“Philip Thomas says:
September 12, 2010 at 9:06 am
Anthony(?)
You mentioned ‘a contentious comment about WUWT and (you) personally on another blog’. I think your mentioning it here warrants providing a link so that we can all see it. After all, you are asking us to accept Judith with open arms.
REPLY: Fact is, at about a month ago, I can’t recall exactly which blog and which thread it was on. Might have been Bart’s or Kloor’s, not sure. I did a cursory search here, but the email is at my office and I don’t feel like driving over there on a Sunday morning. Maybe later.
Also, I said nothing about “open arms”, that’s your take, my take was “simply announcement and welcome”, (note the tag) as a professional courtesy. Had it been fully “open arms”, I wouldn’t have called her on an unenforceable blog policy. – Anthony”
Thanks for your reply.
My suggestion of ‘open arms’ was meant to indicate our forgiveness. If Judith has made contentious comments about WUWT (a site we know and love) then I do not think we should be directed to her site without some knowledge of the nature of her slight against us.
I appreciate your attempts to provide the link and look forward to it but won’t be visiting her site until that time.
Re: John Whitman—
“Why categorize your blogroll at all?”
The categorization saved me a lot of time that I would otherwise have wasted separating the wheat from the chaff. This is the first ( and likely, only ) topic where I bother with “blogs.” As one who is skeptical of all things Internet, if the first “blog” I encountered had displayed genuine foaming-at-the-mouth ravings ( a la Romm ), I’d have rolled my eyes at the confirmation of all I suspected of the “blogosphere” and seriously contemplated ending my experiment.
There are all sorts of funny views on cAGW that pop up on here from time to time (and not just the trolls).
I wish her good luck. She seems a nice lady.
But if she starts waving shrouds around to justify spending a gazillion dollars on technology that doesn’t work, or promoting cap n’trade, the gloves will be off & she can get ready.
Malaga View says:
September 12, 2010 at 9:17 am
“[…]I get the feeling that Judith Curry has been set-up over the last couple of years to play the nice policeman role in the AGW propaganda blitzkrieg.”
Well make that Grabenkrieg. (trench war) A Blitzkrieg is something *fast*.
As long as she does not engage in censorship. If she does, she will certainly fail in my view. Civility should be paramount in the discourse, which she has indicated is important . Both lessons learned from WUWT’s success. I am concerned that Malaga View September 12, 2010 at 9:17 am is correct.
John W. Garrett says:
September 12, 2010 at 10:08 am
The categorization saved me a lot of time that I would otherwise have wasted separating the wheat from the chaff. This is the first ( and likely, only ) topic where I bother with “blogs.” As one who is skeptical of all things Internet, if the first “blog” I encountered had displayed genuine foaming-at-the-mouth ravings ( a la Romm ), I’d have rolled my eyes at the confirmation of all I suspected of the “blogosphere” and seriously contemplated ending my experiment.
——————-
John W. Garrett,
Thanks for commenting.
I understand that through experience we build up trust in other people. So, when we see a categorization of blogrolls by a person we have build up trust in, there is some confidence about the categorization. I find no problem with that. I endorse the principle of trust through past evidence. Of course it does not guarantee the future.
I have sampled WUWT’s blogroll and I pretty much agree with the way he has organized them.
My hint to Anthony about de-categorizing his blogroll was motivated by my own increasing level of dissatisfaction with the increasing levels of labeling/stereotyping/tribalising/namecalling/etc.
In this regard, I was just respectfully pushing Anthony to get above it, to a higher ground.
John
Good to see the term ‘graben’. There’s a biggy here, with some 10km downfaulted just a few yards away, now seen as one-fifth their original Devonian size/age (380+/- 20 Mya) at 2363′. Yup, hard to imagine, but 6 miles plus deep across a fault-line only some fifty miles wide. The key southern component is the Southern Upland Fault, fifty miles south, a result of subsequent Iapetus closure and transpression. Doesn’t move much nowadays but great to walk on and a link to Newfoundland etc.
