Thursday
Feb252010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Josh 5
Feb 25, 2010 Climate: Curry Willis Eschenbach is unimpressed with Judith Curry's attempts to form a middle ground between sceptics and alarmists.
Feb 25, 2010 Climate: Curry
Reader Comments (18)
I with Willis on this one. Judith Curry is an out-and-out alarmist who has used herself the phrase 'denier' too many times to be believed. Like many other climate scientists she is suffering from the public fall-out of the many 'gates', that have exposed the behaviour of those who have twisted the science to suit their agendas, and wants to be seen as some sort of peacemaker to recover some credibility.
Take a look at her public record on the link between global warming and increased frequency and strength of hurricanes, and the role of 'deniers'. She has systematically misinformed the public on this aspect of climate science.
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/pdf/testimony-curry.pdf
She is not to be trusted.
Fence sitting.
It's about time someone recognised that the whole shebang has gone for a ball of chalk. Nothing's likely to change much, either, as the same suspects are still involved up to their necks, and they'll just be a bit more careful next time.
There is so much resting on this nasty global warming scam, it's very unlikely, surely, that those involved are just going to say "sorry", start again and produce the results most of us know should have been evident in the first place. It's all about damage limitation. There's just so much cash involved, and so many government policies, and so many organisations with insidious agendas, that we no longer know who we can trust to conduct unbiased and honest science, without a preoccupation of their left wing tendencies.
They'll just say "There, we've done it all again - it's still much the same, and now you must believe us, 'cos it's all true". The fact that they''ve disguised the same jiggery-pokery that they used in the first instance , they think, will make all the difference to their credibilty.
Personally, I don't believe a word of it, having been driven from initial mild scepticism to raving anti-anything-to-do-with-alleged-AGW, my gut instincts tell me there is something very shady about the whole concept. Smiling "scientists" saying "sorry, we've been caught out, and fiddled around with the 'data' a bit more, and everythings tickety-boo, now" ain't gonna change the way I feel.
Judith's attempt to find a middle ground reminds me of Obama's calls for bipartisanship - which really means 'You have to agree with me'.
Before I had my proper infusion of caffeine ... This is the corrected posting at WUWT.
Willis "Luther" Eschenbach
This post should be nailed – nay, encased in plastic and screwed, riveted and bolted – to every scientist, educator and politician’s front and office door!
And c.c.’d to the Library of Congress for preservation.
Willis's piece is a splendid polemic, and should be as widely distributed as possible. There is a sense of history being written as you read it.
Yes, Willis' piece is definitive, and deserves the widest possible distribution.
Oh, and Josh's comment on the lovely Judy is inspired!
You calls her Judith, I calls her Judas.
Spot on Prof Jones's Mum. Selfserving piffle.
And well done Josh.
This is what we want!
Lots more of such clear and straight talking is essential.
The polite and weasel stuff is losing us ground.
We are right. They are wrong. Tell them!
Prof Jones's Mum
Could you knit me a teapot cozy shaped like the hat Judith is wearing in Josh's picture?
The suggestion that climate scientists should emulate Steve McIntyre's approach is valid, however, there are very few fields that require such rigour as mineral reserve auditing, where Steve developed his skills does.
Sure, mining frauds are attempted often enough, most famously the Bre-X fraud in '97 with what was supposed to be the largest gold deposit ever discovered, at Busang in Indonesia.
That did not survive a due diligence study, it appeared that the only gold in the prospect had been put there by the chief geologist, DeGuzman, who's supposed body was found later (different thoeries have him enjoying a cold beer in the Phillipines).
Now, how to re-train "climate scientists" to the same rigorous standards that are required of "Competant Persons" supervising mineral exploration and reserve calcs to stock exchange rules?
After all, the sums of money riding on the findings of climate scientists are orders of magnitude larger than the already massive investments required to discover, assess and mine a mineral deposit.
more on retraining.
Perhaps an adaptation of the Kerry man's advice on route planning applies:
If I was going to do that, I wouldn't be start with the present crowd.
Ms. Curry lost me when she made the comment that realclimate was an effort to begin and sustain a dialog on climate science. What is the sound of one hand clapping?
Agreed! Anytime anyone refers to 'realclimate' as a source to truth on AGW, I instantly discount that person's probity.
We can never trust Judith Curry. Ever.
She was very nasty when she had the upper hand and now she's trying to be "magnanimous in defeat".
I wouldn't be as harsh on Judith as with the rest of the Hockey Team. Judith was one of the very few that actually interacted with skeptics... I remember considerable comments from her on ClimateAudit a couple years ago. She has tried to engage.
This is a truly excellent piece, I have read it through three times. Is it too much to hope that just one climate scientist will read it and grow a concience? The comparison between the levels of cash involved in predicting the best places to drill for mineral deposits and those awarded for predicting climate catastrophy slightly misses the point. Mcintyre had to make damn sure that he got his facts right. In the scaremongering trade it would appear that facts tend to be somewhat inconvenient.