Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace
« Skeptic alerts | Main | Quote of the day »
Sunday
Apr182010

Judy, Gavin and me

Judith Curry has set the cat among the pigeons, posting once again at RealClimate. Her points are all rather exciting for me:

there are people making politically motivated attacks against climate research (Marc Morano and Myron Ebell come immediately to mind). And then there are people questioning many aspects of climate research and the IPCC process and making arguments based upon evidence (e.g. Steve McIntyre, Andrew Montford).

And this too:

Gavin’s statement “-especially in the light of the tsunami of baseless accusations against scientists that have been hitting the internet in the last few months-“ makes the mistake of dismissing all accusations/criticisms. I agree, it is difficult to sort through all the crazy statements and identify the substantive arguments. So I will help you out. I have seen no mention on RC of Andrew Montford’s (Bishop Hill) book “The Hockey Stick Illusion.” If Montford’s arguments and evidence are baseless, then you should refute them. They deserve an answer, whether or not his arguments are valid. And stating that you have refuted these issues before isn’t adequate; the critical arguments have not hitherto been assembled into a complete narrative. And attacking Montford’s motives, past statements or actions, etc. won’t serve as a credible dismissal. Attack the arguments and the evidence that he presents. I for one would very much like to see what RC has to say about this book.

Unfortunately, RC are not up for this, which is a shame, but perhaps inevitable.

Gavin's response also includes this comment on my world service interview last week.

Montford was interviewed on the BBC World Service the other day and was given copious time to expound on what he thought the most crucial neglected issue was. He chose to discuss McKitrick's problems in getting his repetitive and singularly unconvincing papers on the (non-)impact of socio-economic variables published. If this is the worst example available, the IPCC process is in fine shape.

There is much to take issue with here. Firstly I don't remember being given "copious" time to expound on the neglected issues. It seemed like about 30 seconds at the time, but a quick review of the interview shows that the whole thing lasted just over a minute and a half. But the main point is that I didn't discuss Ross's difficulties in getting past the gatekeepers at all - I said that he had made an accusation of falsification that hadn't been addressed by either inquiry.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (66)

Gavin Smirk is a source of endless fun, ain't he?

Apr 18, 2010 at 11:13 PM | Unregistered Commenterdearieme

I particularly liked Judith's: "I am no longer substituting the IPCC's judgment for my own judgment in this matter". And her call for a whole new and transparent reworking of the present and paleo temperature records is absolutely right on. The Gavins and the Michael Tobis's and particularly the dhogazas of this debate should sign out; they are not contributing to the flow of reason and sense in this debate. And sweetness and light ain't even in it.
=====================

Apr 18, 2010 at 11:26 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Gosh, Judith is a quick reader! It seems like only yesterday that she'd ordered your book.
Gavin, as always, is as quick-witted, predictable and impotent as ever.
As his mental state concretes itself, more and more firmly, into the intractible comfort of dogma and consensus so the heroism of this remarkable Lady shines even more brightly.
If all Scientists had her introspection then Mr S. would make a great lab-assistant under expert guidance!

Apr 18, 2010 at 11:37 PM | Unregistered Commenterroyfomr

I do not agree with everything Judith says. But I will fight mightily to defend her right to say it

Apr 18, 2010 at 11:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterLazlo

In her entry at RC, Dr. Curry stated: “To dismiss all criticisms of the climate establishment (e.g. IPCC, RC, etc) as the “dark side” and to be dismissed is hampering scientific progress and diminishing the credibility of climate science.”

I think she is now beginning to realize to what extent the credibility of climate science has been destroyed rather than just diminished by the actions of the few. As a result of ClimateGate and subsequent reactions to it, the politicians have now been embarrassed. I would expect research funding for climate science to slowly return to post IPCC levels over the next several years.

Apr 18, 2010 at 11:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterJoe Crawford

Joe, surely that is pre (not post) IPCC levels? And preferably about 1955?

Apr 18, 2010 at 11:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterLazlo

Gosh, Judith is a quick reader! It seems like only yesterday that she'd ordered your book.
Gavin, as always, is as quick-witted, predictable and impotent as ever.
As his mental state concretes itself, more and more firmly, into the intractible comfort of dogma and consensus so the heroism of this remarkable Lady shines even more brightly.
If all Scientists had her introspection then Mr S. would make a great lab-assistant under expert guidance!

Apr 18, 2010 at 11:44 PM | Unregistered Commenterroyfomr

I don't think the fact that we are liking Judith Curry's approach more and more each time she posts is going to benefit her standing one iota over at RC.

