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
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?