Dr. Judith Curry speaks out on climate science’s fatal flaw – the failure to explore and understand uncertainty

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

clip_image002

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:

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:”

clip_image004

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.

Advertisements

196 thoughts on “Dr. Judith Curry speaks out on climate science’s fatal flaw – the failure to explore and understand uncertainty

  1. 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.

      • 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.

      • It’s one thing to do similar work; it’s another thing to go public in the current intellectual environment with concerns.

      • Australia will not use this great lady because she doesn’t fit their bent ideology. Trump should. Like Pam said, ‘No brainer!

      • 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).

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

    • 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?

  7. “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.

    • 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

    • >>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

    • 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

      • 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

      • Judith should run a mile from this stuff.

        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.

      • “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.

      • Trashing Judith Curry for appearing on a David Icke-sponsored show is like praising Michael Mann because the NYT published him.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

    • Wonkypedia has just banned using the Daily Mail as a reference for any articles.

      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.

    • 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.

  16. “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

  17. 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

      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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. IPCC used circular reasoning to exclude natural variability. IPCC relied on climate models (CMIP5), the hypotheses under test if you will, to exclude natural variability:

    “Observed Global Mean Surface Temperature anomalies relative to 1880–1919 in recent years lie well outside the range of Global Mean Surface Temperature anomalies in CMIP5 simulations with natural forcing only, but are consistent with the ensemble of CMIP5 simulations including both anthropogenic and natural forcing … Observed temperature trends over the period 1951–2010, … are, at most observed locations, consistent with the temperature trends in CMIP5 simulations including anthropogenic and natural forcings and inconsistent with the temperature trends in CMIP5 simulations including natural forcings only.”
    Working Group I contribution to fifth assessment report by IPCC see: TS.4.2 Surface Temperature . Page 60

    What makes that glaring flaw of circular reasoning even worse, is the fact that the models in CMIP5 “overestimate forcing”. As acknowledged by Gavin Schmidt @ realclimate.org – here:

    “17
    Mark says:
    3 Nov 2015 at 6:41 PM
    Apparently Roy Spencer’s CMIP5 models vs observations graph has gotten some “uninformed and lame” criticisms from “global warming activist bloggers,” but no criticism from any “actual climate scientists.” Would any actual climate scientists, perhaps one with expertise in climate models, care to comment? http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/11/models-vs-observations-plotting-a-conspiracy/

    [Response: Happy to! The use of single year (1979) or four year (1979-1983) baselines is wrong and misleading. The use of the ensemble means as the sole comparison to the satellite data is wrong and misleading. The absence of a proper acknowledgement of the structural uncertainty in the satellite data is wrong and misleading. The absence of NOAA STAR or the Po-Chedley et al reprocessing of satellite data is… curious. The averaging of the different balloon datasets, again without showing the structural uncertainty is wrong and misleading. The refusal to acknowledge that the model simulations are affected by the (partially overestimated) forcing in CMIP5 as well as model responses is a telling omission. The pretence that they are just interested in trends when they don’t show the actual trend histogram and the uncertainties is also curious, don’t you think? Just a few of the reasons that their figures never seem to make their way into an actual peer-reviewed publication perhaps… – gavin]”

    (The response by Gavin is by: Gavin A. Schmidt; is a climatologist, climate modeler and Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS))

    • “The absence of a proper acknowledgement of the structural uncertainty in the satellite data is wrong and misleading.”

      This from the guy who says his GISS surface temps are accurate to within .1 degree even as he’s regularly changing them by an order of magnitude more than that, and despite the fact the satellites were launched amidst hosannas and cheers that the deeply flawed surface datasets could now be discarded as obsolete.

  21. Judith Curry deserves our gratitude. I hope her comments reach a wide public audience.

    It is clear that many of her colleagues know little and care even less about the causes of natural climate variability.They are too busy blaming everything on man made CO2 emissions. Such is the state of climate science.

    • Was the state of “climate science”. Past tense.

      There is a very real reason that Trump sent out a questionnaire asking which government employees were working on “climate science”. The refusal to supply the answers is deafening. Expect resultant firings.

  22. Actually Climate Science’s greatest mistake was its attempts to abolish certainty.
    The certainty of the Medieval Warm Period springs immediately springs to mind!

    • Climate Science made few mistakes. It was a bilking. Gore, among others, made a killing.

