Judith Curry’s blog, Climate Etc., is an exception to the stereotype of denier blogs. Curry is a real climate scientist with strong credentials. Committed to reason, evidence, and open inquiry, she is willing to examine legitimate points the climate skeptics may be making — as well as the evidence and arguments from mainstream climate science.
And I thought: oh, she's putting that up front because she is dead chuffed that someone is calling her "Committed to reason, evidence, and open inquiry, she is willing to examine legitimate points the climate skeptics may be making — as well as the evidence and arguments from mainstream climate science" which is, obviously, nonsense. But flattering nonsense.
It was only when I got to the end of her article that I realised that she's actually incensed by the "Judith Curry’s blog, Climate Etc., is an exception to the stereotype of denier blogs" which, although a bit odd, parses as Judith Curry’s blog, Climate Etc., is a denier blog.
So what is deeply amusing here is that the SEJ are completely wrong: JC isn't a denier (I don't know what she is; hopelessly confused and lost, I'd say) but she certainly isn't committed to reason and evidence. She is entirely happy with open inquiry - the more open the better, in fact, so wide and open that no real conclusions can be drawn and nothing is so wacky as to be ruled out, so there's really no great point reading any of it. She's certainly willing to blog about septic talking points, though not AFAIK subject them to skeptical examination; and not terribly good at presenting mainstream science.
What else is funny? Well she isn't very happy being below Deep Climate either. SEJ say Watts Up With That is one of the more civil... of the denier blogs. It is not reliable as a source of factual information. The second sentence is certainly true; the first is a pile of dingoes kidneys. Unless the rest of the denialists are weally weally wude.
As to the rest? The put RC at the top, which is correct. They don't include me, which is obviously wrong. I was going to write my own "guide to blogs" once, but then I realised I was out of date.
[Very late update: speaking of the D word: it winds up JoNova no end: see the spittle fly.]
The problem with Curry is that her mind is so open that "her brains fell out".
No, the problem with Curry is that she's trying to work both sides of the street.
She basks in the adulation of the demented "denizens" yet she doesn't want to completely destroy what's left of her scientific reputation. So it all comes out as this melange of hand-waving and gobbledygook.
A historian of science might someday find Curry's descent from accomplished researcher of Arctic climate processes (she is, after all, an AMS and AGU Fellow) to barely-coherent semi-denialist to be an interesting case study.
[From you, that's pretty strong language. JC should be worried -W]
Pls tell Eli that RR is not there so he can remove his ears from his eyes. pretty please
Whilst you might 'nit-pick' about some of the portrayals at that SEJ website, I would like to suggest that - overall - it is a pretty reasonable summary of the situation.
You know, at first I didn't "get" Dr Judith Curry.
Everything on she posted on her blog seemed like trolling somehow.
But then she explained that she's advocating for protecting the integrity of science:
She's what philosophers call: Really Concerned.
Still an [now now children. No flamebait -W] Connollley. Still censoring, too.
[What are you on about guv? I don't delete entire posts when they prove embarrassing. And I don't delete comments pointing that out. Unlike you. And Curry has refused to post comments of mine. Of course, you don't know that, because she did so silently -W]
Judith Curry explained the purpose of Climate Etc. at the beginning of her blogging career. It was to build a bridge from established science to the skeptics.
[She has failed then -W]
She has succeeded admirably. She has more or less silenced the sky dragons and the iron sun movements and now skeptics worldwide clamor to be part of the 97%.
[She has failed utterly. Read her comment threads; they are full of drivel -W]
You're insulting your betters. She's done more for your cause than you ever will with your whining.
[Dahling, you sound sad. Would you like me to touch my cloth cap and retreat back downstairs, leaving La Curry to swan around upstairs surrounded by her cloud of incompetent admirers, untroubled by the Rude Mechanicals? -W]
No need to be rude about the mechanicals, IMechE is perfectly respectable.
Odd thing about the list, it describes Deep Climate's posts as "pretty frequent and consistent for a volunteer effort. We deem it reliable.' The latter is good, but the last post was on March 10 with a series of open threads before that.
Can't see why it lacks Tamino's Open Mind.
"She has more or less silenced the sky dragons and the iron sun movements"
Er... she gave them a lot of free postings and publicity, and then took it away... I wouldn't have known about the iron sun theory without Curry's blog - so, how did this help "silence" them?
