Bishop Hill Judy C meets the SciGuy
Aug 20, 2010 Blogs Climate: Curry Judith Curry is interviewed by Eric Berger, the SciGuy, covering her recent Antarctic paper and Climategate amongst other things.
Why have you been so conversant with some of the so-called skeptical sites, sites that are certainly outside mainstream climate science?
One of the other positives that I think has come out of Climategate is a realization of what other bloggers like (Steve) McIntyre (of Climate Audit) are actually up to. This isn't a Merchants of Doubt, oil-company-funded effort. It's a grassroots effort. These are people who are interested, they want to see accountability. They have a certain amount of expertise and they want to play around with climate data. There's no particularly evil motives behind all this.
We really don't understand the potential or impact the blogosphere is having. I think it's big and growing. The sites that are growing in popularity are Watts Up With That, which really have huge traffic. I think there's a real interest in the subject. I think there's a hunger for information. I think there's a huge potential here for public education. People say it's polarizing, and sure, you have Climate Progress and Climate Depot on the two extremes, but in the middle you've got all these lukewarmer blogs springing up. So I can also see a depolarizing effect. There seems to be a lot more stuff building up in the middle right now. With the IPCC, and the expectation that scientists hew to the party line, it was getting pretty evangelical. When I speak up about maybe there's more uncertainty, some people regard that as heresy. That's not a good thing for either science or policy. We've got to lose that.
Indeed. Read the whole thing.
Reader Comments (17)
Excellent article. And her views on RC et al and the behaviour seen there are succinct, honest and truthful.
Good to see her dismissing the advocacy and the personal attacks of RC so well and with such candour.
"Tarnished their brand image"
How true!
Judy says
"The climate models have generally matched the observations..."
this is rather vague for me. All models? Some models? Some models all of the time? All models some of the time? Some of the models some of the time?
How specific are the models about what will happen where and when? Looking at the graph the 3 lines show different predictions for the last 10 years - so did any of the 3 models get it correct? Can we scrap the other 2? Should we scrap all 3? Who chose these 3 models?
Great article, she talks such sense. I wonder if she will start her own blog, I bet it would be popular.
Talks sense in the article but the latest paper on the Antarctic takes very little dubious data and pads it out with grant seeking mumbo jumbo.
Josh
Your Joan of Arc cartoon hit the nail perfectly. I have been riveted to those long debates on Collide-a-Scape and the aftermath for a week or two now. I know its the Summer Vacation, but she said when it all started on RC (the Bish's fault) she was supposed to be busy. I can guarantee she has spent hours and hours at the PC. OK thats busy. My wife doesn't agree though.
She uses the term "Merchants of Doubt", as if it was an accusation (which is why she says that is what Steve McIntyre and others are not).
Funny. I would think that being called "Merchants of Certainty" is what scientists would see as something that needs defending against.
There should be more accountable scientists like Judith Curry.
As she infers, it's better to be sceptical than to be wrong.
Where can I download these model predictions?
Much as I welcome Judy's participation I do not believe either side has "got her right"
OK, there's much to agree with in the Curry interview, although I am seriously underwhelmed by the Antarctic paper which, as has been pointed out, is based on very sparse and dodgy data.
But this points to a particular problem with so called climate science. (And many other disciplines besides).
Computers are enormously helpful devices. No doubt. But climate science is absolutely riddled with "models" which may be very clever and "sophisticated" (= complicated) but which seem almost invariably to be tendentious, hubristic and frequently incompetent. But after spending many hours painstakingly putting together a computer model (in actual fact almost invariably to demonstrate some particular thesis) and delightedly playing about with the model once up and running, the temptation to leap out of the bath shouting "eureka - it is showing just what I predicted (only worse than we thought)" is irresistable.
So eventually almost every computer model (and the most sophisticated are the most vulnerable) eventually runs up against the first law of bullshit.
He who spouts enough bullshit is condemned to believe it himself.
it was getting pretty evangelical. When I speak up about maybe there's more uncertainty, some people regard that as heresy.
This is why I detest and distrust climate science.
I understand stupid people falling for the obvious propaganda that Algore spouts about "well-funded deniers". However, any scientist who falls for it is too stupid to be allowed in a lab. Has anyone explained Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy to them yet?
Curry seems to be saying that it wasn't until last winter that she started to figure out that Steve Mc and the others were legit. And she seems to be implying that most of the other incompetents in climate science still haven't figured it out. There are none so blind ....
Why would anyone want to rely on these blind folks for guidance?
I can be an Amateur Astronomer,
I can be an Amateur Botanist, even an Amateur Archeologist
I can be an Amateur Geologist and an Amateur Chemist (they even have kits for that)
There are even forums for people who want to be Amateur Theoretical Physicists,
but it seems like the high priests don't want anyone becoming an Amateur Climate Scientist
Guru Nos Aug 21, 2010 at 3:41 PM
You say:
"I can be an Amateur Astronomer,
I can be an Amateur Botanist, even an Amateur Archeologist
I can be an Amateur Geologist and an Amateur Chemist (they even have kits for that)
There are even forums for people who want to be Amateur Theoretical Physicists,
but it seems like the high priests don't want anyone becoming an Amateur Climate Scientist"
The reason is Guru, that most of the sciences you list are MATURE sciences, although it must be said that Theoretical Physics and more so Astrophysics are still somewhat IMMATURE. Sciences with deep roots have seen it all before and have little need to defend themselves.
There were others before who ventured into the open blogosphere from towers ivory. The impact is as varied as the scientists themselves.
John
" The other thing I'm seeing is that two of the professional societies, the American Meteorological Association and the American Geophysical Union, are talking about ensuring that skeptical papers get through if they're of the right quality."
American Meteorological Society primary spokesman is Anthony Socci who is neither an elected official of the AMS nor a contributor to climate science. Rather, he is a former staffer for Al Gore. Same goes for .AMS president Tom Karl....Why do I feel a little skeptic?
oops! Forgot that last quote was from " red hot lies"
It might be more fair to say that the Lady is neither Hot nor Cold but does tend to be more Warm than Cool.