      I would love to see everybody involved forced to divest all of their ill-gotten gains, but that is not likely to happen.

      The big question is, how do we prevent another such fleecing?

  23. 2 Things…

    I suspect that most self-described “scientists” fail to understand and therefore practice 1) error analysis, accuracy and precision in measurement, 3) confidence level and 4) uncertainty.

    An ignorant public are unaware of these concepts which is why the like of Mann et al can BS the public with Tricks and phony plots.

    Ignorance of scientists X malicious intent to deceive X ignorance of the public = CAGW

    JC is not among the ignorant nor the liars.

    • You’re dead-on right, Paul.

      Awhile back, I posted that climate modelers apparently don’t understand uncertainty at all, nor error propagation.

      Recent experience has indicated that they apparently don’t understand calibration experiments, either. Nor what to do with calibration uncertainty, nor how to propagate it into subsequent experiments or calculations.

      It’s as though physical error analysis were completely absent in their training, right up to the PhD level.

      Climate modeling has sealed itself away from the verdict of experiment and observation. The modelers have made a Platonic playground for themselves, where nothing assumed is ever disproved.

  24. Franky, I did NOT care what the radio show was, what its reputation is, or who the radio host is. I actually listened to the exchange of questions and answers, which were intelligent and relevant.

    NOT knowing all this stuff about the show and host enabled me to actually listen to the message (imagine that). Why would anybody here use the same tactics that I have seen used against this very blog (WUWT) to discredit its content? I just read a 2010 scathing critique of Anthony Watts and his blog that surely would make any newcomer think twice about listening to some person blasting the credibility of a radio station.

    I see an irony within an irony.

    • Why would anybody here use the same tactics that I have seen used against this very blog (WUWT) to discredit its content?

      I quite agree. Go over to the Lib-Tardian and quote something from WUWT and the invective you get thrown back at you would, as we Cockneys used to say, shame a barrow boy. I’s all part of the ad hominem/guilt by association fallacy that is so difficult for intellectually lazy or ethically challenged debaters to resist employing when they are on the wrong side of the actual argument.

      It runs like this:
      “Who can take anything this “climatereason” person says seriously? After all, he comments on WUWT, which publishes articles by Monckton, who has appeared several times on the Alec Jones channel, where they scare people about FEMA camps, black helicopters, chemtrails, sacrificing virgins at the Bohemian Grove, and even give air time to Piers Corbyn?”

      Yes it’s very concerning if you are concerned with maintaining a good recommendation among the scum who are going to slime you in any case. Fair-minded,reasonable unbiased observers, on the other hand, don’t give a hoot.

  25. I am really sorry to put this in as such a controversial point….
    Many do indeed engage and interact, if I may put it this way, with AGW and anthropogenic forcing in climate or otherwise terms, but the same many do not even understand the most basic of it, as far as I can tell.

    The AGW and the associated anthropogenic forcing, while being hypothetical, it has also a very strong and complicated impact.
    Maybe not directly but indirectly it points out to a very complicated and hard to deal concept.
    The hypothesis means and basically claims some thing very hard to default as not possible.
    And that it is its main merit, and the only one, from my point of view, a view that a lukwarmer like Monckton can never ever really contemplate or even properly understand.

    In its very basic the assumed AGW hypothesis it claims and it is connected to one basic principle……;that the radiation and its variation while definitely can not cause climate change naturally, in the prospect of the anthropogenic forcing it may just do that;.

    Meaning that radiation and any variation of it due to any natural causes can not and does not cause climate change, till the Anthropogenic forcing considered……
    That is the most basic beauty and strength of the AGW hypothesis.
    While it may very well be no more than an hypothesis it firmly stands in an undeniable fact….radiation and its variation can not in natural terms cause climate change……either when considering the variation of RF naturally due to CO2 natural variation, or the variation of radiation due to the Sun’s variation or the Milankovich Cycles or albedo or whatever that may normally naturally can cause a variation in the Radiation that the Earth and it’s atmosphere is subjected to…..

    I know this is very hard to accept………

    cheers

    • Oh dear a verbose version of Griff.

      I remember when Dr Curry first came on here and got quite a “warm” welcome from the denizens, but she stuck with it.
      So all the best to her.