I just wonder.. do we appear to the RC faithful like they appear to us? Like a writhing, mutually/self-satisfying, overtly condescending bunch of sycophantic muppets? God, I hope not.

Apr 18, 2010 at 11:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterSimonH

Sorry about the double post Bishop, I pressed the wrong button.
To Joe:
I think that Dr C has understood that her chosen field has needed disinfected for more than a little time. This is her discipline. She understands it. She clearly hates the depths to which it has plunged thanks to the actions of once-respected colleagues.
AGW may be an issue that should concern us. At the moment, for me at least, there is huge doubt borne of massive suspicion. Judiths bravery is, I sincerely believe, not opportunistic but heart-fealt and honest!
I can't ask any more of another human other than sincerity. This she displays and in Spades!

Apr 18, 2010 at 11:58 PM | Unregistered Commenterroyfomr

Cheap and meant as a joke, but if you can fake sincerity then you've got it made..

Apr 19, 2010 at 12:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterLazlo

Judy is looking (has been looking?), to me, as an honourable, decent person. Frequently, in my experience, honourable persons are hit from both sides.

“-especially in the light of the tsunami of baseless accusations against scientists that have been hitting the internet in the last few months-“ -- this is a mediatic blurb, nothing else. Much as the Monbiot campaingcc site. Warmers have "nothing left but" the media and (ah-ah!) the political-financial apparatus. Underestimating that is deadly. Supposing reason wins arguments is doubtful. Reason, though, is the best argument in the long run.

Your "Illusion" will never be refuted with valid arguments. That would raise hell.

Apr 19, 2010 at 12:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterJosualdo

Boy, Dr Curry has stirred up a hornets' nest. And why? Because she dares to speak the truth and wants open analysis that has integrity.

One of her most astonishing comments is this:

"my conclusion will be that the minds seem to be more open on the “dark side”.

The 'dark side' being Joes like us. If more people connected to climate 'science' were like Dr Curry I'd be inclined to agree with their findings.

Apr 19, 2010 at 1:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterGixxerboy

SimonH writes: "I just wonder.. do we appear to the RC faithful like they appear to us? Like a writhing, mutually/self-satisfying, overtly condescending bunch of sycophantic muppets? God, I hope not."

Simon, as one who reads comments on both sides, my opinion is that sanity resides here. However, rational thinking is apparently beyond the RC folks' comprehension.

Judith Currie's perfectly sane suggestion that facts are facts and should be evaluated on their merits regardless of source caused the RC folks to come out in an irrational blithering spittle emitting rage at such unimaginable heresy.

It's deplorable that her perceptive and lucid comments need to be labeled as an act of bravery!

It's hilarious to see that they were assumed to be the work of an impostor.

Apr 19, 2010 at 2:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterPolitical Junkie

[Snip - venting]

Apr 19, 2010 at 2:29 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

I think by now everyone is familar with the handles/names of the people who do not contribute anything to the discussion of Climategate or climate science but just raise temperatures by their endless foul-mouthed partisan diatribes in the comments sections.

They have all the time in the world, posts literally hundreds of times a day, across blogs of all stripes. Wherever you go, they are there, or have just been there. They function to keep the pot boiling. Their true aim is policy 'victory' and not anything related to science.

If these people keep at it - climate science's reputation will be trashed beyond repair in a few years time - for absolutely no fault the actual scientists at all.

Apr 19, 2010 at 2:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterShub Niggurath

The comment two above this is by a despicable sock puppet. The moderator can confirm that the source is different. But I'm reminded about the old saw about where flak is thickest.
========================

Apr 19, 2010 at 2:51 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Kudos to Judith, I think that everyone agrees with her objective in posting:

"I am trying to provoke people to have open minds and think critically about climate research."

Apr 19, 2010 at 4:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterZT

Georgia Tech people all over the globe are so proud of Dr. Judith Curry that we are about to pop!!!

Apr 19, 2010 at 4:22 AM | Unregistered Commenterstan stendera

I wish I could be as proud of members of my old college as Stan Stendra clearly is of Judith @ Georgia Tech.

To my chagrin, I have just discovered that Gavin Schmidt of Real Climate notoriety attended Jesus College, Oxford. As did John Houghton.

I can only say that I am very sorry, and we will attempt to make sure it doesn't happen again. :-)

Apr 19, 2010 at 6:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterTake me to Jesus

Judith Curry:

"I am trying to provoke people to have open minds and think critically about climate research."