And she certainly hasn't helped silence the wacko "CO2 rise is natural" folks (see Salby).
Since when is "no longer responding to them" the same as "silencing them"?
And if I am not mistaken, Oliver Manuel posted yet another link to his "iron sun" hypothesis on the open thread on July 19. Quite effective "silencing"!
"And she certainly hasn’t helped silence the wacko “CO2 rise is natural” folks (see Salby)."
This was actually interesting, in that in 2011, there was much discussion of Salby, but unlike the 4-day blogstorm at (JoNova, WUWT, and BishopHill, plus Tallbloke, Morano, Steven F. Hayward, and The Australian), in the recent mess or the sequel, this didn't get much notice at Climate, Etc.
As Eli recalls, La Judy and paramour were at Colorado for the first mess they were a target. She knew what was coming.
"She has more or less silenced the sky dragons and the iron sun movements and now skeptics worldwide clamor to be part of the 97%."
It's a pretty common rhetorical ploy to shoot down fringe theories in order for one's position to seem more "moderate" and, therefore, correct. Obviously if there were a ton of skeptics believing either of these theories, their inclusion in the 97% is irrelevant because they are utterly clueless.
Actually, Eli, I really wonder whether she knew what was coming.
"The fact that Murry Salby is a former colleague of mine and definitely a scientific straight shooter initially caught my attention on this."
It is better to extinguish a single dim bulb that try to light a pile of dingo kidneys:, the slinging of which has already begun at WUWT
Marco, look at 4-6 here
Thanks, Eli, hadn't noticed that. Would be a fun question to ask Judith: "You state Salby is a scientific straight shooter, could you inform us of your husband's opinion on the same? Based on documents filed at the USDC of Colorado, I would expect him to disagree."
You might want to look at CU's replies in the court cases section of Murry Salby: Galileo? Bozo? Or P.T.Barnum?".
I feel for Salby's student, although if she was getting diverted into a dissertation ot help Salby prove CO2 rise was natural, she may have been saved by this mess. This has echoes of Wegman's recruitment of: students to get involved in Wegman Report and related efforts:
- Yasmin Said (postdoc), who no longer has position at GMU or Wiley WIREs:CS
- John T. Rigsby III, who was working on PhD ~2006, but I don't think has yet gotten it, unless recent
- Walid Sharabati, who was at Purdue in 2010, but no longer
- Denise Reeves, is seems to still be at MITRE, but did get a bit of hassle
AT CU, Salby occasionally taught an upper-level course, but usually the introductory course, and CU's internal student evaluations tended to put him in the bottom 20%. Although CU ATOC Alumni lists only 2 Salby PhD students 1993-2007 (one in 1996, one in 1997), I don't think that list is complete, so he may have had more ... but there couldn't have been too many.. I mention all thisi for some odd parallels.
It is perfectly legal for professors to have off-campus businesses, and if handled well, can actually be a plus. I haven't looked too hard at Curry's web page at GA Tech, but note that it links both to Cliamte, Etc and to her off-cmapus compnay with Webster, CFAN.
"CFAN's innovative OmniCast suite of weather and climate forecast products for the energy sector"
or See Omnicast History, which includes:
"OmniCast was developed by CFAN in response to the needs of a major client in the petroleum industry for extended range, better-than-market weather forecasts to support energy trading, sales and marketing." (But read on from there).
See also Climate, Etc Section of CFAN news. including
"Climate Etc. - blog with dynamic and balanced exchange of ideas around current climate related topics "
All this may be perfectly fine, and CFAN is a for-profit, not a 501(c)(3) like Salby's first company, but it is interesting to note timing:
- Consulting/software for one client, proprietary
- 2010 Climate, Etc ... mentioned in CFAN
- moves to open to other customers in 2012
So what is deeply amusing here is that the SEJ are completely wrong: JC isn’t a denier (I don’t know what she is; hopelessly confused and lost, I’d say) but she certainly isn’t committed to reason and evidence.[...] She’s certainly willing to blog about septic talking points, though not AFAIK subject them to skeptical examination; and not terribly good at presenting mainstream science.
Yes, exactly. I'm having great trouble thinking of an issue where a journalist would benefit from reading Curry's site. Not because she's consciously trying to steer people in the wrong direction (that's Heartland's job), but just because she's so frequently and profoundly confused.
She's a denialist, not a denier. Cf. tobacconist vs. smoker