    • whiten February 9, 2017 at 11:24 am

      Hmm , After reading I most say I understand exactly what you are saying. But I must disagree on one point It is not a “hypothesis” the polite definition is rather a “Mental health issue”

      cheers

      michael

    • The AGW and the associated anthropogenic forcing, while being hypothetical, it has also a very strong and complicated impact.

      Your alleged “very strong and complicated impact” assumes facts not in evidence – i.e. Speculation.

      The hypothesis means and basically claims some thing very hard to default as not possible.

      A hypothesis not falsifiable is not science.
      The easter Bunny is also not falsifiable.
      The burden of proof lies with those offering the alternative hypothesis.

      My own speculation is that you might consider the possibility that you may also reside with . .

      […] the same many [who] do not even understand the most basic of it, as far as I can tell.

      • Pamela Gray
        February 9, 2017 at 6:25 pm

        Just exactly what are you attempting to postulate?
        ——–
        Hopefully you are no British..:)
        That will definitely mean no much to you….but never the less….:)

        cheers

    • beauty and strength of the AGW hypothesis.

      The AGW hypothesis has so many holes in it you could use it as a collander.

      In post-normal science, how many times does an hypothesis need to be falsified before it is rejected? Is it 20, 50, 100, 1000?

      • “how many times does an hypothesis need to be falsified before it is rejected?”

        One more, always one more.

  26. Very good interview but from the point of view of wider credibility it’s a shame the broadcast station is linked with David icke. For this reason I won’t repost this to others

  27. She certainly has a better grasp of things than DR. T. I wonder why he won’t open a dialogue with Judith? The griffster mouth slapped silent is another benefit… thx Judith

  28. It is quite simple. If we had a meaningful, reliable and honest global temperature record over a decent time period, we would not be discussing climate change.

  29. To pretend that her reasoning is flawed, to argue that the science is settled, the debate is over, that danger is imminent to the next generation and proceed to enact laws as if CO2 is the only driver of Climate Change requires a maniac and petulant disregard for the truth.
    To proceed with a study of Natural Climate variability, outside the purview of the UN IPCC, is not only prudent but the most logical next course of action before passing any legislation or implementing any regulations.

    • There is a fine line between free speech and defamation.

      Best to let Mann continue to freely speak for himself. This could serve to defame him as a serious scientist. He has the RIGHT to defame himself, without the overt help of others, and so I think that he should be awarded a favorable judgement in his defamation suit, awarded a dollar in damages, and then let’s all move on. A dollar is about the worth of his fame as a climate scientist now, I propose. So, let a jury assign this value. Again, as I said in another post on this topic, … poetic justice … the best kind.

      The greatest loss in awarding him a favorable judgement wouldl be the loss of press coverage that provides this blog with such entertainment. (^_^)

    • stevekeohane February 9, 2017 at 11:54 am

      COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, ET AL.,
      Defendants-Appellants,
      and
      NATIONAL REVIEW, INC.,
      Defendant-Appellant,
      v.
      MICHAEL E. MANN, PH.D.,
      Plaintiff-Appellee.

      Not Steyn’s case with Mann. the trials have been separates. See Ristvan’s comments on issue

      michael

  30. This was so profound that I had to feature it in a block quote:

    Meaning that radiation and any variation of it due to any natural causes can not and does not cause climate change, till the Anthropogenic forcing considered……
    That is the most basic beauty and strength of the AGW hypothesis.

    More correctly, that would be the most basic FLAW of the AGW (take out the “g” and add “f” and “l” to get “flaw”) … hypothesis [notice the italics on “hypothesis”]

    In other words, seriously?!

    • Robert Kernodle
      February 9, 2017 at 12:08 pm

      Yes Robert that will be the most basic flaw of the AGW, as you say, but still it is it’s most basic beauty, that I think many do not even properly consider….:)
      It is the basic fact that it exploits to propagate itself..:)

      cheers

      • Oh, yes, you are quite right, I totally overlooked the beauty.

        There is such beauty in flaws. Hence, the distressed look in furniture, … the unkempt look in grunge.

        This then is how science transcends to art, I suppose — It must become FLAWED science.

        … such a refreshing insight.

      • Robert Kernodle
        February 9, 2017 at 12:26 pm

        This then is how science transcends to art, I suppose — It must become FLAWED science.