In that case I think she is wasting her time posting at RealClimate. The likes of Gavin Schmidt have dogmatic beliefs (religious minds) and it is virtually impossible to alter a true-believer. Hence they don't have open minds and the only critical thinking they do is to dream up different ways to denigrate anybody who disagrees in the slightest with their closed minds.

Apr 19, 2010 at 7:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Judy was a regular contributor to Climateaudit a few years ago, always arguing the case for AGW, lucidly and reasonably. She invited Steve McIntyre to speak at Georgia Tech and I believe was castigated by the NAS for doing so, but I'm not sure, certainly she was chastised. She then stopped posting for a number of years, until climategate broke. She is the very brave voice of reason in the warmist camp, I don't think I'd have the sort of bravery she's showing in these circumstances, because as we can see quite clearly from the climategate emails, those at the centre of this deception are a pretty vicious bunch who won't think twice about ruining her career for even suggesting there's a debate to be had. Shame on them, and shame on those who are trying to deceive the public with sham investigations.

Apr 19, 2010 at 7:23 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Gavin: 'Issues of process are of interest only insofar as they affect the science assessment. "Does it matter?" is the key question'.

If someone steals just a small amount of money, does it matter?

Apr 19, 2010 at 8:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterDagfinn

Why is it so hard for the AGW-proponents to see that it is essential for all their work and all their processes to be seen to be robust and 'whiter than white'. If it was just some arcane argument about Egyptian mummy shrouds or something, then nobody in the outside world would really give two hoots whether a researcher had cut a corner or fiddled the data a bit.

But this one isn't like that. It is the 'Greatest Challenge facing Humanity'.

Call me old-fashioned, but I've seen enough problems caused by inadequate diagnosis and hence incorrect fixes....and the workings of the Law of Unintended Consequences, to be deeply suspicious of any group who say 'The Science is Settled', when many objections and questions are still outstanding.

If the Science really were settled, the AGW-proponents would be prepared to debate any objections fully and publicly. Instead they resort to slurs, innuendos, name-calling and personal attacks.

Even if I knew nothing at all of the science, I would observe this behaviour and conclude that these are not people comfortable with their own arguments, and secure in their own conclusions. Instead they are the tactics of the blustering bully. And I would wonder why they felt the need to resort to such things.

And with my nasty suspicious Paxman-like mind (why are these lying bastards lying to me?), I would rightly or wrongly conclude that they have something to hide.....

Apr 19, 2010 at 8:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterStirling English

For those who could not face listening to all the talks on the Royal Society's Handling uncertainty in science here is a one of the best. It is a talk by Peter Webster, climatologist and colleague of Judith's at Georgia Tech, worth listening to. I will add this on the 8th April post too.

Apr 19, 2010 at 9:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterJosh

Gavin is an academic who has been found out and the exchange above reveals this. It's the same textbook response that Mann gives, criticise the individual rather than reply to the question. A blubbering fool could do better.

Judith Curry on the other hand appears to be a quite remarkable woman.

Apr 19, 2010 at 9:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn

In the battle of credibility Dr Curry scores over Dr Schmidt in every way. And his response there shows just how closed minded he and his group of RC commenters are.

It seems to me that our host's book (and the research by M & M & co) that it is based on is something that needs a good going over by the RC folks and that they ought to be picking holes in it. That is the way that Science (and for that matter policy) should develop,

But unless I've missed something they don't attack the book or its contents - rather they attack the authors and make blanket statements refuting strawman claims that aren't actually in the book.

Apr 19, 2010 at 9:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterFrancisT

Judith Curry:

"I am trying to provoke people to have open minds and think critically about climate research."
--

Heresy! This is not how climate science works, or has been working. RC was created by a PR company so we wouldn't have to think about this stuff.

We don't want doubts while queuing for our carbon ration cards, or when opening our electricity bills. We want to be happy, knowing we're doing our bit to save the planet and redistribute our wealth. Open minds and critical thought would just lead to confusion and poor take-up of many expensive schemes. How would anything get done if people questioned the carefully crafted consensus?

But as Joe Friday said, "All we want are the facts, ma'am" because facts are (or should be) inviolable. Dr Curry said some time ago that the best way to disarm sceptics was with the truth, ie publish the facts and let the blogosphere try and find any mistakes. If scientists don't want to do this, then it's not suprising that there's more distrust.

