Go Judy

I gave up watching the Curry train-wreck a while ago, but someone pushed this gem my way, and I can’t resist:

When I make a public statement about what a scientist does or does not know, I make a point of actually reading what that scientist has to say on the subject, rather than what other people say about that scientist on blogs [1]

Curry doesn’t even really read her own papers let alone have a clue about anyone else’s.

Link dump: Safecracking for the computer scientist will repay your time, if such things interest you.

Refs

* Judy Curry continues her crazy aunt act – Eli in October 2010.
* [1] RealClimate comment by Curry.

Comments

  1. #1 dhogaza
    2011/02/05

    Yeah, that’s a precious one by curry.

  2. #2 carrot eater
    2011/02/06

    Oh dear. Yes, Judy, you clearly always read before speaking.

  3. #3 Hank Roberts
    2011/02/06

    Oh, my, petards and engineers abound over there:

    Roger Pielke Jr. | February 6, 2011 at 11:02 am
    From the EPA Endangerment finding:
    “[T]he scientific evidence of climate change is overwhelming and greenhouse gases pose a real threat to the American people.
    The question of the science is settled.”
    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/resources.html

    JCH | February 6, 2011 at 12:23 pm
    Sounds like the same science Judith Curry is attempting to settle on this blog: radiative physics and the greenhouse effect and that the greenhouse effect is causing warming.

    willard | February 6, 2011 at 12:39 pm
    From Roger Pielke Jr. himself:
    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/12/science-is-settled.html

  4. #4 dhogaza
    2011/02/06

    Hank, you don’t understand …

    It’s not whether or not some aspects of the science *are* settled.

    It’s whether or not anyone has *said* that some aspects of the science are settled.

    Because this disproves that the denialist mantra that scientists claim that “THE science is settled” (all of the relevant science) is proven true.

    Also, if Gavin ever once said something like:

    “It’s true that CO2 is a GHG, the science is settled”.

    Then Pearce can logically claim:

    “Gavin said THE science is settled, and there’s nothing to discuss”.

    and even though Gavin said no such thing, one can see that Pearce has correctly told us what Gavin *meant* when he said what he did say. ’cause Pearce has pierced the code, so to speak.

    Gack.

  5. #5 dhogaza
    2011/02/06

    I’ve read so much dreck over there that my own mind has turned to mush:

    “Because this disproves that the denialist mantra that scientists claim that “THE science is settled” (all of the relevant science) is proven true.”

    Because this *proves* the denialist mantra that scientists claim that “THE science is settled” …

    Gack.

  6. #6 Hank Roberts
    2011/02/07

    Ya see, dhog, when the mush has become that contagious, the only answer is to quit reposting it, quit quoting it, quit replying to it, try to quit thinking about it, and displace the rotten spot in the brain with something better and more useful.

    You must avoid “letting them live rent-free in your head.”

  7. #7 David B. Benson
    2011/02/07

    Methylmercuryism?

  8. #8 ianash
    2011/02/08

    Curry is just a climate denial fluffer.

    She has a simple job – to arouse the feeble-minded, slack jawed climate denial yokels who occupy her chum bucket.

    Only by doing this can the denial porn continue to be made…

  9. #9 dhogaza
    2011/02/08

    Ya see, dhog, when the mush has become that contagious, the only answer is to quit reposting it, quit quoting it, quit replying to it, try to quit thinking about it, and displace the rotten spot in the brain with something better and more useful.

    You must avoid “letting them live rent-free in your head.”

    I disagree … I see them becoming more and more desperate and getting further and further detached from reality.

    And pushing them on it doesn’t hurt.

    Ignoring them won’t make them go away. Paying attention doesn’t mean “they’re living rent-free in my head”.

  10. #10 David B. Benson
    2011/02/08

    Climate cranks.

  11. #11 pough
    2011/02/09

    @10 – Careful. You can’t characterize them as cranks if they are engineers.

  12. #12 Hank Roberts
    2011/02/09

    How about “pushrod bellcranks” then?

  13. #13 ianash
    2011/02/09

    they get pretty upset when you challenge their worldview over at La Curry’s chum depot. I keep getting deleted. Even this was deleted:

    “Classic, just classic.

    The bastions of free speech on this blog – who regularly criticise realclimate and others for deleting posts – cant hack a few comments that go against their well established denialist memes.

    And when La Curry deletes the posts and tells all her children not to play with that naughty boy, you get such fawning swill that – well it just shows that this is not about science. It is about reverence to the denialist ideologies and more importantly reverence to those who perpetuate the denial – even when they try to dress it up as genuine enquiry.

    It really is porn – provactive post and beguiling flash of La Curry’s eyelashes and the sad, lonely, disenfrachised lot here just go weak at the knees.

    You find the same thing on the evolution denial blogs, the 9/11 denial blogs, the moon landing denial blogs…the list goes on…”

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!