        … such a refreshing insight.
        ——
        In my understanding and knowledge, the science and technology and human civilization has evolved and prospered through a lot of errors. flaws and accidents…..especially when such recognized, realized and addressed properly and with no regrets…..at some point.

        cheers

      • Yep, in the greater scheme of human development, flawed hypotheses lead to less flawed hypothesis in new chains of new errors that build new consensus views all ripe to be torn to shreds by a subsequent generation.

        Growing pains are hell this way.

        We are at a tipping point here, but the locale of this tipping point is not the climate of Earth so much as it is the climate of climate science.

  31. Although I’ve been following this site, and Judith Curry’s for a while now, I must say that, my trust has gotten a bit bruised just now.
    As a climate science layman, I have to rely on the expertise of others to form an opinion. What I have read here and elsewhere these last couple of months has turned me from a flip-flopping don’t-know-what-to-believer into someone who’s convinced that CAGW is a not reality. In that light, it seems in very poor judgement to use a David Icke-affiliated radio show to speak out. Information that comes from such a channel is automatically categorized as ‘pure nonsense’ in my mind.
    If it wasn’t for the fact that I have been here reading up on the subject this last year, I would have chucked the entire discourse of WUWT and other sites that share the same views in that ‘pure nonsense’-bin.
    I respect Judith Curry, but I feel that she has done more bad than good with this move.

    • I don’t disagree. I avoid the David Icke crackpot spectrum, but don’t judge Judith too hastily, she simply may not have known of the affiliation. Knowing her, I’m betting that she did not know about it and if she did, probably would not have appeared on it. That said, is there anything wrong with the contents of her commentary?

      • It’s the difference between an explorer who wants to discover the truth and a lawyer who wants to win a case.

      • Whoops, that wasn’t supposed to be a reply – just a comment. Fat-fingered that one.

        Although, to continue the thread, it’s worth pointing out that guilt by affiliation is problematic when you consider the tenebrous workings of funding sources, and how it might not be obvious, especially with those who like to work behind the scenes.

      • I’m not judging her merits or expertise. It’s just perceptively unfortunate. The audience that is being addressed will feel like she’s preaching to the choir, but for all the wrong conspirative reasons. and grist to the mill for the AGW camp to discredit her.
        But no, what she says is most definitely true.

      • For reference, Richie Allen is an independent journalist and broadcaster. His radio show is syndicated on David Icke’s network, making their affiliation not dissimilar to that between WUWT and WordPress.

        Lord Monkton has been on Richie Allen’s show a number of times. He obviously feels that the publicity value makes such appearances worthwhile. Here’s a video in which Christopher uses Richie’s show to attack David Icke.

    • Jan, I feel that I might have prompted your latest comment, and so I want to follow up.

      All I am saying is that the focus on context sometimes is so strong that we can be anesthetized from content.

      Consider this little tidbit about Anthony and this very WUWT blog:

      https://thinkprogress.org/wattsupwiththat-hypes-itself-with-most-discredited-web-metric-hits-and-keeps-smearing-scientists-dbaab197d8d1#.omfjqbga1

      Had you read that before actually engaging with the content here, would you have even started reading the comments here?

      • My “antenna” is more content sensitive than context sensitive.

        I, thus, consider the old “you never have a second chance to make a first impression” rule as lazy. Life is made up of quite a bit more than first impressions, … even second or third impressions. It’s a series of ever self-refining impressions that get distilled through your own intelligence.

      • That’s the unfortunateness of the entire discussion, and I speak from experience: as a bystander, you have to go to such lengths to find out what is true, wading through all sorts of information that obfuscate your opinion. Then, expecting for that bystander to discern valuable information on a site like David Icke’s is beyond what can be expected of a mere mortal.

      • It surely is NOT easy to distill a settled view these days. But when something like climate science can be successfully argued from both sides, then THAT dynamic in itself gives me a clue that there are some things that are open to exploration.

        Now consider that the side who seems MOST certain tends to try to disable, deny expression, or blacklist people on the other side of their debate. What this now puts before you is (1) a side that argues favorably for its claim and (2) the same side trying to block the other side’s view. Taken together, this leads me to give serious consideration to the side whose view the other side is trying to block from view.

        When you see this pattern enough, then the favor starts to fall towards the side raising the most questions, hence, the skeptics.

        I’ll repeat yet again that I once was a loyal human-caused-CO2-warming believer, but through a process similar to what I just described, I readily abandoned that belief.

