View Full Version: Judith Curry.

Popular Technology > The Sciences > Judith Curry.


Title: Judith Curry.


Dref - May 27, 2012 11:45 PM (GMT)
Good takedown of her. How anyone can claim that the Hockey Stick only has a few minor errors and that nobody came off during Climategate as having bad motives is beyond me. She's the one with the brain fossilization if she truly believes all of that.

Quick question: Do you have any links and responses from skeptics responding to her paper in Nature and/or the one in BAMS that you cite in the post? Also, any skeptic responses to the alarmist book she gave five stars to at Amazon?

Andrew - May 28, 2012 04:25 AM (GMT)
Thanks, I wrote this due to those who came in after climategate and do not know her background but falsely believe she is some skeptic moderate.

The Nature news story actually linked to their paper in Science which had rebuttals. I included one from Landsea in the rebuttals to published papers post,

The Curry paper in question is,

Webster et al. (2005) - "Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment"

I could not find any for their BAMS paper but will look again.

Dref - May 28, 2012 07:41 AM (GMT)
Thanks, the hurricane scare is the alarmist claim that annoys me the most (with the polar bear scare and the idiotic screaming about the supposed massive rise of sea levels being close contenders) so the fact that this Curry individual has chosen that aspect as her "specialty" makes me dislike her attitude and false front even more.


Andrew - May 28, 2012 09:57 AM (GMT)
What she has successfully done is move from an outspoken alarmist to someone who carefully states what she says, allowing for liberal interpretation. She is carefully picking things to fight for such as data transparency which make her appear a skeptic but only because the other side on this issue is so insane that the skeptic position has become what should have always been a scientific one.

Regarding polar bears if you check out the Lomborg quote link from the Washington Post she states this,

QUOTE
Lomborg also misrepresents some conclusions of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He is skeptical about the claim that polar bears "will be decimated by global warming as their icy habitat melts." But the report shows that, even under the best-case scenario, about two-thirds of the current polar bear population will be lost by 2050.



Dref - May 28, 2012 02:11 PM (GMT)
So according to her, disagreeing with a reports conclusions is the same as misrepresenting the report? It's clear to me that she is only parroting what the IPCC said and did not do any individual thinking or analysis herself.




* Hosted for free by InvisionFree