Judith Curry abandons the science ship

[Puppycow]

Does this mean that the "science ship" is sinking?

 

[Soapy Sam]

OK then, I'll just re-phrase it as a question. Do you:

1. Agree that the Earth is undergoing a period of sudden warming that is unprecedented in the last 1000 years?

2. Agree that mankind is a primary cause of this warming due to the release of CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels?

In the last 1000 years, yes.

The expression "a primary cause" is misleading. There can only be one "primary cause" . Human activity is almost certainly a major contributor, yes- whether it's the primary cause I don't know. It may well be. Assuming it is would be a wise basis for energy policy.

I still disagree with what you say in the OP regarding the Curry quote.

 

[metzomagic]

Im just going to leave it there. I thought a lot more people who were up on AGW events would have known who Judith Curry was, so my post obviously had less impact than I gauged it would. I confess that I'm a Yank, but I've been living in Europe for the past 30 years.

For the record, here's the realclimate thread where Judith originally... parted ways with her colleagues:

The Montford Delusion

Dr. Curry first weighs in at comment #74.

 

[PixyMisa]

Im just going to leave it there. I thought a lot more people who were up on AGW events would have known who Judith Curry was, so my post obviously had less impact than I gauged it would. I confess that I'm a Yank, but I've been living in Europe for the past 30 years.

Your post had no impact because your assertions were not supported by the evidence you presented.

 

[metzomagic]

Your post had no impact because your assertions were not supported by the evidence you presented.

Sorry, not so I'm afraid. You have to know more of the history of this episode, else you have no context within to judge how much damage Dr. Curry's quote does to to the climate science community. *If* you agree with the science, that is. And you stated earlier that you did.

All the deniers can do at this stage is try to nibble away at the very edges of the science, like creationists do with evolution. This just, quite unnecessarily, gives them another edge to nibble away at.

 

[CapelDodger]

No, no it's not. That's the point she's making. There's the science, and there's the dogma, and they are not the same thing.

So what is this "dogma" of which you speak?

But that's not true, and that is another of her points. At best you're making a hasty generalisation - a logical fallacy. Doesn't get you anywhere.

I can assure you I am not being hasty about this, I've been following the propaganda campaign by libertarian drunk-tanks, political lobbyists, narcissists and scientists more concerned with their ideological purity than with facts for decades now. It's no different (except in scale and duration) from the campaigns on behalf of acid-rain, ozone depletion, smoking, and the health benefits of lead in petrol. Many of the same people have been engaged in several of them. (In the case of Smokin' Fred Singer, all of them, but then he is a professional.)

I'm surprised you haven't seen it yourself. Anti-science has become a right-wing dogma in the last couple of decades, with particular emphasis on AGW.

Like it or not, they're signed up for it now.

Everybody's signed up for the consequences, and many won't like them at all.

The PR battle is real, and you have to deal with it.

No I don't, I can watch and giggle. I've never had a particularly high opinion of humanity so I'm not subect to any disappointment, and I'm pretty well-placed for comfort in the time remaining to me. The more people who buy (very willingly) the lies, the more room on the hill for me and my kind of people. And I do love to say "told you so!"

 

[PixyMisa]

Sorry, not so I'm afraid. You have to know more of the history of this episode, else you have no context within to judge how much damage Dr. Curry's quote does to to the climate science community.

If that's true then your assertions were not supported by the evidence you presented.

Which is what I just said.

All the deniers can do at this stage is try to nibble away at the very edges of the science, like creationists do with evolution. This just, quite unnecessarily, gives them another edge to nibble away at.

No, Curry is pointing out that some climate scientists, out of carelessness or arrogance or indifference, are serving up nibbleable edges on a plate. And that we need to engage the doubters wherever possible rather than demonise them.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm surprised you haven't seen it yourself. Anti-science has become a right-wing dogma in the last couple of decades, with particular emphasis on AGW.

While the left fastens on to anti-science from a different direction - the anti-vaxers, for example, are predominately left-wing.

No I don't, I can watch and giggle. I've never had a particularly high opinion of humanity so I'm not subect to any disappointment, and I'm pretty well-placed for comfort in the time remaining to me. The more people who buy (very willingly) the lies, the more room on the hill for me and my kind of people. And I do love to say "told you so!"

So I take it you won't mind when 300 homeless Bangladeshi farmers settle in your back yard?

 

[CapelDodger]

While the left fastens on to anti-science from a different direction - the anti-vaxers, for example, are predominately left-wing.

Hardly relevant, is it? Even if true.

So I take it you won't mind when 300 homeless Bangladeshi farmers settle in your back yard?

I can hardly expect that in my time. Who's going to pay for them to get over here? And immigration's already an issue in post-colonial Europe. There's a lot to be said for living on an island off the Western edge of Eurasia.

It's not like we have Mexico on our border.

 

[CapelDodger]

And that we need to engage the doubters wherever possible rather than demonise them.

Why? The "doubters" that remain are not going to change their minds because anybody engages them. They are believers in an unreality, and we know how that works out - believers die off very gradually, secure in their beliefs. They are never persuaded.

 

[PixyMisa]

Hardly relevant, is it? Even if true.