        If people, then, call ME a “denier”, then I put a slightly different spin on the label, as follows: You’re darn right I’m a denier — I deny that firm believers of human-caused-CO2-warming know how to spot a scam of epic proportions, when they see one.

        Those who truly believe, then, are more like victims in my thinking, rather than villains. As the “Mr. T” of times past would have said, “I pity the fools”.

      • The aspect of the interview that struck me as most impressive was the terse, matter-of-fact tone that was never swayed in the direction of name calling or accusatory labels, despite several seemingly strong efforts by the person interviewing to go there. It was as though Dr. Curry had been tutored by a lawyer.

        This lends even more credibility to her. Again, THAT’s one of the things that the context revealed to me, and this would remain unchanged, whether she were sitting before a Nobel committee or a group of producers for an aliens-are-among-us TV trash documentary.

    • I don’t know anything about David Icke, this is the first time I’ve heard of him. But, after listening to the interview, Richie Allen does not seem like a crackpot or a moon-landing-denier type. Judith sounded very credible, as I expected.

    • Jan, I hit the triangle and turned up my Ultimate Ears Roll 2 (UE Roll 2, great speaker, btw) to listen while I made dinner. Had no clue about any David Icke affiliation–which for all we know may be a financial favor granting web bandwidth, not an ideological marriage…what if Allen is Icke’s brother-in-law?–until I read the comments here.

      Then there’s this: who says the aficionados of David Icke aren’t entitled to Dr. Curry’s considerable wisdom? Only the wise ones are entitled to listen to Curry?

    • Jan, you make a very good point. It’s sort of like when the skeptic movie (forgot the title) came out, Sarah Palin was recruited for a panel discussion. For most people, you are who you associate with.

    • I wouldn’t know David Icke from Queen Elizabeth but a discerning listener should raise his opinion of the show after listening to Judith rather than lowering their opinion of Judith.

  32. What do you call a highly educated, unquestionably intelligent, fair minded, PhD and expert on climatology who believes climate skeptics should not be suppressed?

    A Denialist!

    Bad joke, but we know that’s how some people think. Nice article with a lot of good points in it. We need a lot more people like Dr Curry in the field of climate science.

  33. For decades IPCC could rely on the ‘glamor of models programmed by experts running zig times on supercomputers’ using a lot of energy working / + cooling said supercomputers.

    Everyone kneeling in awe before the gods of ‘healed at last’ gayas bright green future.

    Thanks Anthony for a great work.

  34. In their first report the IPCC published a wide range of possible values for the climate sensivity of CO2. In their last report the IPCC published the exact same values. So after more than two decades of study the IPCC has learned anything that would allow them to narrow the range of their guesses one iota. The IPCC will not consider research that indicates that the climate sensivity may be much lower than the range of their guesses for fear of losing their funding. It is all politics and not science. Their climate simulations have hard coded in that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming and hence begs the question rendering their simulation as a useless effort.

  35. Judith Curry will be smeared no matter what, when, why or where.

    The important thing is – message delivered.

    So what is this ‘David Icke’ kerfuffle about?

    • So what is this ‘David Icke’ kerfuffle about?

      The kerfuffle is the associated “kook” baggage which just encourages the real kooks to dismiss Judith Curry’s message by that association.

    • David thinks the UK royal family are alien space lizards. No, really he does.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilians

      “The idea of reptilians was popularized by David Icke, a conspiracy theorist who claims shape-shifting reptilian aliens control Earth by taking on human form and gaining political power to manipulate human societies. Icke has claimed on multiple occasions that many of the world leaders are, or are possessed by, so-called reptilians.”

  36. It’s easy to ridicule believers in conspiratorial ideas such as chemtrai1s. However in a way such people are victims. Individuals with passionate curiosity linked to limited intellectual capacity and logical judgement, with maybe a persecution complex thrown in, will always exist in society – unless and until eugenics comes back into fashion.

    Meanwhile our elites who decorate their own sneering pretence of intellect with mindless fuhrer-loyal belief in AGW, indulge in idle and grossly irresponsible speculation about geo-engineering solutions to the grotesquely fantastic non-problem of AGW. Without exception the proposed solutions are massively more destructive potentially than the entirely benign trace gas CO2.