Pielke Jnr also has a thread going on this here:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/04/judy-curry-on-oxburgh-report-and-ipcc.html#comments

where there seems to be some attempts a la RC to deflect criticism of CRU and IPCC.

I see CRU as one of the pillars of AGW. If there are problems with the CRU product, then presumably those problems will flow through to papers, theories and conclusions based on that product, which is the IPCC territory. I also think the Hockey Stick Illusion is 'our' version of the IPCC's SPM and Synthesis Reports, although the HSI appears a more accurate distillation of the facts. But could we be seeing the emergence (or re-emergence) of Pielke Jnr's Honest Brokers at long last?

There's also some interesting PNS comments about the ash crisis. Apparently the airspace closures are largely due to simulations produced by our Met Office. Some airlines have been doing test flights and reporting no ash or ash damage. So is this SimScience vs old fashioned observational/empirical science, or a science vs policy problem?

Airlines are saying they're uninsured against natural disasters. If they fly and crash, presumably those losses are uninsured and if that's against scientific advice, could be multiplied with negligence. Airlines are losing $200m a day so there's financial pressure on scientists to clear them to fly. What advice should the scientists be giving, or expected to give?

Apr 19, 2010 at 10:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

Agree with "Political Junkie" - the guys at RC could only assume that the post was from an impostor!!!

Hilarious!!!

So let’s sum up their mind set:-

*If you want real science and ask questions - you are a "Denier" akin to holocaust deniers

*If you put your head above the parapet and dare to go public with your questions - you are in the pay of "Big Oil"

*If you are a scientist in a senior position who dares to say that those sceptical of the dodgy dossier science have a point and should be treated accordingly - you are an impostor!!

Amazing.

But it does emphasise the fact that at the AGW=Catastrophe religion self destructs we will see more of this finger in the ears "la la la la la" singing denial from the believers.

Dr Judith Curry is a brave soul with a moral compass that works.

She has my admiration.

Apr 19, 2010 at 10:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterDarce

Prisoners Dilemma:

Perhaps the tipping point has been reached and we are witnessing the first stages of a real-life game of prisoners dilemma;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

It'll be intersting to see who goes next (IOP, Met office?)

SDCS

Apr 19, 2010 at 11:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterSir DigbyCS

"It's deplorable that her perceptive and lucid comments need to be labeled as an act of bravery!" Political Junkie.

I fully endorse that line, PJ. It bears repeating and contemplation.

Apr 19, 2010 at 11:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoger Carr

An absolute classic: no reasoned informed disagreement is possible. What people like Ray Ladbury, the author of this gem, do not seem to see, is that its either argue or fight. Argument is better. Down their path comes, in the end, imprisonment for ideas.


.... I am not saying that climate science or even climate change is simple. I’m saying that if you look at all of the evidence, it is simply an inescapable conclusion–and since science requires us to look at all the evidence, the rejectionists (more acceptable than denialists?) are of necessity anti-science. Scientists can no more treat with them than they can with creationists or moon-landing hoaxers. The reason for this has nothing to do with the “purity” of science. Rather it has to do with the inevitable tendency of anti-science wingnuts to turn every reasoned, evidence-based argument into a personal attack on the credibility of scientists and of science in general. Science works. It has proved its mettle. Those who reject its methodology are trying to become arbiters of truth based on an entirely unproven and indeed ad hoc mothodology. And that we as scientists must not allow.

Apr 19, 2010 at 11:52 AM | Unregistered Commentermichel

Hi all.

Slightly O/T, but does anyone know whether the emails were leaked or hacked? I find the lack of confirmation from anyone on the matter seems to reflect the idea that they were leaked (and it is embarrassing for the CRU). I have just been reading some comments at RC and it is being banded around that the "hacker" should have been the main focus of an investigation.

Obviously, each side (I hate to boil it down to sides) sees it differently, and I was just wondering if there had been any word from the police on the matter? Thanks.

Apr 19, 2010 at 11:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoss Hartshorn

In the climate debate I keep coming back to the same question. If the science is so settled/certain, why do the proponents of the AGW paradigm avoid debate and resort to ad hominum attacks? This behavior is typical of people who are not sure of their own "beliefs" or who have not questioned them for so long that they have forgotten why they believe them in the first place.

Judith's posts on Climate Audit were always rational and well reasoned. I'm not surprised that she is feeling uncomfortable with the lack of reasoned response from RC and others. I wonder how long it will be before her comments are moderated out of existence by Gavin. If he allows the discussion to continue he will implicitly be acknowledging that the debate is not over!

