Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
Dr. Judith Curry conducted an interview on British radio on February 6th addressing, among many topics, how the politicalization of climate science created and driven by the UN IPCC process has robbed scientists of the opportunity to explore the legitimate, extremely important and yet unaddressed issues of how natural climate change drivers impact the earth’s climate. Her excellent broadcast can be found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GDBP1gx2f8
During the course of her interview Dr. Curry addressed the underlying assumptions contained in the UN IPCC process at its very beginning which simply assumed without establishing scientific evidence that anthropogenic activity was driving “global warming” (which was subsequently modified to “climate change” after the global temperature “pause”).
This theme was effectively captured by her characterization during the broadcast when she noted the failures of climate models to address pre 1950 natural climate variation – “If science can’t explain climate shifts pre 1950, how can we trust today’s climate models?”
She noted that the IPCC never bothered to do the “hard work” to determine how natural climate variation affected climate change but instead relied on “expert judgement” that man made actions were controlling thus neglecting any opportunity to advance climate science in this very important area.
Dr. Curry has addressed this topic in previous articles written by her (https://judithcurry.com/2014/08/24/the-50-50-argument/) where she challenged the highly questionable computer modeling techniques which attempt to manufacture a divergence between unforced and anthropogenic forced climate model ensemble runs.
In these prior articles she concluded that in using this model driven detection and attribution technique “the IPCC has failed to convincingly demonstrate ‘detection.’
“Because historical records aren’t long enough and paleo reconstructions are not reliable, the climate models ‘detect’ AGW by comparing natural forcing simulations with anthropogenically forced simulations.”
She noted “The IPCC then regards the divergence between unforced and anthropogenically forced simulations after ~1980 as the heart of the their detection and attribution argument. See Figure 10.1 from AR5 WGI (a) is with natural and anthropogenic forcing; (b) is without anthropogenic forcing:”
Dr. Curry pointed out a number of critical flaws in these comparisons as follows:
“Note in particular that the models fail to simulate the observed warming between 1910 and 1940.
The glaring flaw in their logic is this. If you are trying to attribute warming over a short period, e.g. since 1980, detection requires that you explicitly consider the phasing of multidecadal natural internal variability during that period (e.g. AMO, PDO), not just the spectra over a long time period.
Attribution arguments of late 20th century warming have failed to pass the detection threshold which requires accounting for the phasing of the AMO and PDO.
It is typically argued that these oscillations go up and down, in net they are a wash. Maybe, but they are NOT a wash when you are considering a period of the order, or shorter than, the multidecadal time scales associated with these oscillations.
Further, in the presence of multidecadal oscillations with a nominal 60-80 yr time scale, convincing attribution requires that you can attribute the variability for more than one 60-80 yr period, preferably back to the mid 19th century.
Not being able to address the attribution of change in the early 20th century to my mind precludes any highly confident attribution of change in the late 20th century.”
In these prior articles Dr. Curry concludes that UN IPCC climate models are unfit for use for this purpose, use circular reasoning in claiming detection and fail to assess the impact of forcing uncertainties regarding attribution assertions.
During the broadcast Dr. Curry noted that climate models like those utilized by UN IPCC which attempt to connect climate impacts as being driven by human action in many respects represent “self fulfilling” prophecies from a politically driven agency that has “lost objectivity” because of its bias in disregarding natural climate variability because its charter is solely focused on anthropogenic climate change.
Dr. Curry also addressed during the broadcast the recent data debacle of NOAA where this organization which is supposed to be preeminent in measuring and evaluating global temperature data has been extremely careless and incompetent in handling it’s temperature data.
She addressed the context of NOAA’s data debacle as being driven by political pressure from the Obama administration which desired this result to support its activities at the Paris climate conference.
She indicated that she has been in contact with NOAA scientist Dr. John Bates over the last 18 months discussing his experience with the lack of scientific rigor in NOAA’s handling of data sets where critical temperature data has not been properly archived, documented or evaluated consistent with standards established by NOAA itself. She noted that Dr. Bates has an extensive discussion of these NOAA data problems on her blog Climate Etc.
She further noted that given the importance that NOAA temperature data plays in global and national regulatory policy decision making regarding climate issues that can require the commitment of trillions of dollars that such data sets must receive and comply with the most rigorous data handling standards which clearly have not been followed.
She believes that funding for the study of natural climate variation needs to be significantly increased and that government political pressure has driven almost all funding toward anthropogenic focused studies.