    It is understandable that people should feel nervous and apprehensive when elites openly and narcissisticly ponder rashly irresponsible geo-engineering projects. I feel nervous and hope that none of these pseudointellectual chimeras will ever see the light of day and – God forbid – come to pass. Such nervousness is justified and no doubt widespread. In some individuals apprehension at the muddleheaded stupidity of elites manifests itself as conspiratorial ideations such as the chemtrai1s meme. The solution is not to put such conspiracy believers in an asylum, but that the elite-ensconsed proponents of geo-engineering be defenestrated and thrown in prison.

    • ptolemy2,

      They’re not speculation, ptolemy2.

      Rosalind Peterson is a retired State of California Dept of Agriculture (DoA) who spent 30 years working on identifying crop losses in the state. She was a Farm Service Agency Agriculture Crop Loss Adjustor. She grew up on a farm and did some other farm-related job before working at the DoA for three decades until her retirement. Her website is http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org.

      One of her tabs is Geoengineering. There are videos on her site, where she appears with scientists, describing what she discovered on her job about it. Ms. Peterson is prosaic, not flashy nor seeking to make a name for herself, and plain-speaking. Earnest. She doesn’t pontificate about issues. She reports. She supplies, as a good civil servant would, lists of pertinent government-issued documents to back up her assertions. She lists them as a librarian would, with a numbering system that I haven’t figured out.

      Under her Geoengineering tab, she lists climate scientist Dr. David Keith, then at the University of Calgary. Now? Harvard.

      David Keith has worked near the interface between climate science, energy technology and public policy for twenty years. He took first prize in Canada’s national physics prize exam, won MIT’s prize for excellence in experimental physics, and was listed as one of TIME magazine’s Heroes of the Environment 2009. David’s academic appointments are at Harvard where he serves as the Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and Professor of Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. David divides his time between Boston and Calgary where he serves as President of Carbon Engineering a start-up company developing industrial scale technologies for capture of CO2 from ambient air. [http://environment.harvard.edu/about/faculty/david-keith]

      This supercilious SOB—you’d agree with me if you ever heard this guy talk, especially about his geoengineering efforts; he thinks he’s God—contracted Aurora Flight Sciences in Boston to create a geoengineering program costing a billion/year. Aurora’s document linked on Ms Peterson’s Geoengineering tab is listed as

      25 1 2010 University of Calgary Geoengineering Cost Analysis Using Jets October 30, 2010 Aurora Flight Sciences Final Report-Keith.pdf

      .

      Just read its Executive Summary. It’s stunning. Disturbing B.S.

      Dr. Curry may recoil from the discussion, and want to imply tinfoil hat-ism, but any implication that geoengineering isn’t happening, or real, is naive. She need only contact the Royal Society in England. (See Peterson’s site for the official govt docs, and links to parliamentary discussions about it.)

  37. [T]he 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.

    While there’s considerable truth in that assertion, it fails to recognize something even more fundamental: the lack of scientific bona fides among the great majority those who have established themselves as “climate scientists.” The opportunity to explore “climate change drivers” has never been denied to scientists steeped in the rigorous disciplines of physics, chemistry, and mathematics who have seriously studied geophysical processes. Strangely enough, their hard-won multi-disciplinary findings during the last half of the XX century have been largely ignored in favor of unbridled speculations by environmentalists, geographers, glaciologists, ecologists and a panoply of other “soft science” practitioners about a “greenhouse effect” that–based solely upon unvalidated model results–is believed to rule all climate variations.

    Judith Curry’s growing awareness in recent years of the inadequacy of academic grasp of the complexities of real-world climate variations is certainly welcome. But one cannot ignore the remaining gulf between the serious scientific discoveries of eminent geophysicists and the promotion of gimmicky notions of “stadium waves” by author of an applied thermodynamics text that abjectly fails to recognize that evaporation, rather than radiation, is the principal means of heat transfer from surface to atmosphere. Publicly carrying the skeptic banner in the political arena is fine, but it’s no cause for scientific canonization.

  38. “…. “global warming” (which was subsequently modified to “climate change” after the global temperature “pause”).
    __________________

    Here we go again. The ‘IPCC’, the Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE (pardon my shouting), was set up in 1988. It had that name in 1988 and has retained that name since 1988.

    It was not changed because of a ‘pause’; in fact it was not changed at all. Never has been.

