AR5 follow on - weirdness from la Curry

Judith Curry has a weird post called "IPCC diagnosis – permanent paradigm paralysis" which starts off with a perfect example of the denialists favourite tactic - a walled garden of links to their own nonsense. She says:

In a previous post, I discussed the IPCC’s diagnosis of a planetary fever and their prescription for planet Earth...

Now if you're a person prepared to believe that JC isn't lying through her teeth, you might actually not follow that link, and in consequence you might believe that what she said was true. But it isn't; its a fantasy as wacky as AW's about wikipedia. If you actually read the article of here's that she links to you find that its a mixture of The Onion, and Romm. There is no IPCC diagnosis in there at all; and no IPCC prescription.

She continues the fantasy-land stuff with as temperatures have declined and climate models have failed to predict this decline, the IPCC has gained confidence in catastrophic warming and I gave up at that point. Curry jumped the shark back in 2010 but this is a whole new level. She's lost touch with reality and is wandering lost inside the denialosphere with no compass and no keel and no bottom.


* Curry repeats her drivel in the financialpost

More like this

Reminder to self: I posted a comment (comment-389120, if it turns up) pointing out her error on her blog: it will be interesting to see if it appears.

By now haven't we all learned that "Weirdness from la Curry" is as surprising as "Sun rises in east" or "Dead man found in casket"?

A sad case, actually, but no sympathy because all this is by her own choice.

By American Idiot (not verified) on 28 Sep 2013 #permalink

The last sentence of JC's post:
"Maybe we don’t need to put the planet down; perhaps we could just get rid of all the people."

This was not part of the Onion piece, it is something added by Curry herself. It is an old slam on the environmentalist community, namely that enviro's think animals, the environment, mother nature, etc. are more important than people.

By Joseph O'Sullivan (not verified) on 28 Sep 2013 #permalink

I started to write about this latest foray by Curry into weirdness. Not sure that I will now after you've picked up on it, William.

I re-read her piece a few times. She firstly wants to get rid of the IPCC because it focuses on reporting the science to policy makers and the wider community. Then she wants to get rid of climate models and replace them with climate models.

She also puts in a transparent plug for her own weather models "Further, increased scientific focus on subseasonal (weeks) and seasonal (months) weather/climate forecasts could produce the basis for tactical adaptation practices with substantial societal benefits."

I like her "tactical adaptation practices" - why use only one word when three will do the job?

I have my own views about the value of the IPCC and how it might be improved. It's already started with producing interim reports on specific topics, which is a good thing. But Judy wants to toss it all out. She raves on about deniers not getting a fair hearing.

What gets me is that some people who should know better are praising her for "speaking her mind". I'd have thought anyone with a mind like hers would be wanting to hide it not display it for all the world to see.

I decided to have a shot at unpicking Judy's waffle after all.

Watts' blog is deadly dull at the moment. Stuck in denial but with not an original insect or ice age in sight :(

She started tweeting recently; maybe that was the final push over the edge. Twitter is often an unkind place and 140 characters is not enough to get one's sycophancy fix for a heavy user like Curry.

She is making the mistake of arguing on twitter with people who are smarter than her


By Holly Stick (not verified) on 29 Sep 2013 #permalink

It's taken a couple of years for real scientists and engineers to persuade Judith Curry of the 13 mistakes in the physics of Climate Alchemy, 3 of them so basic as to be embarrassing.

The simple fact is, it is easy to show that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is near zero because it's used as the working fluid of the World's temperature control system. The real AGW was from Asian pollution reducing cloud albedo, and it saturated in about 2000 (Sagan' aerosol optical physics is wrong).

So, stop this baseless propaganda supporting the IPCC's busted flush. It has failed.

It is an old slam on the environmentalist community, namely that enviro’s think animals, the environment, mother nature, etc. are more important than people.

I know I do, but in the larger environmental community, a wide range of views is represented.

By Mal Adapted (not verified) on 30 Sep 2013 #permalink

"She started tweeting recently"

...and boy is she pleased with her paradigm paralysis nonsense - 11 plugs in her twitter feed currently.


By Quiet Waters (not verified) on 30 Sep 2013 #permalink

She's trying to imitate Mann, who certainly works twitter to promote his views; of course he has a lot more to promote

Egad, and of course the crappy dishonest Financial Post gives her space:

She lists problems like "increasing levels of shrillness on both sides of the political debate, with the “warm side” steeped in moral panic and hyperbole" without mentioning what the other side is steeped in.

By Holly Stick (not verified) on 01 Oct 2013 #permalink

moral panic and hyperbole

Ha. Did you read her reaction to Marcott and Shakun posting on RealClimate:

I remind you that one element of this is the struggle for the scientific souls of two promising young scientists. Please don’t overegg the pudding and inadvertently send them to the RealClimate refugee and training camp.


I see this as a struggle for the souls of two young climate scientists. Will they (i) decide to care primarily about science, and embrace the values of transparency and public accountability, answer questions about their research, and engage with skeptics in the interest of improving their research; or (ii) do they aspire to Mike Mann-style celebrity and plan to join the RealClimate warriors against auditing and skepticism?


[Its becoming ever clearer that a lot of JC's angst is coming from Mann-envy. And he still has a scientific career - what has JC done recently? -W]

It's not Mann-envy, it's Mann-chip-on-the-shoulder.

Early on in CE days Curry had a plaintive whine about a 'certain young recent PhD' who got all the attention over more experienced colleagues.

Interesting to see Curry pontificate about “increasing levels of shrillness on both sides" when she derides her colleagues as "warmists", "the team" and worse.

There's a word for "a person who claims or pretends to have certain beliefs about what is right but who behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs."

By American Idiot (not verified) on 02 Oct 2013 #permalink

Michael's almost got it right - "Early on in CE days Curry had a plaintive whine about a ‘certain young recent PhD’ who got all the attention over more experienced colleagues."

No, she made that clear before starting CE, and it was obvious when she first began her whining over at RealClimate after having read Bishop Hill's book (the title of which I don't remember and do not choose to look up).

"Its becoming ever clearer that a lot of JC's angst is coming from Mann-envy." has been clear since then, and I think CE is a result of that Mann-envy to the extent that this is true ...

The proper approach to Curry is to realize that she and Webster are a good cop bad cop act. Webster is as much a part of this nonsense as she is, but she has to get shriller and shriller in order to meet the expectations of the denailists (see Republican for examples)

By Eli Rabett (not verified) on 03 Oct 2013 #permalink

Webster seems to be more of an absent cop. But frankly, Curry got boring a long time ago, I'm only commenting here as a procrastination technique :-)

By James Annan (not verified) on 03 Oct 2013 #permalink