She also said that in her judgement the climate impacts of man made CO2 emissions on global climate are measured on a “tiny scale”.
She encouraged people who have concerns about the validity of arguments alleging man made climate change to continue to speak out about their concerns.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
History will regard Judith Curry as one of the great climate scientists when it reflects on this sorry period of politics-led pseudo-science.
Keep up the good work Judith! Truth will out (eventually).
Judith Curry as one of the great climate scientists
===============
Arguably the greatest Climate Scientists of her time.
Because she did what few other scientists dared. She was the darling of the IPCC, with fame and fortune at her feet. All she had to do was to hold her nose and proclaim the IPCC garbage was indeed a bouquet of roses.
For indeed, many of her colleagues did this. Succumbed to corruption. Placed personal fame and fortune ahead of the integrity of science. And they hate Dr. Curry for this, because her presence reminds them of their weakness.
One of the most telling indications of IPCC bias is their elevation of an obscure, tree-ring mongering post-doc to the position of Lead Author.
Michael Mann’s one study was adopted as IPCC gospel and bruited around the globe incessantly by the politicized bureaucracies of the major nations. All other work showing the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age was ignored in hyping the Hockey Stick. The Hockey Stick graph was hoisted everywhere without question.
Readers can add their own examples of IPCC and governmental bias.
I remember her debates about hurricanes and climate with somebody on Climate Audit. I think it was Ryan Maue, could have been somebody else. At that point she was more on the AGW side of the fence. Have watched her policy preferences and positions be data driven since then. It has been fascinating to watch. She is an honest broker to be sure.
Hey, don’t forget Lindzen, who was skeptical from day one (in the early 90’s).
Also, don’t forget the late Professor Emeritus Reid Bryson who is known as the father of meteorology and climate science at UW Madison. He once wrote that you could spit in the wind and have as much effect on climate as rising CO2 levels cause.
Dr. Curry is truly heroic. I started reading and participating in her blog some years ago, and
quickly became a fan. She started out closer to the establishment position though with caveats and
a streak of independence. Over the years her skepticism has grown, most especially around the issue of uncertainty. She’s been through quite a lot of abuse, notably from the loathsome Michael Mann who ironically enough believes he can toss off any old insult he wants with impunity. If anyone has a lawsuit to pursue it’s Judith Curry and yet of course she’s got too much respect for the First Amendment, not to mention too much class.
Yes TS, I’d say you’re right. Dr. Curry will be seen as a hero when the history of this bleak period is finally
written.
Many have done similar work, but Judith Curry has been the one in the Lion’s Den.
It’s one thing to do similar work; it’s another thing to go public in the current intellectual environment with concerns.
Trump should put her in charge of NOAA’s climate work.
This would be a brilliant move. One can only hope…
Yep. No brainer.
Australia will not use this great lady because she doesn’t fit their bent ideology. Trump should. Like Pam said, ‘No brainer!
In response to Javert: “it’s another thing to go public …”
But Daniel did go public!
It’s time for Judith Curry, Willie Soon, Delingpole and others to be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for the courage of coming forward and stating their convictions (I.M.O. at great personal risk).
Curry treats Climate Change properly as a fact-based hard science. CAGW, unfortunately, with its models is intended to force desired public policies that allow the redesign and steering of ‘human systems’ down to and including the human mind. This piece acknowledges the new systems view that is a metaphor, not factual, but that rarely gets told. http://www.theecologist.org/magazine/features/2988560/living_networks.html
This makes education and its desire to instill Guiding Fictions and motivating Images as the means to change the environment, even though none of the models being used are correct. They are not intended to be accurate, only useful to policymakers seeking control, power, and funding from all of us.
Judith Curry is motivated by what is true, what’s right and what’s interesting. She is not driven by self-interest or ego. She takes arguments on their merits wherever they originate. I hope one day she gets a good sized fraction of the credit she deserves.
Good for her.
Many of us, whether so called deniers or so called lukewarmers have long argued that the lack of knowledge of the extent of natural variability must prevent knowledge of the extent of any influence from GHGs.
I wish that one thing would happen with the charts I see attached to this post. Right alongside it should be an absolute version of the chart that shows all temperatures recorded on the planet. I can handle temperature anomaly as a useful metric, but the uncertainty that is forgotten by leaving off the absolute values that the anomalies are based on causes my BS checks to swing wildly.