    People who say that ‘global warming’ was changed to ‘climate change’ some time in the last few years are trying to sell ‘alternative facts’.

    • ‘alternative facts’

      Nope.
      In years gone by, the common parlance of discussion in papers, blogs and the media invariably referred to Global Warming. That’s the way I recall it and apparently so do many others.

      More recently that common parlance has morphed into Climate Change . . which, incidentally, is as absurd as terminology gets, and thus the AGW denizens trigger themselves into defending the irrelevant.
      It’s comical.

      That’s not to say that I can’t link to various studies supporting your assertion either. I can.
      That alone is a tell as to the desperate need to control the message, seemingly at any cost.

      I would refer you to the many early YouTube videos from Jim Hansen.
      He’s the recognised father of Global Warming and after all, I’m sure you would recommend we listen to the experts, no?

      • The author isn’t referring to the use of ‘global warming’ as “common parlance”.

        I quote:

        “…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”).”

        He’s specifically referring to “the UN IPCC process at its very beginning”, claiming that the term ‘global warming’ was only modified to ‘climate change’ after the so-called ‘pause’. He’s strongly inferring that the UN IPCC initially referred to the phenomenon as ‘global warming’ (even though it was called the ‘IPCC’ from the outset, and we all know what the ‘CC’ part stands for – i.e. NOT ‘global warming’.)

  39. I guess Judith couldn’t be expected to know about David Icke. In the UK, to be associated with him is politically worse than shooting yourself in both feet with the Duke of Edinburgh’s elephant gun. She’s just going to have to laugh it off.

    • As careful and thorough as Dr. Curry is, it is not likely that she didn’t know about Icke. She must have figured 1) it’s the only avenue I have, or, closely related 2) getting message out in this way was better than putting it on her own blog.

      This episode is a great illustration of the dilemma faced by skeptics. They’ve been so successfully vilified that the msm won’t touch them (Wall Street Journal is an exception, but look who owns that paper). Curry is probably the most credible skeptic I know about, and even she was laughed off by the msm.

      For the same reasons, skepticism faces an uphill battle even if Trump turns around the orientation of NOAA, EPA and the like. The msm, whom I trust on most matters (climate change being a salient exception), controls conventional wisdom. This will change very slowly even if skepticism wins the day in the short run.

  40. Amen, Judith. Amen. A scientist from the pharmaceutical sciences here, where the difference b/w exploratory research is distinct from that of regulatory submisson.
    BTW, any “scientist” that must use a court of law to defend his claim is no scientist at all. You know of whom I speak, he who shall not be named🖕

    • They’re currently in the process of encouraging participation in the scientists’ march in April in DC, according to WaPo.

  41. Maybe a Global Cooling will invigorate Jim Hansen and his cold blooded minions to a happy place. But Lo, his minions and Jimmy have no happy place. But maybe one day will they smile at their folly.

  42. Judith Curry has stood by her core values of integrity in science and made a huge decision to leave Academia when she could no longer reconcile the conflicts .
    She is a hero .
    How interesting that some threated scientist now claim their work will be politicised and their source data subject to third party review when that is exactly what the puppet masters of the IPCC were all about . A solution looking for a problem to justify an over blown scam .
    Does anyone dispute that natural variables are running the climate show and despite the fact we don’t really have a good grasp of the interplay among natural variables we are expected to believe a trace gas favorable to life if causing the earth to have a fever . Utter nonsense .

      • Completely wrong, as usual. CAGW was always nothing more than a money-grab. Ms. Curry is a scientist. Those who are trying to sell panic and fear are not.

      • As usual, Griff assumes everyone else does what he does.
        Of course to him, science is whatever supports his religion.

      • “she has put her political views before her science.”

        So you are lying about Professor Curry’s integrity now, you unpleasant little paid activist for the ‘Unreliables’ industry.

        Tell us, have you apologised to Dr. Cockcroft for attempting do damage her professional reputation yet?

        Truly, you are entirely with shame or conscience.

  43. I think Dr. Curry made a mistake by accepting the interview invitation by this Richie Allen. He sounds like an nutcase with his obscene language and chemtrail conspiracy theories. The last ting Dr. Curry need now is to get associated with people like Richie Allen.

    Anyway, Dr. Curry did a god job of trying to keeping the interview at a decent level despite the format.

