Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Why climate scientists don't release code | Main | Nature Climate Change »

The story of Curry

There is an excellent profile of Judith Curry in the Georgia Tech alumni magazine.

“Scientists involved in the public debate mainly were trying to protect the UN treaty and were worried my post was going to make things worse. But that’s about policy and not about science. If that’s what was making these people tick, they’re part of the problem. That’s how we got in this trouble in the first place.”


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (4)

The other part of the problem was the media as activists as well (the enviro 'expert' journlalists now look silly, to their editors)
A stormy forecast for climate change reporting

"Where did all the climate change stories go? "The [programmers] are against it because it loses ratings," says a senior BBC journalist. "The wave [of public interest] has gone. There is climate change fatigue. That is why I am not [reporting] it now."

Watts up has it...

The environmentalist journalists still believe, see ast sentence, but it's all the editors fault now.

"It's the editors, stupid
Probably the most important reaction to the UEA hacking for journalists was in their own newsrooms, among their own editors who are the gatekeepers controlling if your work appears and how prominently. While some UK surveys show no dramatic loss of credibility for climate scientists with the public, here's how some senior journalists described what it was like in their newsrooms after hacking:

"dirty looks"
"sense of betrayal"

thought we'd "gone native"

"you told me the science was settled - and it isn't!"

"Climate-gate was extremely damaging in many ways. It gave the impression that journalists had been duped. I think in the end it was mountains out of mole-hills but it looked really bad," said a print journalist.

Other journalists agree. Even reporters at The Guardian, which especially targets environmental reporting, complain that it's difficult to get a run. Another UK broadcast journalist said he was warned that putting climate change on prime time would risk losing a million viewers."

Nov 4, 2010 at 10:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

What's your favourite curry?

I do like a Balti, but you have to be careful.

Nov 4, 2010 at 11:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

How about the Telegraph's 'environmental' reporting ? We learn from its 'veteran' environmental correspondent Geoffrey Lean about - 'The Nagoya Protocol, which environment Secretary Caroline Spelman played an important part in bringing about', and its conclusions - 'the FAO 'estimates' that 22% of the (wild) cousins of important potato, bean and peanut crops will be forced into extinction by 2050, by 'Climate Change' alone.'
Whether to laugh or cry ?

Nov 4, 2010 at 12:43 PM | Unregistered Commentertoad

Off topic. Reckon the Bishop is in the pay of Big Optician and Big Odontologist, loads of smackers.

Arry the Acker ere

"I’m currently reading “The Hockey Stick Illusion”. Damn thing is such a cracking read its keeping me up till midnight for the last 3 nights and now my eyes are half hanging out.

In reading this book – I’m just GOBSMACKED by the arrogance and hubris of the climate research community. Every page is a case of “oh my god, how could they”? One WTF moment after another. Just when you think it can’t get any more awful, there’s more on the next page."

Nov 4, 2010 at 1:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterTim C

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>