You are seeking the ‘Holy Grail’ of Climastrology, as yet to be discovered.
No one dares to state an absolute value for 0.0 for fear of ridicule later,most graphs that show a value for 0.0 refer to another graph that shows no value for 0.0.
Here are two links that are worth a read,note the name Hanson.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/fourteen_is_the_new_fifteen.html#ixzz2DtU2RoaG
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html
Edit- Hansen.
Great scientists are rare, Dr. Curry is certainly one among the few.
Great scientists do not provide all the answers. They are the ones that provoke the greatest thinking and exploration of the unknowns. And Dr. Curry is one of the best for doing just that. How many have even heard the question about the cause of the variability before AGW is supposed to have kicked in? (for short term cycles)
She will be remembered for her contributions to science, while the Manns will be a footnote next to lysenkoism.
Curry is to Feynman what Mann is to Lysenko
Good analogy.
The BBC would never permit these views to be aired.
The BBC didn’t mention the Bates disclosure either, but they were very quick to cover the Karl paper last year. The BBC bias on climate is absolute.
People at the BBC think
-debate is over
-agw is real and dangerous
-we can affect it with mitigating activities
-it’s easy, you just need a Clinton
Curry thinks there is a lot to talk about, it is uncertain that agw is dangerous, we don’t have mitigating solutions that would be realistic, efficient and affordable, and Obama didn’t do a good job. Right?
Curry had to go to David Icke’s lizardmen website
As opposed to one of Rupert Murdoch’s False News outfits?
Or – worse – the Bolshevik broadcasting Corporation?
Incidentally, have you come across this?
Britain’s Guardian newspaper is considering becoming a tabloid and outsourcing printing to a rival such as Rupert Murdoch’s News UK as one of a series of options to cut costs, sources told Reuters.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/23/uks-guardian-could-go-tabloid-switch-to-rivals-presses-sources.html
Bit of a sell-out…
The contrast with mad Mike couldn’t be greater.
“Dr. Judith Curry conducted an interview on British radio” – seems to be a new definition of “radio” – this is some conspiracy theory channel on the internet, in association with David Icke, for god’s sake – I’m surprised she would get involved with these kooks.
So is there anything wrong with what she said? Would it have been different if the Biased Broadcasting Corporation had interviewed her – which they never would, because they don’t do the truth? The BBC only deals with fake climate change.
The BBC is not much better, sadly. Their crap comes in a beautiful wrap, but it is still crap.
Steve
Dr. Curry gets a phone call asked to do an interview for a british ‘radio’ on a controversial topic she is very familiar with and already discussed in some dept at her blog.
Despite heavy cold, she agrees to do, she is sure and confident performer, regardless who happened to be on the other side of the microphone be it the US senator or someone called Richie Allen.
For the part I listened to the questions were fair, and even if the interviewer attempted to ‘ambush’ Dr. Curry, I’m certain it wouldn’t have worked.
Why anyone should expect of her to research who is David Icke, even if she was told the name.
Would anyone think that if M. Mann asked Dr. Curry for an interview or debate that she would turn it down on the account of Mann’s views, or even one or two derogatory comments Mann directed at Dr. Curry in the past?
I don’t think so.
All the credit to Dr. Curry for doing the interview despite a heavy cold, and the WUWT for bringing it to our attention.
p.s. Just listened to the last 10 min or so of the interview, and yes the ‘ambush’ was attempted but it didn’t work. Well done Dr. Curry !
“I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but it’s not helping the cause, or her professional credibility.” —Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, May 30, 2008
“she’s not helping the cause”
Once again, they admit that their cause is political, not scientific.
>>conspiracy channel.
Unfortunately, when you go against the consensus, the MSM will not touch you with a bargepole. And then you have no outlet for your views, and you are forced to use the internet chat shows.
Look at what happened to David Bellamy, the BBC’s favourite biologist and conservationist, who was dropped like a stone as soon as he voiced criticism of AGW. And has had no platform to speak from ever since. And apart from a Daily Mail article, has had no platform to protest from.
The only thing I find surprising, is that the conspiracy channels went against global warming (and against Hilary Clinton). Being liberal greeney types I did think that these chanels would join the greeney banwagon. But they did not, and I am still not entirely sure why.
Ralph
You can’t get much more BBC than David Icke.
He worked for the Beeb for 12 years as a sports reporter.
Then he went off the rails.
