Sunday, May 27, 2012

The Truth about Judith Curry


Judith Curry is not a skeptic but a hurricane alarmist who had an alleged epiphany after Climategate and now seeks to be some sort of arbiter of scientific integrity. Her history of trust building includes accusing world leading hurricane expert, Dr. William Gray of "brain fossilization" and that, "Nobody except a few groupies wants to hear what he has to say" for his objections to her alarmist position on hurricanes. Curry has derided skeptics as "deniers" in both a testimony to congress and in the peer-reviewed literature, apparently in attempts at building "trust". Not even the most moderate of skeptics, Bjorn Lomborg was safe, "he fails to appreciate the risks that global warming bring to us all". Regarding the corruption exposed by Climategate she incomprehensibly believes, "I don't think anybody’s come at this with bad motives". She even defended Michael Mann by claiming that Steve McIntyre only found, "relatively minor errors" in Mann's Hockey Stick papers. But when it comes to the alarmist English major Chris Mooney, author of such "amicable" titles as the "The Republican War on Science", she gave him a five star review on Amazon for "Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming" calling it, "Science writing at its best".

"The influence of global warming deniers, consisting of a small group of scientists plus others that are motivated to deny global warming..." - Judith Curry, 2006

"Gore's statement in the movie is that we can expect more storms like Katrina in a greenhouse-warmed world. I would agree with this" - Judith Curry, 2006

"We're looking at a much worse [Hurricane] risk than people were thinking about a year ago ...some places are going to become uninsurable." - Judith Curry, 2006

References:
Speaking of hurricanes: off-season fireworks! (Houston Chronicle, February 2, 2006)
Warming seas cause stronger hurricanes (Nature, March 16, 2006)
Gore's 'Truth' splits hurricane scientists (The Washington Times, May 29, 2006)
Global Warming and Hurricanes (Judith Curry, Testimony to Congress, July 20, 2006)
Mixing Politics and Science in Testing the Hypothesis That Greenhouse Warming Is Causing a Global Increase in Hurricane Intensity (PDF) (J.A. Curry et al., BAMS, August 2006)
Cooler Heads and Climate Change (The Washington Post, October 10, 2007)
Scientists Behaving Badly (The Weekly Standard, December 14, 2009)
Rebuilding Trust (The Air Vent, February 12, 2010)
Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues (Scientific American, October 25, 2010)
Handling the Heat (Georgia Tech Alumni Magazine, October 27, 2010)

2 comments:

Harry Dale Huffman said...

Dr. Judith Curry, as an academic, has shown herself to be more of a climate consensus follower than an independent scientific mind, able to expertly judge the definitive evidence that can readily be found against the consensus. But you can say the same about virtually every academic scientist. And quotes from 2006, well before her blog started in 2009 and her climate position evolved to the fence-sitting position she seems to be stuck on, in that blog, will not do to define her. I had not even paid attention to claims of global warming myself before late 2009 (I don't know if I even heard of it before that), yet within a year I had disproved the "greenhouse effect" being foisted upon the people of the world as "settled science", and shown that climate scientists should have done the same 20 years ago, if any had been competent in their field. The truth about Judith Curry, as I see it, is that she has a strong attraction for political dialogue, and refuses to see that the public debate over climate is fundamentally at odds with good science, as is the IPCC-sponsored "consensus" of climate alarmism, or in her case, of climate political-worryism (she seems deeply attached to helping bring about "reasonable" and "responsible" climate policies--whereas my view is that any and all such climate policies, now, are necessarily based upon incompetent, false science, are entirely the wrong thing to try to impose upon the people of the world, and need to be summarily thrown out, before one can even begin to have a dispassionate, competent scientific dialogue--as opposed to the political debate now being served up--on the state of climate science.).

Andrew said...

Her recent past is directly relevant to her attempts at being an arbiter of scientific integrity and truth. Especially when this behavior continued,

Her comment on McIntyre only finding "relatively minor errors" in Mann's Hockey Stick papers was post-climategate (2009). So was her comment about Climategate scientists, "I don't think anybody’s come at this with bad motives". She also continued to use the word "denier",

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/24/on-the-credibility-of-climate-research-part-ii-towards-rebuilding-trust/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/the-curry-letter-a-word-about-deniers/