DirkH says:
September 12, 2010 at 10:21 am
Well make that Grabenkrieg. (trench war) A Blitzkrieg is something *fast*.
No real argument here… the various blogs are dug in for a long trench war with only the occasional spring offensive.
Agreed that the AGW propaganda blitzkrieg has not been a lightning war but it does have many other attributes of a blitzkrieg.
In its strategic sense:
A series of quick and decisive battles that overpower the opposition before they can fully mobilize.
In its tactical sense:
A coordinated effort by many types of armaments to create an overwhelming force that defeats the enemy physically and psychologically through the use of terror and fifth columnists to spread rumours and untruths.
My perspective is that the initial AGW propaganda blitzkrieg attacks were very effective with An Inconvenient Truth and the Nobel prizes being the high points of this strategy. In recent years the deniers have managed to regroup and successfully counter attack by using new technology: internet blogs. This web war is now being slugged out in the trenches by denierblogs against the massed forces of Governments, NGOs, AGW Academics, AGW blogs and the main stream media.
However, the denierblogs are now gaining momentum as the realities of global cooling, higher taxes, higher prices and real science manage to unmask the lies and deceits perpetrated by the forces of darkness. We are living in very interesting times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg
Given the next Nina period,I think the skeptical point of view will grow. BTW I think Judith’s blog is welcome, and we should not go the route of Real Climate et.al.
and welcome her.
Sorry. Should read ‘one fifth of its original….’
Dear Judith: I speak for all at WUWT (largely). We don’t care whether the earth is warming or cooling or about to crack in half, wear out, or start wobbling around like a hut in the wind. We only care that the truth be told here. The fact we sensed there was no ‘consensus’, that the Science was largely bull, the IPCC has Patchy Morals at the highest level, and that the Numpty of Nashville could only dazzle a hired immature audience of girls with pure non-sense, all in the name of making a fortune. There is no need for you to have a blog. You can send Articles on Science to Anthony, and you can comment to your hearts content here. Don’t know why you are not doing that here @ WUWT already, but, you’ll be able to frame the argument there better than here. Good luck..
I was going to put this in the “Hints and Tips” section, but with over 1,800 comments, that section is getting rather long and slow (Hint…!).
As Anthony recommends WordPress to more and more Bloggers, my browser’s Tabs bar is filling up with little white “W”‘s in blue circles.
Is there no way that WordPress can supply a little variety to their Blog trademark logo, so that we readers don’t get confused who’s blog we have just opened?
————–
Malaga View,
Dr. Curry is formally a full time academic with a formal public record. We will know quickly enough much more about her views on climate and her capability for openness by simply looking at her management of her blog site. I recently read Craig Loehle’s book “Becoming a Successful Scientist” and was impressed by his very readable section on bias. Some biases to look for on any climate science blog are list by me below, with some excerpts from Loehle’s book included.
Note: The below bias assessment ideas do not suggest we look at Dr. Curry’s blog any differently that other climate science blogs. We should apply the same standards to all blogs on science.
aaa – Knowledge Bias – We need to assess the currency of an academic’s knowledge base particularly in the research field on which they speak. Has one kept up with the state of research in their own and related fields? If we assess that the academic hasn’t then there is a possibility of knowledge bias. From Loehle’s book “Scientists in nonresearch positions may fall particularly far behind. The result is knowledge bias, where randomly chosen experts may give out-of-date advice, in spite of them all having “ adequate” credentials. Experts also can be unaware of when (or on what) they are out of date.”
bbb – Toolkit Bias – Is there a history of default toward an expert tool used by an academic? Is so then we should probe the possibility of toolkit bias. From Loehle’s book: “Political advocacy is well-enough known that people can be on guard about it, but there are other more subtle forms of advocacy that also affect expert advice. One type is the toolkit bias. If someone has become an expert on a certain set of tools, they may advocate for the use of those tools whether they are the best for the job or not. A modeler may advocate for building a model to solve every problem.”