    • Can you get her on to the BBC, or any other broadcaster?

      If so, tell us how you can do it, we’re all ears….

      • I suggest that we work to get her on Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity. Truthism is allowed on conservative talk shows.

      • myNym, I don’t want her on those shows either. These shows are for idealogues, and that’s not a fit for Curry.

        How about Charlie Rose? He has his own show and he’s independent. He won’t care what CBS thinks.

        I’m half serious.

  44. “without establishing scientific evidence that anthropogenic activity was driving “global warming” (which was subsequently modified to “climate change” after the global temperature “pause”).”

    If CO2 is causing global warming, then we know from its isotopic signature that the excess/increased CO2 in the atmosphere is contributed by humans. (And of course it is)

    The change from global warming to climate change was, as we all know, promulgated by a US Republican advisor, in an effort to downplay the importance of this…

  45. Not sure if this was posted on this site around the time it was broadcast but Dr. Curry was on Tucker Carlson’s very popular Fox News show recently (MSM but high quality, top ratings.) He wants to have her on again.

    • Thanks for posting this. I have been extremely impressed by Tucker Carlson’s new show on Fox. He is an outstanding interviewer able to stay on focus and draw out the critical issues better than anyone I’ve seen on the TeeVee in recent years.

  46. Dear Judith:

    “In association with DavidIcke.com” automatically places you well into the realms of tinfoil hatted nutjobs.

    Indeed this while interview by the organisation that performed it, may be no more than a well placed attempt to discredit you.

  47. Boy, is Dr. Curry’s performance impressive! She’s (almost) as tough as Allen West when it comes to “That’s not our issue,” “I’m not going there.”

    Her information is valuable, and it’s good that she’s at pains to explain what the state of the actual science tells us and what “confidence levels” and so forth do not tell us.

    Thanks very much for posting.

    • It seems Mr Trump is well qualified – in Mann’s terms – to be a climate scientist

      “He [Trump] waffles, it’s hard to pin down, he says one thing to one audience then another thing to another audience.”

      And my favourite

      “The Antarctic ice sheet is close to home,” he said. “If we lose the West Antarctic ice sheet, and we are very close to the threshold, we set in motion the destruction of the ice shelf. The ice shelf is ready to collapse. Then we’re talking a 10- to 12-foot [3- to 4-metre] sea level rise, we don’t know how quick.
      “We’re talking massive loss of coastal civilisation. That could be catastrophic for Australia and New Zealand.

      We’re all gonna… glug, glug, glug

  48. The CMIP projections actually look pretty good, when you update the measured data to show the record years of 2014, 2015, and 2016.

  49. The fact the program was willing to consider other perspectives immediately gives it more credibility than
    MSM like the LA Times or NY Times who just shut down journalistic pretenders .
    Considering the significance of the issue I find it strange that for the most part all we see are these
    talk show jockeys blabbing on for most of the very short segments as they are up against a commercial break clock . The “expert ” then gets about 30 seconds and then it’s well thanks for coming on the program .

    With $$ Billions at stake why not have a proper full day discussion among scientists to take the political bias out as much as possible . There is something so wrong about this field of science .

    Why wouldn’t every government be demanding to hear and understand the issues from more than one side unless of course they just want to hear from the side they have bought .

  50. If one can not account for natural variation then logic precludes that one can venture an opinion as to the cause of the variations observed.
    If one observed that climate varies much more in winter than in summer then the mode of causation is obviously unrelated to variations in trace gas content that exhibits a seasonal variation that is dwarfed by the extent of the decadal increase.
    If one observes that the entire southern hemisphere is no warmer today than seventy years ago then the mode of causation obviously has very little to do with trace gas content.
    Indeed there is no logic in the argument that man is the agent of climate change.

  51. erl happ Exactly ! With such basic logic the question is why did the Co2 global warming con even get lift off ?
    Answer … It supported a globalist political objective to fool the masses and ensure insiders made a fortune from the scam . They thought they could pull it off quicker and increasingly failed because a few scientists and others would not drink the cool aid despite threats ,name calling and attempted bribery .
    The “climate ” models originally designed to give the scam a pretence of credibility so grossly over shot actual temperatures the scam needed to change it’s name to climate change .
    Your points erl happ should have been out front of the scam 20 years ago but too much money was involved to stop the heist before it got traction .

Comments are closed.