Well, yes, it is relevant. Anti-science attitudes aren't "right-wing dogma", they're a pervasive problem that cuts across the entire political spectrum.

I can hardly expect that in my time. Who's going to pay for them to get over here?

Me.

 

[PixyMisa]

Why? The "doubters" that remain are not going to change their minds because anybody engages them. They are believers in an unreality, and we know how that works out - believers die off very gradually, secure in their beliefs. They are never persuaded.

Even on matters less susceptible to evidence, this is not so cut and dried - you're talking to an ex-Christian here. And your characterisation of the AGW skeptic crowd as a whole is, in my experience, deeply inaccurate. For the most part they are waiting on robust evidence divorced from any political agenda.

 

[CapelDodger]

Well, yes, it is relevant. Anti-science attitudes aren't "right-wing dogma", they're a pervasive problem that cuts across the entire political spectrum.

They only exist at the extremes of the political spectrum. The leftist extreme is powerless, so where do you think the AGW-denial is coming from?

Me.

Send them on. I won't expect them by Christmas.

 

[CapelDodger]

Even on matters less susceptible to evidence, this is not so cut and dried - you're talking to an ex-Christian here. And your characterisation of the AGW skeptic crowd as a whole is, in my experience, deeply inaccurate. For the most part they are waiting on robust evidence divorced from any political agenda.

The robust evidence is all around us. The robust evidence of any political agenda is entirely confined to the AGW deniers, not to scientists. And that does apply to Marxist deniers, such as the Swindlers.

 

[metzomagic]

For the most part they are waiting on robust evidence divorced from any political agenda.

There is *plenty* of robust evidence with absolutely no political agenda attached to it. It's called the peer-reviewed literature. Almost all of the political agenda is coming from the anti-science camp.

So, PixyMisa. If you truly believe the Earth is warming, and that this time around mankind is the primary cause, then what problem do you have with scientists coming down from their ivory towers for once and saying: "Hey, yo! We have a problem here and no one seems to be paying any attention!"

Because there seems to be no shortage of people with vested interests wanting to take them to court, like Inhofe and Cuccinelli, just for staying in their ivory towers and doing science!

 

[bit_pattern]

She's just smarting over the reaming she took over at Real Climate after trying to interject on the behalf of McIntyre and his attack dogs.

 

[macdoc]

And your characterisation of the AGW skeptic crowd as a whole is, in my experience, deeply inaccurate. For the most part they are waiting on robust evidence divorced from any political agenda.

If they haven't got it by now they are as deluded in that as they are in their religious neuroses.....took you a while apparently....now you appoint yourself judge of Judy.....

She's wrong headed on this...get over it.
An apologist for ignorance

 

[geni]

No, Curry is pointing out that some climate scientists, out of carelessness or arrogance or indifference, are serving up nibbleable edges on a plate.

Err agaist a modern PR operation existing is the equiverlent to serving up nibbleable edges on a plate. In this case modern is defined as any time after 1914.

And that we need to engage the doubters wherever possible rather than demonise them.

"doubters" being?

 

[jayh]

No true Scotsman seems to be very much at work here. If you disagree with what the majority is allegedly claiming, then you're not a 'real scientist'. Is someone not a scientist if they don't believe in string theory? This has become a shibboleth, an identifier. Listen around. People use the term 'I believe in AGW' as a cultural/political flag just like those that say 'I believe in sacrifice of Jesus Christ'.

There is, to mind, a whole lot that is being oversold here (reminds me of the Hebrew myth of Jonah in Nineveh), where uncertainties are ignored and truth is declared by committee. While indeed components of AGW (oops, that acronym is still in common use even though the goalposts have been changed) quite possibly are valid there is still a whole lot of smoke and mirrors behind the bedrock solid portrayal of the conclusions simply because there is so much that is not accurately known and will not be accurately known for many years.

But (unlike most other areas of science) uncertainty is perceived as weakness, so is pretty much banished from the discussion. This has much to do, I believe, because this issue has become political rather than scientific (and strangely Luddite at that). Doing good science in a political climate is pretty much impossible.

 

[Mr Clingford]

No true Scotsman seems to be very much at work here. If you disagree with what the majority is allegedly claiming, then you're not a 'real scientist'. Is someone not a scientist if they don't believe in string theory? This has become a shibboleth, an identifier. Listen around. People use the term 'I believe in AGW' as a cultural/political flag just like those that say 'I believe in sacrifice of Jesus Christ'.

There is, to mind, a whole lot that is being oversold here (reminds me of the Hebrew myth of Jonah in Nineveh), where uncertainties are ignored and truth is declared by committee. While indeed components of AGW (oops, that acronym is still in common use even though the goalposts have been changed) quite possibly are valid there is still a whole lot of smoke and mirrors behind the bedrock solid portrayal of the conclusions simply because there is so much that is not accurately known and will not be accurately known for many years.

But (unlike most other areas of science) uncertainty is perceived as weakness, so is pretty much banished from the discussion. This has much to do, I believe, because this issue has become political rather than scientific (and strangely Luddite at that). Doing good science in a political climate is pretty much impossible.

You're making a lot of assertions here, but not supplying evidence to support them.