ccc – Normative Bias – Does an academic have a value to which he/she adheres? In case of a climate scientist, could there a specific valuation of anthropogenic over natural processes? If so then we must look for possibility of normative bias. From Loehle’s book: “In the context here, a norm is a goal value to which the expert subscribes, often unconsciously.” There wide range of norms to which an academic may adhere.
ddd – What I call Confirmation Bias – The term confirmation bias is often seen on the comments at WUWT. I think confirmation bias is subtly different from normative bias. From Loehle’s book: “Science is supposed to be value free, to be about what is rather than what we wish were so. When interpreting scientific results or conveying them to the public, however, it can be very hard to separate our values from the science itself.”
Anthony, thank you for your open venue, again.
John
sunsettommy said “If so you would then be only the SECOND AGW hypothesis supporting blog that I will visit.”
There’s already one somewhere? It must have escaped me.
John Whitman says:
September 12, 2010 at 1:45 pm
From Loehle’s book “Scientists in nonresearch positions may fall particularly far behind. The result is knowledge bias, where randomly chosen experts may give out-of-date advice, in spite of them all having “ adequate” credentials. Experts also can be unaware of when (or on what) they are out of date.”
This sounds more like science fashion rather than real science… new science is not necessarily real science… AGW science maybe new but it is not real science… so many a good tune can still be played on old, out of date fiddle…
Generally, real science moves three paces forward and then two backwards unless it is suppressed… so my worries are far more about Political Bias, Religious Bias, Funding Bias, Establishment Bias, Scientific Bigotry, Bad Practises, Closed Mindsets, Liars, Cheats, Charlatans, Imposters, Propagandists, Snake Oil Salesmen and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all….
Sorry to have to be harsh again, particularly towards a lady who seems both polite and well liked. But all I’ve got from picking through Judith Curry’s strangely indirect writing is doublespeak and cliche in the service of CAGW. If there’s any message apart from CAGW, it’s that everyone has been at least a bit wrong…except Judith Curry.
Her survival method consists of keeping language ponderous but vague, which allows her a bit of wriggle room and a backdoor exit. Her response to criticism is to wait for a comment she likes and reward it with: “That’s a thoughtful question.” You get more flies with honey!
There’s a grand old English song called The Vicar of Bray, about a local priest who survives all the political and religious turmoil of his century by adapting quickly to the shifts. We used to sing The Vicar of Bray at university. Maybe Judith knows that song.
PS: Please add to the list: Cherry Pickers, Soothsayers, Fortune Tellers, Scare Mongers and anyone wearing Rose Tinted Spectacles….
Debates, engagements, discussions can go on forever. Somebody better start doing some experiments, and measure the unmeasurable.
John Whitman says:
September 12, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Dr. Curry is formally a full time academic with a formal public record.
And?
Although I will give Dr Curry a pass in this particular context I might not extend the same courtesy to Michael Mann or Phil Jones…. being a full time academic with a formal public record guarantees absolutely nothing in this day and age… sad but true.
mosomoso says:
September 12, 2010 at 2:21 pm
But all I’ve got from picking through Judith Curry’s strangely indirect writing is doublespeak and cliche in the service of CAGW.
Now I am desperately trying to be polite and courteous to Dr Curry on this thread… if I agreed with you then I would be a cad and a bounder… but it is just after midnight here in Spain… and the courtesy pass I gave to Dr Curry was only a day pass valid for yesterday…
Malaga View on September 12, 2010 at 2:48 pm
And?
Although I will give Dr Curry a pass in this particular context I might not extend the same courtesy to Michael Mann or Phil Jones…. being a full time academic with a formal public record guarantees absolutely nothing in this day and age… sad but true.
——–
Malaga View,
And therefore, we can see the consistency of her formal past views with her actual blog management philosophy/processes. I think it will demonstrate if your “good cop and bad cop” concern remains.