You really think Icke is a BBC man now?
Indeed yes, she really should know better. I mean David Icke? This is really how to destroy your reputation. Oh dear, what on earth was she thinking of? This is about the worst thing she could possibly have done.
I’m not surprised at all.
The IPCC has definitely tried to understand uncertainty, but it has become more of a negotiated figure rather than a real statistical uncertainty. Several iterations ago, they added uncertainty designations (more likely than not, likely, very likely, extremely likely), and these have strict designations. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-6.html They use these designations in almost every paragraph of the report.
Unfortunately, the actual probability levels are basically argued and voted on with the result usually being the loudest voice in the room. However, these discussions of probability have become a bragging point. “Since the IPCC is conservative, the actual results are likely to be worse.” I have seen that type of language in almost every press article on the IPCC reports.
United Nations IPCC has failed miserably at understanding uncertainty.
There actually exists an international guideline on expression of uncertainty – “Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement.” This is the only broadly recognized guideline on the expression of uncertainty. The following seven organizations* supported the development of this Guide, which is published in their name:
BIPM: Bureau International des Poids et Measures
IEC: International Electrotechnical Commission
IFCC: International Federation of Clinical Chemistry
ISO: International Organization for Standardization
IUPAC: International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry
IUPAP: International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
OlML: International Organization of Legal Metrology ”.
Guideline is freely available from https://www.oiml.org/en/files/pdf_g/g001-100-e08.pdf
IPCC failed to identify and acknowledge this guideline. Instead, they made up their own in a hasty way. Their guideline is a largely a joke called:
“Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties”.
More on that failure by IPCC in my post:
Both IPCC and it´s reviewer, InterAcademy Council, messed up on “Quantified measures of uncertainty”!
Is this a failure(or possibly deliberate act) of them not including statisticians/quants in their working groups?
As an avid uk radio listener I must say I have never herd of this programme. Where does it exist? Its a poor image but in the top left hand corner is a reference to David icke . Surely not THAT David icke?
Tonyb
Just looked up the credentials of this show which is run on association with David icke and someone called neon nettle. It bills itself as offering an alternative viewpoint and deals in such things as UFO’s and the sort of things that got icke laughed off of UK media more than a decade ago.
A serious and respected scientist such as Judith should surely not get involved n this sort of stuff?
Tonyb
Climatereason, you’re last comment is right. This was a mistake. Forevermore, whenever Judith Curry’s views come up in the MSM they will consult the ‘cuttings’ library and see that she ‘aligned herself’ with the likes of David Icke. Anything she says will always be tainted with that link.
The content of a message stands on it’s own merits, no matter the forum, no matter the messenger
The truth doesn’t need respectable company.
Then when and how exactly DOES she get on the broader stage besides blogs?
I dunno, but I’m thinkin’ everybody’s bein’ a little too hard on David Icke. Remember, when all the “respectable”, hive-licensed, thought leaders missed “the scoop of the century” (or, more likely, deliberately chose to ignore it), it was Dave who first spotted and then outed Hotwhopper as an iguana-based, e.b.e life-form (though the video clip of Hotwhopper snaring a horse-fly in mid-air with that prehensile, party-horn tongue of hers, was, like, a really gross creep-out, and everything)?
But sure, so it wasn’t Eli Rabett in that photo of some thong-clad dude, with those two, ridiculous, silk “bunny ears” sprouting from his hair-hoop, that unfortunately went viral before the misidentification was “caught”, causing Eli’s e-mail server to crash under the load of some frankly disturbing, reptilian-normative marriage proposals. But Dave immediately owned up to his error, and publicly issued a manly, no-B.S. apology and correction, to both Eli and David Appell. A real stand-up guy, I’d say.
You could have sold this argument seven or eight years ago. Not now. No one gives a damn what the delivery mechanism is these days. The sound is available; that’s all that counts. The hoi polloi are fed up with the MSM. Broadly. 86% of the American population don’t trust them…according to a poll either last week or the start of this one (I didn’t copy the article, but it was a major poll). In politics. In economics. In science. Not trusted. The election of Donald Trump proved that, and is proving that as pundits mimic Edvard Munch’s The Scream over this immigration ban. At least in the USA.
Climatereason. Like you I have never heard of the Richie Allen show and a quick Google shows “The Richie Allen Show on davidicke.com”. So presumably yes – that David Icke. It’s a real pity Judith couldn’t get a wider audience for her views, but as someone has already commented the BBC would never allow those views to be aired
Harrowsceptic
Heres a sample of the garbage from this site.
