I'm only just digesting this, but it appears that Judith Curry, climate scientist turned anti-climate change activist (more or less) has joined the Koch Brothers front group "Cause of Action".
How do we know this? Because she has filed an Amicus Brief (2017.01.25 Mot. for Leave to File, Nos. 14-cv-101 14-cv-126 (D.C.))( on behalf of the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute in the case of Mann vs. Those Guys, with council at Cause of Action Institute.
Go read the brief. It is pretty nasty.
Also related, this: 2017.01.25 Br. of Amicus Dr. Judith A. Curry Nos. 14-cv-101 14-cv-126 (D.C.).
Have at it.
I guess that Dr. Curry has a different view of what constitutes scientific debate than I do. Well, if Michael Mann fails in his attempt to obtain relief from what I consider vicious attacks by CEI , MS, and NR, then what? Does Dr. Curry seriously believe that this sort of course abusive behavior should be allowed to become part of standard scientific discourse and debate? If she is receiving support from the fofu barons, then she probably feels pretty comfortable that nobody is going to launch that sort of attack against her with impunity now, is she.....
probably feels pretty comfortable that nobody is going to launch that sort of attack against her with impunity.
Am I crazy or has she not read any of the legal documents up to this point?
This looks like a totally useless brief. Why would she end her reputation as a legit climate scientist with a useless brief?
Maybe this is something she has to do to prove herself before becoming an undersecretary at DOE or EPA.
Trump is changing the titles of those positions.
During his regime, they will be known as the "Undertakers" of the DOE and EPA.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
I read them both.
First, the brief may be totally useless - the Court doesn't have to consider it if they don't want to.
Second, I see it as Dr. Curry just calling Dr. Mann a hypocrite.
My guess is see has been pretty steamed by Dr. Mann's meritless attacks on her, but felt constrained by her academic position.
Now that she has retired from her academic position, she no longer feels constrained and decided to file this document to make a statement (regardless of whether the court considers it or not).
My guess is see has been pretty steamed by Dr. Mann’s meritless attacks on her,
Meritless my arse.
You are either lying *again* or you have no idea what you are talking about (again).
You choose. Nobody else here cares any more.
Why would she end her reputation as a legit climate scientist with a useless brief?
There is no danger of that happening, because she lost her reputation as a legit climate scientist several years ago. She has long since thrown her lot in with the denialsts.
Maybe she feels less constrained now that she has literally as well as figuratively gone emeritus, but for her to lose her reputation as a legit climate scientist over this brief assumes facts not in evidence: that she still has such a reputation.
"Am I crazy or has she not read any of the legal documents up to this point?"
You're crazy if you think she cares about the documents. She was paid, no more, and she met her deliverables (see Willie Soon)
You think she was paid money to do this? How much does one get? Is that ethical? Is there a paper trail?
"Why would she end her reputation as a legit climate scientist "
Really? Have you forgotten this? https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/
"I read them both."
This means the post will be full of ignorant shit.
"Second, I see it as Dr. Curry just calling Dr. Mann a hypocrite."
"My guess is see has been pretty steamed by Dr. Mann’s meritless attacks on her, but felt constrained by her academic position."
There it is a - an amazingly asinine statement that demonstrates once again you have no interest at all in being an honest player in discussions. Given your laziness and repeated demonstrations of failure in even basic math, whether you lack the integrity to be honest or the ability to understand are equally plausible.
The key point here is that Curry's effort seems to have been paid for by the Koch brothers. Now that it has been mentioned that one might get paid to do an amicus brief (I'm still looking into that) one might ask the quest, is Curry on the Koch Brother's payroll, indirectly? I'm asking because I'm not sure how this works.
It is unlikely she was paid.
Amicus briefs are supposed to be independent (not paid for by one of the parties). It might actually be unethical for a party to request and pay for an amicus brief - because then they are not really independent (acting as a friend to the court).
But the briefs are silent on the matter. Some courts do require a statement in the brief that they are not paid for - but since that statement is missing, I guess this is not required in the current appellate court.
All you can do is ask Dr. Curry is she was paid.
But my guess is no.
No mention of saying whether payment is required.
My guess is still no - she wasn't paid by any party (or the Koch brothers).
Judith Curry didn't file an amicus brief...
She filed an avarice brief.
It is unlikely she was paid.
And you know this how exactly? The Kochs are not directly parties to this case, although a group they are known to fund, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is. IANAL, so I don't know if this argument will fly, but presumably a group that is not party to the case could pay Curry to file a brief as an "expert witness" and be in technical compliance with court rules, even if the group is also known to be funded by the Koch brothers. The two groups are distinct corporate entities. What I don't know is whether that is actually sufficient for the second group to be considered independent (which would not be the case if, e.g., one group had a substantial ownership interest in the other).
I said it was my guess.
Direct payment - traceable cash in the bank is most unlikely. The Kochs prefer more opacity in their nefarious doings than that. It would likely be more like wait a bit and you'll get x post to y board or something , something that pays well. Future considerations are the real currency of politics.
Greg #9 All an amicus brief requires is they're not beholden to the ones in the filing, and the Kochs aren't in the docket.
She would be paid for some work. Say, for example, consulting services. Meanwhile she also writes an amicus brief.