John
Dear Dr Judith Curry
Good luck with your blog and I wish you all the best.
I wonder what you mean by this statement on your blog “to address the scientific and policy challenges associated with climate change.”
Most WUWT commentators believe that climate change will always will happen and humans will continue having a minor impact on global warming. Also that we are much better off living on a slightly warming planet than a cooling one.
Many of us also believe that as countries become wealthier their citizens will spend more of their disposable income on being more energy efficient so people just like you, me and Anthony Watts are able to spend some of our disposable income on energy saving technologies. The individual wealth generated energy saving efforts of its citizens means that the whole country consumes less energy. Given this we would want to see policies that encourages developing countries to increase their wealth just as quickly as possible so their citizens can afford to become more energy efficient.
I read that some Governments have implemented policies that subsidizes the cost of converting its citizens to using so called alternative sustainable energy and this has significantly increased the cost of energy and that is inhibiting economic development and wealth creation. By adopting climate change policies these countries are actually becoming poorer which works against the benefits of wealth creation described above.
I’m also intrigued that you like almost all other warmers (luke and hot) have switched from the scary phase “global warming” to the more the fuzzy phrase “climate change”. Have you simply switched phrases because our planet hasn’t actually significantly warmed at all during the last 100 or so years?
“DCC says:
September 12, 2010 at 2:07 pm
sunsettommy said “If so you would then be only the SECOND AGW hypothesis supporting blog that I will visit.”
There’s already one somewhere? It must have escaped me.”
The Science of Doom
http://scienceofdoom.com/
——-
Malaga View,
Hey, in my many business trips to Spain we would just start dinner at about midnight. Are you going to dinner now?
If so then enjoy.
John
Philip Thomas,
Check out comment #137 on KK’s blog.
I’m hoping she’ll set a standard for courtesy as good as WUWT’s.
“.. she made a contentious comment about WUWT and me personally…”
Maybe that was her comment #544 at http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/08/03/the-curry-agonistes/comment-page-11/#comment-14756 ?
I wish her well and genuinely have great hopes for her site. I’m not going to be prejudging it, and will wait to see what emerges. We’ll all know in a few months whether it lives up to its promise. I say if there are any doubts, give her the benefit of them at least at the kick-off. Whatever anyone says, I think she’s gutsy and, most unusually, sometimes able to admit when she’s wrong or simply doesn’t know.
DCC says:
September 12, 2010 at 3:53 pm
““.. she made a contentious comment about WUWT and me personally…”
Maybe that was her comment #544 at http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/08/03/the-curry-agonistes/comment-page-11/#comment-14756 ?
”
Only Anthony can vouch whether this is the offending comment, but it is illuminating.
So, Judith says she only finds something of interest once a month on WUWT.
Also that ‘people who actually think’ consider WUWT a laughing stock because of our own biased comments. If we consider our comments and judgement to be reasonable, we must be people who do not think.
Why, exactly, are we promoting her site?
REPLY: yes that was it, see her follow up comment here:
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/08/18/the-tribal-outcast/#comment-14782
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. A lot of times the posturing that goes on is becuase people never talk to one another. -Anthony
Intellectual integrity applies across blogs and threads. It appears to me that it is difficult to recover from saying one thing on a thread or blog then misrepresenting your blog host or thread post author on another thread.
An salient example that comes to mind is, in my view, Bart’s lack of intellectual integrity in respect to VS earlier this year.
Let’s hope Judith Curry’s blog will differentiate itself.
John
DJ Meredith says:
September 12, 2010 at 9:36 am
One reason for the success and reach of WUWT is that Anthony’s target audience seems to be the sort of people who would watch his TV weather segment to learn about the upcoming weather.