“Experts are saying that more people than ever before have developed the ability to witness shapeshifting. Two people watching the same scene will not necessarily both be able to discern the shapeshifting reptilian. It is said that Queen Elizabeth, a high priestess of the dominant reptilian-Illuminati bloodline, is the most commonly sighted shapeshifting reptilian in the world.’
Judith should run a mile from this stuff.
Tonyb
In an ideal world, there wouldn’t be people who can suppress access to the (purportedly) more legitimate media by those who disagree with their agendas. But we don’t have an ideal world.
I suspect someone on the left has a database of the most unflattering pictures of their opponents. If they can’t win on the basis of their arguments, they have other tactics.
Sometimes you have to do what you have to do in order to get a message out that otherwise has few channels. That will often involve a trade-off of sorts. There is a late night American radio production called Coast To Coast AM with @2.75M weekly listeners. It may cover anything from UFO’s to Bigfoot in the course of an evening.
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/watts-anthony/54478/
I posted above before checking out Icke. My bad. See http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/10/17/david-ickes-theory-of-the-reptilian-human-hybrid-apocalypse/
“Experts are saying”
At least for this one they interviewed the expert in person rather than the usual throw away line “Experts Claim!!”.
““Experts are saying that more people than ever before have developed the ability to witness shapeshifting.”
Yet, 97% of experts on the subject of shapeshifting say shapeshifting is real. Shouldn’t we respect their opinion? These are, after all, experts.
If the peanut gallery doesn’t like “The Richie Allen Show on davidicke.com”, and the BBC would rather support free TV than broadcast Dr Curry, exactly what forum is she supposed to use to discuss her opinions?
Dr Curry has the courage to stand against the prevailing prejudice on CAGW, and a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks are complaining about the internet show she was on? Get real. At least have the intellectual stones to suggest an acceptable alternative (there probably isn’t one in Britain).
Of course, I was educated at Ga Tech, so I’ may be somewhat biased.
Judith should run a mile from this stuff.
Thank you for your concern.
Trashing Judith Curry for appearing on a David Icke-sponsored show is like praising Michael Mann because the NYT published him.
Yes yes yes, let’s shoot the medium messenger.
This isn’t that unusual, it happens a lot in the social sciences, where a dominant theme takes hold. The momentum gets behind applying that theme to as many areas of social behavior and discourse as possible, (i.e., get published), without much regard for whether the original work held up to standards of scientific confirmation.
Dr. Curry addresses the very uncertainties that the “debate is over” is meant to silence.
Reading the SA press green response to the power blackouts the Paris agreement is being used to say its over. The US must withdraw formally from Paris to undercut this false argument.
Both the directors of NOAA,NASA should resign for allowing their respective agencies to become “politicised”. They won’t, but maybe they will be asked by the President to do so.
Trump isn’t the type to ask people to resign. He simply fires them.
I was rather disappointed that the interviewer, Ricjie Allen, degenerated into whacka-loon conspiracy-fanatics topics like chem-trails at the end but I admire the way Dr Curry stated her position both clearly and succinctly, while adamantly resisting being baited to venture outside her topic into politics and character assassination.
We should change the term from Black-out to Green-out. It drives home the message who is responsible. Climate “Science” on Trial; Eisenhower Warned Us About Climate Scientists
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/
Sadly, I don’t know The Richie Allen show, nor does anyone else I know. It seems it’s an obscure internet broadcast that will not be noticed by anyone used to getting their news from the BBC/ITV/Sky etc.
The UK is still deeply entrenched in the AGW scam and it will take some high profile interviews for people to take the sceptical evidence seriously.
But it’s a start, so for that, well done Judith.
When Richie Allen couldn’t remember Chistopher Monckton’s last name, it hints that being called an “obscure internet broadcast” might be generous; as he was a British interviewer and Monckton was part of Prime Minister Thatcher’s government, famous for the Eternity puzzle and a wickedly good debater.
Wonkypedia has just banned using the Daily Mail as a reference for any articles.
In view of the blatant and uncontrolled bias on WP about climate science I would be fairly sure that this has been motivated by the Mail’s climate coverage.
Lol. Daily Mail is not a quality source, but this is not about quality, this is about leftism and how it fails to support the ideas it purports to support. Like freedom, plurality and individualism.
