Judith Curry.
Dref
Posted: May 27 2012, 06:45 PM


E-4 Corporal


Group: Members
Posts: 168
Member No.: 1,507
Joined: 11-July 10



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?
Top
Andrew
Posted: May 27 2012, 11:25 PM


Chief of Staff


Group: Admin
Posts: 9,016
Member No.: 1
Joined: 17-November 04



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.
Top
Dref
Posted: May 28 2012, 02:41 AM


E-4 Corporal


Group: Members
Posts: 168
Member No.: 1,507
Joined: 11-July 10



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.

Top
Andrew
Posted: May 28 2012, 04:57 AM


Chief of Staff


Group: Admin
Posts: 9,016
Member No.: 1
Joined: 17-November 04



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.


Top
Dref
Posted: May 28 2012, 09:11 AM


E-4 Corporal


Group: Members
Posts: 168
Member No.: 1,507
Joined: 11-July 10



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.
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | The Sciences | Next Newest »

Topic Options



Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Archive