The Kochs aren't principals in the case, so fair chance any rules about amicus wouldn't apply. (ianal).
Easy enough to funnel money to her, though, if that were desired. She has her private company, whose customer list has no need of being public, nor its cash flow.
But I strongly doubt there is any need to buy her off. She loathes Michael Mann and has for years. She's also philosophically not that far from the Koch brothers, which is part of why BEST included her and got money from the Koch brothers.
They are major contributors to the front "think tank" that did the lawyering for Curry's statement. SO, in a sense, they've funded this project. The question is, did they do more than pay for the lawyer? Just curious. I know Mike Mann. I could probably write a hella amicus brief. I know where the soft underbelly of some of his climate models is. The secret route into the Mike Mann Death Star. How much do you think they'd pay me?
What you link isn't an amicus brief. The amicus brief is what you link when you write
Go read the brief, it is pretty nasty, and also related, THIS
I know both Mike and Judy. Actually know Judy better (though from before her shift that started around 2006).
I wouldn't call what Mike builds climate models. No offense, just a different usage. I think he'd agree with me about this, though we talked more about the journalist son of mine whose work he likes. :-)
Anyhow, I doubt you could get much for revealing the secret route to the reactor core. There are dozens or hundreds of people claiming to have found it long since. They haven't, of course. But with that much free work being done, why bother paying someone for another path?
These guys were paid to testify on behalf of Peabody coal: https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/edockets/searchDocuments.do?me…
$4000 for a Spencer, $8000 for a Happer, but a Tol is free. - http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/
Sweet Jebus... I haven't been this shocked since the time I saw a clock flip from 12:59 to 1:00.
Heavens to Betsy. The likelihood Curry received compensation from the Kochs is but a mere twinkle under the microscope compared to the odds Dr. Mann is footing your Go Daddy bill to blovi-speculate throughout your special little corner of the pop-up ad internet. The unyielding impermiability of your well-founded hypothesis is sure to drive audiences to your soapbox by the droves. God speed. #earthjustice
1) any trace of honestyt/integrity were gone by April 2010, when she attacked Deep Climate as 2X "reprehenisble" for documenting plagiarism in Wegman Report.
2) Then there was her support for Murry Salby's CO2 nonsense.
She looks pissed off. And #28 makes me feel glad about that. Look at what she's doing: she's turning others into people like her.
The ONLY thing I can think of that can POSSIBLY drive deniers like her to this is that they, too, see an existential threat in AGW, but in the idea of accepting it and doing something about it.
Not "they may lose money", but "they will not exist any more", though the mechanism is probably "they will lose money" and they don't like it. Though there will also be identity politics running there, it will be a cause, rather than cause, their belief that AGW is, for them, an existential threat.
A threat to their existence and the existence of their descendents.
Sure, it's crazy, but the alternative is they're crazy and so selfish that they would rather the world burn than lose their political identity. And even then it wouldn't explain their antics actually taken.
But if they see extinction of their way of life as the same sort of extinction as we see in the collapse of the industrial civilisation causing humanity, their ACTIONS make sense, even if their axiom to get there is batshit lunacy.
The accusations you all make here are sounding childish and just like what you accuse Anti-AGWs of doing. Friends of the court are not paid except for reasonable reimbursements, and there is no connection between her and the Koch Bros. You are sounding like conspiracy hounds because of what? She decided that she has changed her view? SMH
Uh, you LITERALLY came on here and made "accusations ... just like what [we] accuse Anti-AGWs of doing".
Not one oz of self-awareness.
Not to mention tu quoue (or pointless if you're not copping to doing it, just defending it on "you do it too!").
PS No, she's not changed her view. She never was a climate scientist and her forays into it were always criticising it.
MULLER changed his view.
And now those who shouted his bonefides from the rooftops insist he was a fifth-columnist, a fake skeptic, planted only to fool the deniers.
The deniers are fakes.
I think some of you are naive. Judith Curry's actions have been consistent since she went rogue in 2009. They make sense. Ethics don't apply. Neither does the traditional way of learning a subject and applying one's skills to it. It's much easier to fudge and play the victim card. It's popular and well paid. And as been observed, there will not be a paper trail to the Kochs. I would suggest, however, that people not make actionable statements even in sarcasm, since we're in for a dodgy time (Greg Laden, this is particularly for you). Things tend to be quoted literally out of context, and all of you should know that by now.
Remember how much in fashion it is to disrupt, which often means taking the value somebody else has built up and profiting from it without necessarily adding real value. Everyone thinks being a billionaire is more important than acting with and for each other in community.
"Susan", there is a clear paper trail to the Koch brothers, as indicated in the post.
DM, her lawyer was paid for by the Kochs. Otherwise, I have no idea about any payments. Just asking.
Also she has not changed her views, as far as I can tell. Is there some view she changed that I didn't notice? What views has she changed in this brief from anything she's said over the last five years or so?
This is my real name. Thanks for the info, I'll read more carefully. What I said was "have been consistent since she went rogue in 2009". I was presented in real time when she "came out" as a Montford disciple on RealClimate. She was as described, evasive and playing the victim.
What part of since 2009 is in the last five years?
before> 2009 in the last 5 years.