Judith’s Climate, Etc. will be more focused on hard science, and less on politics, weekly updates on polar ice and tropical cyclones, etc. Ideally, something that RealClimate could never aspire to but should have. We’ll see how much lightning comes her way. Gavin may pointedly ignore her blog since he can’t censor the dialog.
OTOH, WUWT has become the blog where nothing, but nothing escapes attention. Most times when I find something that I think would interest Anthony, it’s already on Tips & Notes. Some things, like the Livingston/Penn fading sunspots paper may work better here than it would on Judith’s Climate, Etc.
If it were not for psychological projection, ad hominem attacks and invective, most climate alarmist blogs wouldn’t have much to say. They are not really about science, they are simply pushing an agenda.
By censoring out different points of view, they turn into hate-filled echo chambers where everyone agrees with everyone else, and the extremists make the most comments, ratcheting up their wild-eyed assertions that sea levels will be twenty feet higher in a few decades, and the entirely natural fluctuations in Arctic ice portend climate doomsday. Many of them actually believe that those things are bound to happen.
Without different points of view an echo chamber is always the result, no matter whose blog it is. It’s a corollary of Gresham’s Law: the least credible, most cognitive dissonance-afflicted extremists drive out [or routinely moderate out] good, thoughtful comments from skeptics [and as we know, science without skepticism is pseudo-science].
Those blogs and their denizens hate scientific skeptics because they can not answer skeptics’ questions within the parameters of the scientific method, which requires testable, replicable, empirical evidence showing convincingly that a beneficial minor trace gas, comprising only 0.00039 of the atmosphere, is the primary driver of the climate. And they hate being reminded that computer climate models are not evidence, nor are IPCC Assessment Reports, nor peer reviewed papers, nor any imagined “consensus.”
The basic fact is that the CO2=CAGW hypothesis cannot withstand scrutiny. So alarmist blogs simply delete embarrassing questions and comments. To this day, twelve years after Michael Mann came up with his hokey stick paper [MBH98], he still refuses to disclose his methodologies and metadata. He knows that if he ‘opens the books’ on his data and methods his hockey stick will be immediately falsified, and Mann will be shown to his peers and the public to be somewhat of a charlatan. So he has no choice but to stonewall all requests for the information necessary to replicate his chart.
Thus skeptics — essential to the scientific method — are at an impasse. Mann’s scary chart is not testable unless Mann discloses every bit of information necessary to test his conclusions. The public is slowly coming round, but most folks here suspect that Mann is refusing to abide by the scientific method and show his work for one reason: there is something very embarrassing that he’s hiding.
I asked myself the questions; why do intelligent and well intentioned people persist with believing that AGW is a truth and that catastrophic AGW is a pending reality?
I arrived at the position that there are many different reasons, but the one thing which was clear is that any scientific endeavour and debate is irrelevant to what the greater mass of people believe.
In a democracy, this has obvious political implications. In Australia, it means that the AGW belief is split along the lines of left vs right. Rational discussion of the topic is now very difficult.
I have found that to change someones view on AGW requires that the person is gently coaxed to change their point of view. Judith Curry is playing this political role of the non-extremist moderate voice. e.g. “I understand your point of view, but …”
“enabling large-scale collective intelligence”
“collective intelligence”….. you mean like mindless termites?
MD says:
September 12, 2010 at 5:57 pm
“enabling large-scale collective intelligence”
“collective intelligence”….. you mean like mindless termites?
———————-
MD,
OK, yeah, now that you explicitly exposed me to it, I had a mental flash of the Borg with that excerpt from Curry’s opening blog statement. Got me.
John
Hey John, I am being a tad cheeky- Judith is an intelligent scientist & commenter.
It’s just that the term “collective intelligence” gave me a shudder-
does the phrase remind you of “scientific consensus”?
Given the finger painting done with the data, & politicization of science, it’s not what the
scientific world needs.