But. Skeptics don’t do any good work. Skeptics are engineer type persons who are not politically active as journalist type persons. That’s why history repeats and a dictator will rise again, with support from people who wanted only good and had only good intentions.
Then they say nobody could have known she was such a crook. Yeah, as if.
Disgraceful. The 1st Amendment is conditional?
The First Amendment is a restriction on government, not on private institutions.
Private institutions may say whatever they like, as protected by the First Amendment.
Wonkypedia is supported by donations. Be sure to vote (unvote?) with your wallet.
I’m so pleased and impressed with you Dr. Curry! You’re standing up for science and the search for truth. Nicely done!
Dr Curry has thrown climate science a life-ring – let’s see who grabs it.
If Dr. Curry threw a life-ring, the Trump administration just pulled alongside with a rescue boat.
No more US money-spigot for fake science. The debate is truly going to be over.
“The first is the matter of judging evidence–well, the first thing really is, before you begin you must not know the answer. So you begin by being uncertain as to what the answer is. This is very, very important, so important that I would like to delay that aspect, and talk about that still further along in my speech. The question of doubt and uncertainty is what is necessary to begin; for if you already know the answer there is no need to gather any evidence about it. … Now we have found that this is of paramount importance in order to progress. We absolutely must leave room for doubt or there is no progress and there is no learning. There is no learning without having to pose a question. And a question requires doubt. People search for certainty. But there is no certainty.” — Richard Feynman
Dr. Curry understands the limitations of her expertise and that of her field in general.
A huge percent of experts don’t understand their limitations. They aren’t chastened by their errors. They have a large number of defence strategies they can use to explain away their mistakes. The result is that they endlessly bloviate and the population, noting that the experts have PhDs and a seemingly endless well of facts, believes them.
Outside the field of engineering, most experts are no better at predicting things than a dart-throwing monkey. link
The psychiatrist’s secretary is often better at predicting what a patient will do than her boss.
The Dunning-Kruger effect applies to many experts who over reach. They don’t realize how incompetent they are to predict the (admittedly unpredictable) outcomes of chaotic systems.
OOPS
Climatereason is using the typical tactic of trashing the forum on which Judith Curry spoke, not her content. However, as this is an interview, not a reporter stating what she supposedly said, the credibility of the interviewer is much less a factor.
The IPCC emperor is not only naked, but the mole on his ass looks like a melanoma.
Tom
What nonsense! I have written some twenty sceptical articles of which some fourteen have appeared on Judiths site. I comment there every day.
My concern, as yours should be if you are a friend of hers, as I am, is that she will become associated with lizard loving David icke and similar mad cap beliefs.
Do read what is presented to you. Do you think the Richie Allen show, which no one hear had ever heard of, for good reason, is a suitable venue for a World class scientists such as Judith?
Tonyb
I tend to discount information depending on which site it appears on, too. The New York Times, or CNN have known biases, but useful information nevertheless. Alex Jones and Infowars or Mother Jones or Media Matters tend to be something that elicits a reaction of “I wonder if that is true?”.
It is a damn pity Curry had to appear on a fringe outlet, but it says nothing about Curry’s statement except she is being boycotted by more “respectable” media.
climatereason
I posted this upstream, but it definitely applies here:
If the peanut gallery doesn’t like “The Richie Allen Show on davidicke.com”, and the BBC would rather support free TV than broadcast Dr Curry, exactly what forum is she supposed to use to discuss her opinions?
Dr Curry has the courage to stand against the prevailing prejudice on CAGW, and a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks are complaining about the internet show she was on? Get real. At least have the intellectual stones to suggest an acceptable alternative (there probably isn’t one in Britain).
Of course, I was educated at Ga Tech, so I’ may be somewhat biased.
✔✔✔
Well guess what, Tonyb? Now people “hear ” [sic] will have heard of the Richie Allen Show, but they tuned in to listen to Dr. Curry.
The issue is not whether the Richie Allen Show is deserving of airing “a World class scientists [sic] such as Judith,” but what she said. What’s your problem with that? Afraid you will suffer by association?
Tony, your whining is weak, please stop. Judith is not accountable for ‘appearing’ on any outlet. She is not ‘associated with’ anything other than her positions and opinions. The truth is not undermined by its being repeated by a fool.
Let the BBC criticise her for being interviewed. Let people look at the interview to see a class act. Let the BBC continue to avoid debate.