Apr 19, 2010 at 12:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterEddie O

I'll bet there will be cries of 'burn the witch' soon enough.....Well done Judith. It restores some of my faith in some scientists...

Apr 19, 2010 at 12:23 PM | Unregistered Commenterconfused

michel, the sad thing is that the Ray Ladbury's of this world really have nothing but century old CO2 laboratory science, and the output of inadequate climate models, all blown up by greed for money and power into an 'Extraordinary Popular Delusion and Madness of the Crowd'. And with this, they get so hateful.

Fortunately, science is still empirical, and real climate will not bend to RealClimate.org.
=============================

Apr 19, 2010 at 12:42 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Perhaps the most significant thing Dr Curry says.:

"I am no longer substituting the IPCC's judgment for my own judgment in this matter".

Whenever any warmist asks why the world's scientists would all have looked at the evidence and got it wrong and/or banded together in a grand conspiracy to lie, the simple answer has always been to say that scientists have done neither. Most just haven't bothered to look - not least because most scientists work is in entirely different areas.

Let's not forget that Dr Curry teaches at the Georgia Institute of Technology
School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences and has been an author on numerous peer-review, climate related papers and even she is admitting that she was so incurious that she just accepted as fact work as shoddy as that produced by the IPCC.

Her quote bears repeating, carved in stone:

"I am no longer substituting the IPCC's judgment for my own judgment in this matter".

It's incredibly sad that she, and thousands like her, ever did.

Apr 19, 2010 at 1:01 PM | Unregistered Commenterartwest

Artwest: I agree. Why would any scientist accept the judgement of a political body rather than their own scientific judgment? It's beyond comprehension that scientists actually did.

Apr 19, 2010 at 1:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

I, for one, would be interested in a longer post from BH setting out his response to Judith Curry's posts on BH and RC and to Gavin's reply to both Judith Curry's post on RC and to Steve Mosher's post.

Apr 19, 2010 at 1:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichieRich

Is it possible that the Oxburgh report has now been removed from the UEA web site?

www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/.../Report+of+the+Science+Assessment+Panel

Apr 19, 2010 at 1:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterMatthew Pearce

"they were assumed to be the work of an impostor"

Where's Alan Sokal when you need him?

Link

A similar spoof on AGW theory would surely pass all the review and publication checks, because it would simply confirm and amplify all the prejudices of the readers. Sokal's skill was to tick all the right boxes for those he knew would review the paper, while leaving enough clues for those who would read it after publication to maximise the embarrassment.

Just a thought... :-)

Apr 19, 2010 at 1:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

If Dr Judith Curry is still reading this:

May I ask her to read:

Climategate: Crutape Letters. Mosher/Fuller
It is shown on Watts Up front page:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1450512437?ie=UTF8&tag=wattsupwithth-20&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=1450512437

Andrew Montford has a chapter about the climategate emails in the Hockey Stick Illusion..

Mosher and Fuller wrote this in the month following climategate and it goes into considerable detail about the emails in context of the long battle between Steve Mcintyre and the team Mann and CRU.

They consider themselves to be 'luke warmers' and have verified items with Steve Mcintyre with some of his input about his side of the correspondence..

To me, it compliments 'The Hockey Stick Illusion'
To me it reads as a devasting critique of this very small, but crucial group of scientists.
They have no critcism of Gavin of Real Climate in the book, or the vasy majority of climate reseacrhers, just of 'the team'

Stephen Mosher, was the first to point out to Watts Up, Air Vent, Lucia's Blackboard and Climate Audit, what had occured...

Given that it is on the frontpage of Watts Up, very many people will have read it, Real Climate and 'climate science; will have to deal with its contents..

Personally, I would imagine other scientists being cautious (ie co authoring or reviewing)about being associated with the scientists mentioned because of what is described in it..

All can be validated for yourself, as it sheds light on Steve Mcintyres problems getting data, you can cross reference the emails for yourself, with the historic blog entires at Climate Audit.

Surely the IPCC should be replaced with:

International Panel of Climate Research (IPCR)

This can disppasionately focus on all climate research natural and potential man made.
Where as the former, is specifically looking for man made climate change.

Updating/standardising and funding a proper world wide network of weather stations would be a very good idea. As if, at some point, we are heading towards another little ice age, it would be best to be forwarned, to prepare.