I have noted that Dr Curry has demonstrated a capacity for learning that is refreshing among the establishment “believers” of CAGW. She clearly is interested in going wherever the science leads. I find this encouraging. Sometimes however, the good doctor lets loose a fusillade that lets there be no doubt about her firm belief in her own point of view. Regardless, with her high level of knowledge and refreshing sense of integrity, I tend to welcome her opinions even though they may differ from mine. By all rights her new blog should prove to be a worthwhile contributor to a crowded and sometimes belaboured topic. One can hope she will continue to be as open minded as she has been. I wish her the best in her endeavor.
I certainly look forward to visiting her site.
Get a load of this.
“Ian,
Although I can only speak from anecdotal experience, virtually no believes that denialists and “skeptics” en masse to be on the dole from “big oil”, though many denialists and their fellow travelers like to create that strawman to knock it down.
A simple analogy I like to use is the comparison to anti-evolution commentors at newspapers and bio blogs. The percentage of those actually on the payroll of the Discovery Institute or the like is surely decidedly small, with the overwhelming majority of comments coming from regular people who are sympathetic to DI’s arguments. Similarly, while there are few truly professional big oil shills (JC’s friends Pat Michaels and Fred Smith being the exceptions rather than the rule), their work is used to reinforce the misconceptions of the non-professional denialists. The persistence of the “AGW isn’t a problem because CO2 is plant food” meme, for example, is a testament to their ability to shape the opinion of those who then go on to spread their message of their own free will.
Hope that clears things up.”
I went over and posted best wishes to Dr Curry, and spotted that comment right away. Looks like its off to a good start!
I had high hopes. Oh well. I wont be going back.
Oh, forgot to mention, Co2 does not drive climate.
INGSOC says:
September 12, 2010 at 8:17 pm
“Get a load of this.”
Ingsoc, I share your revulsion at this posting, but Thingsbreak sticks out like a sore thumb as a particularly egregious example. I have responded to him and hope he will take on board what I have said, though it’s very difficult to teach an old dog new tricks.
The vast majority of postings have been constructive, and I think it would be an overreaction never to visit the site again.
It is really interesting stuff there. All types of people have come and already set preconditions for JC to be taken seriously and have their attention. Let thingsbreak express himself fully there – without feeling defensive or being turned away. I’ve always been curious how good a sell the anti-climate change brigade really is. (anti-climate change, as in this brigade does not want the climate to change)
This is somewhat off topic, but the Bishop Hill thread discussing Judith Curry’s new blog has a comment and link by AJ Strata to his post on –
“how Lord Oxbrugh completely debunked global warming in his testimony the other day”
The direct link is –
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/14243
This is very worthwhile and should perhaps be highlighted.
Hmm. Thakns For This… I love This WebSite.. 🙂
Iren says:
September 12, 2010 at 11:38 pm
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/14243
This is very worthwhile and should perhaps be highlighted.
THANK YOU Iren… a very intelligent and well written article that really hits the nail on the head… or should I say: Absolutely Annihilates Alarmist Arguments, Beautifully Bins British Boffins, Crushes CRU Climate Credibility, Diligently Debunks Dodgy Data…
Finger crossed the article is posted in full on WUWT… HINT! HINT!
Incorrect.
Correct.
Incorrect.
Look at the headline. It uses the word “enters,” not “mounts.” Having done so, the proper follow-up words are “the fray.”[ Private Eye have a pedants corner , do we need one here? . . mod]
Thanks Anthony!
Hopefully, some of the politics and garbage science can be shown and weeded out.
I would love to have a post up at WUWT – so consider this permission to post the some of the article if it seems worthy.
all those political games are to descrease expences for such threat as global warming. thats why some guys try to prove that it is not real problem. but look-obviously we have been burning 70 millions tons of co2 every 24 hours during 150 years. thats statistic.
