It’s hard to know just what to make of it all. William Connelley’s analysis is, as usual, near-impenetrable unless you’ve had the luxury of reading everything he’s been reading, It does seem clear enough, though, that Curry has conflated more than a few contradictory items in the library. Her explanation of her personal journey also leave many questions answered. Most perplexing are her uncritical references to the Wegman report, which few outside the denial community take seriously. Her record as as scientist is beyond reproach, but her ventures into the blogosphere are something else entirely.
Confused or not, Curry does seem sincerely concerned about where climate science is headed. Here’s the parting words of her latest thinking:
So the Judith Curry .ca 2010 is the same scientist as she was in 2003, but sadder and wiser as a result of the hurricane wars, a public spokesperson on the global warming issue owing to the media attention from the hurricane wars, more broadly knowledgeable about the global warming issue, much more concerned about the integrity of climate science, listening to skeptics, and a blogger (for better or for worse). So should Joe Romm be puzzled by this? Probably, but I think part of his puzzlement arises from assuming that I and all “warmist” climate researchers share his policy objectives. People really find it hard to believe that I don’t have a policy agenda about climate change/energy (believe me, Roger Pielke Jr has tried very hard to smoke me out as a “stealth advocate”). Yes, I want clean green energy, economic development and “world peace”. I have no idea how much climate change should be weighted in these kinds of policy decisions. I lack the knowledge, wisdom and hubris to think that anything I say or do should be of any consequence to climate/carbon/energy policy.