Apr 19, 2010 at 2:05 PM | Unregistered Commenterbarry woods

Andrew, you make a good point that Gavin's comment was wrong on both counts: you didn't have copious time, and you didn't discuss the Bandwagons essay. Instead you pointed out that, so far, both panels have ignored the central allegation I made in my submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry and which I reiterated at great length in my Muir Russell submission (paragraphs [63] to [90]). And in case Sir Muir overlooks the fact that MP Willis punted the question over to him, I sent them a letter to ensure they know the ball is flying at them, and that they have the list at hand of information they need to refute my allegation.

As for Gavin's dismissal of the work in question, note that he submitted a paper to the IJOC defending Jones' position against my work and that of de Laat. The IJOC did not ask me or de Laat to review or reply to it, instead they got a review from--guess who--Jones, who obliged with a review that is, shall we say, rather thin, credulous, uncritical, sycophantic and whatever other word arises when making rubber stamp an adjective. You'd think that people playing such an obviously rigged game would be a little embarrassed about running victory laps for the home crowd. And then the IJOC didn't allow me to publish a response, even when the referees ... oh forget it. The response will appear in print eventually, just not in a climatology journal.

Apr 19, 2010 at 2:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoss McKitrick

For the longest time, the sands washing away parts of the AGW proponents' foundation was coming from the outside. Inside the castle, they could ignore the trickle as it turned into stream.

Then, Climategate. A breach in a wall. A peek inside, formed by unknown parties from either inside or outside, depending on what story you choose to believe. The possibility of it coming from the inside was roundly rejected from those at the top of the parapets.

But all along, there have been those on the inside that want to see justice done. Or Real Science, in the arguments of Dr. Curry. Instead of breaking through the walls, she'd rather open the gates and let all sit down and discuss this. Oh yeah, and look at all the raw data and calculations that went into making the walls in the first place.

Unfortunately, to those in the towers, this raises up the opposition dangerously, and can't be tolerated. The risk of the walls falling is way too great.

Those in the towers will probably remain in the towers and will not deign an appearance, lest their own clothing be perceived transparent.

Apr 19, 2010 at 2:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterWalt Stone

To the Bishop
"...but a quick review of the interview shows that the whole thing lasted just over a minute and a half"

As you noted in your earlier post, why did three interview calls go out for you, and why is Gavin so quickly and uninvitedly referring to your BBC interview?

:)

Apr 19, 2010 at 3:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub Niggurath

New addendum to the Oxburgh report today:

Addendum to report, 19 April 2010
For the avoidance of misunderstanding in the light of various press stories, it is
important to be clear that the neither the panel report nor the press briefing intended to
imply that any research group in the field of climate change had been deliberately
misleading in any of their analyses or intentionally exaggerated their findings.
Rather, the aim was to draw attention to the complexity of statistics in this field, and
the need to use the best possible methods.

Apr 19, 2010 at 3:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterMatthew Pearce

Does this seem like they want to avoid any potential litigation?

Apr 19, 2010 at 3:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterMatthew Pearce

New link here:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP

Apr 19, 2010 at 3:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterMatthew Pearce

"Those in the towers will probably remain in the towers...."

My mind leapt to LOTR "The Two Towers" (which I happen to be reading) and Gandalf to Saruman: "You might still have turned away from folly and evil, and have been of service. But you choose to stay and gnaw the ends of your old plots. Stay then!"

Apr 19, 2010 at 4:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterMikeH

I read much of the RC thread and have to say I was staggered by the aggressive and vitriolic postings, particularly by this Gavin character and someone called dhogaza. All the more unbelieveable as much of it was aimed at Dr Curry, who is hardly a skeptic. All I could see was that she was encouraging the AGW cheerleaders to examine the claims of BH and others and respond scientifically instead of emotionally.

The pair of them remind me of 'Kevin and Perry' of Harry Enfield fame - spoilt brats. Clearly they don't like mathematicians and dont think they have a part to play in science.

"Mathematics - the unshaken Foundation of Sciences, and the plentiful Fountain of Advantage to human affairs". ~Isaac Barrow

Apr 19, 2010 at 4:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterMacTheKnife

MacTheKnife,
The true believer movements hate those who are considered heretics more than they hate non-believers.
Curry was 'one of their own'. She is now officially off the reservation because she is wanting to think for herself. Tobis is upset, for instance, that she is raising these issues now, instead of rallying around attacking the vile denialists who have upset the consensus.

Apr 19, 2010 at 4:56 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

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):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>