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.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Seldom in the field of human conflict has so much been written by so many people on a subject about which they know nothing. Or so I'd like to hope: in the sense that I'd hope that the denialist chatter about peer review was the nadir. But I do know something about peer review, though my knowledge…
This was the title of the group discussion I led at Boskone on Saturday, and since it's probably relevant to the interests of people reading this blog, I figure it's worth posting a quick recap. Of course, between the unfamiliar format and Friday's travel with the Incredible Screaming Pip, I didn't…
My general feeling about Judith Curry's stuff over at Collide-a-scape was that it was all tolerably vague. But there was one specfic.
Over there, she copied Bishop Hill and proposed "Jones 1998 and Osborn and Briffa 2006" as key neglected papers.
More directly she has proposed:
1. The Spatial…
A few days ago, I asked what it takes for a young person to start and, more importantly, continue for a longer term, to write a science blog. The comment thread on that post is quite enlightening, I have to say - check it out.
What is more important - that post started a chain-reaction on Twitter…
Yeah, that's a precious one by curry.
Oh dear. Yes, Judy, you clearly always read before speaking.
Oh, my, petards and engineers abound over there:
Roger Pielke Jr. | February 6, 2011 at 11:02 am
From the EPA Endangerment finding:
â[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.â
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
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.
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.
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."
Methylmercuryism?
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...
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".
Climate cranks.
@10 - Careful. You can't characterize them as cranks if they are engineers.
How about "pushrod bellcranks" then?
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..."