Shira, we don’t burn CO2. We burn carbon-based fuels which release CO2. Every time we breath out we emit CO2. And did you know that without CO2 in our bodies, we would die? Suffocation would claim us first before we starved to death. Our lungs evolved to the way they are right now because of CO2. The Earth’s flora and fauna emit CO2 every time we have wildfires. And we now understand that wildfires are beneficial. In fact, people buy CO2 for its benefits. If we didn’t have CO2, greenhouses would just pull up stakes and expose their plants to the daily variables of uncontrollable weather, including the ups and downs of available atmospheric CO2.
You seem to think CO2 is a pollutant. I’m not sure where that notion came from. Do you know?
#
#
Pamela Gray says:
September 13, 2010 at 10:25 am (Edit)
I think it is also very telling that not one warmista is calling for the abolition of beer.
Lets face facts CO2 is a major by product of brewing ( wine making too ) and how many *psssts* do we hear everyday as another can of the amber nectar is opened? I reckon if they tried to ban fermentation , it happens with bread too, there would be riots across the non Muslim world.
Yeast really is our friend.
Keith Battye says:
September 13, 2010 at 10:46 am
Yep Shira that naughty yeast emits lots of CO2 into the atmosphere as it busily converts my 25 litre washes into 15% alcohol ready for distilling off at 90% ready for cutting and blending into a very pleasant drink. Oh where I live its quite legal to do this.
Shira, did you not realize what the statistic is for the percentage of statistics that are fabricated from falsehoods to make false statistics?
Do you not realize the human contribution of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is so insignificant in percentage and absolute giga-tonnage that it can hardly be measured with currently available instruments?
Do you not realize that every decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide decreases biodiversity and contributes further to the mass extinction of species caused by the currelty ongoing ice age for the last 20 million years?
Do you not know the Earth’s atmospheric carbon dioxide has been increasingly depleted from somewhere around 980,000 parts per million to around 280-290 parts per million?
Do you not know the present global atmospheric temperature and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are dangerously low in comparison with their normal levels 10C and 1,000ppm to 7,000ppm greater than today?
Are you not aware of how Life on the Earth is currently deprived of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere sufficient for much of the Plant Kingdom?
Do you not know that halving the present atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations by human interference and/or natural reductions of carbon dioxide emissions will cause photosynthesis in virtually all plant life to cease thereby causing the extinction of nearly all metazoan life on te Earth?
Shiraz, are you really one of those people who says they are taking political actions for the benefit of the Global environment while actually promoting the mass killings of humans, plants, and animals in misguided efforts to supposedly save them?
shira@israel says:
September 13, 2010 at 10:07 am (Edit)
all those political games are to descrease expences for such threat as global warming. thats why some guys try to prove that it is not real problem. but look-obviously we have been burning 70 millions tons of co2 every 24 hours during 150 years. thats statistic.
—…—…
Er, uhm, ah … No.
Mankind burned minute quantites of hand-dug coal, hand-chopped wood, and beeswax and whale oil for about half of that 150 year period while the glaciers retreated and the earth naturally warmed up from the Little Ice Age. Transportation was via horse poop, wind-powered sails, and foot, and muscle.
Then, from 1870 – 1920, mankind increasing turned to mechanical mining and mechanical transportation, but not ever at today’s “70 millions of CO2 per hour” until about 1940 … And so CO2 stayed at near-constant values all the while as the earth’s temperature cycled in regular 60 year cycles of up and down overlaid on a 400 year steady rise. It is only in the recent past that CO2 generation nears your “statistical” figure.
It is only for the short 25 years from 1973 through 1998 has both CO2 and temperatures both risen at the same time. Since then, CO2 has risen considerably, but temperatures have stayed near constant.
The rest of the past 150 years – including the last ten years of steady temperatures? There has been no relationship between CO2 and temperature during the past 150 years.
CO2 steady? Temperature goes up.
CO2 steady? Temperature goes down.
CO2 steady? Temperature stays steady.
CO2 rising? Temperature goes down.
CO2 rising? Temperature goes up.
CO2 rising? Temperature stays steady.
Now, just what is the CAGW theory?