Judith Curry abandons the science ship

[Trakar]

My MO? I'm just glad I'm not Judith Curry listening to the vituperation her "peers" must be dishing out.

Amazingly, it isn't even curious that you would put quotes around peers, and not around vituperation.

Curry's current peers are no longer the climate science community, nor even much the science community in general, rather she has cast her lot in with the odd-ball collection of contrarians composed largely of political operatives, pseudoscience woosters and an assortment of cranks who in a final ironic distortion of reality claim themselves to be "skeptics."

 

[dlorde]

You seem to have missed my point. You said that you agree with Curry and that “consensus is to dogmatic”, but when sceptics look at other fields in science not only do they accept consensus as being dogmatic they demand it.

Whoa - you seem to have totally misread my posts. Where did I say that I agreed with Curry or that I thought the consensus is too dogmatic?

This is what I said:

I read the OP quote as Dr. Curry's opinion that she sees the current consensus as unscientific because it is too dogmatically adhered to, and she feels science should be less dogmatic.

That seemed like a reasonable opinion. It might be wrong, but if you feel the consensus is too dogmatic and that science shouldn't be too dogmatic, it's reasonable.

Please try to follow what I actually said, and please try not to attribute me views or opinions I have not expressed.

 

[AlBell]

It would be absurd to suggest the consensus on Evolution is to dogmatic and scientists should be more willing to work with proponents of ID, it would be equally absurd to suggest the people who say an airplane crashing into the WTC is what caused it to collapse are being too dogmatic.

Why yes, it would be.

What Curry is saying is fundamentally the same as A Biologist arguing that sticking to the science of evolution is getting them nowhere and they should be less dogmatic about it and more willing to work with the proponents of Intelligent Design.

What Curry is saying is not fundamentally the same; nice way to poison the well though.

In this analogy, she is arguing that the fact they are being harassed means that science need to cave in and work on the basis that Intelligent Design is a legitimate alternative that needs to be addressed. This is utterly and completely backwards.

Lousy analogies don't help much in disputing the charge of dogmatism. In fact for many people including me they have the opposite effect.

 

[AlBell]

Amazingly, it isn't even curious that you would put quotes around peers, and not around vituperation.

Curry's current peers are no longer the climate science community, nor even much the science community in general, rather she has cast her lot in with the odd-ball collection of contrarians composed largely of political operatives, pseudoscience woosters and an assortment of cranks who in a final ironic distortion of reality claim themselves to be "skeptics."

Nice example of the anticipated vituperation I suggested would be happening, even though I don't know if you are a "peer" in either grouping you made.

 

[macdoc]

Y'know Al this is a science forum, maybe you are used to providing replies with no cogent, supported content in other forum but here you are expected to defend your statements and provide relevant back up.

You've not participated in the climate thread....then you drop in and pretend to be a pundit and want to pass judgement on others who ARE very aware of the science and uptodate on it....

You speak of "peers"...you aren't one as far as this topic is concerned as you clearly have demonstrated you have no background in it whatsoever and from looking at your post history....have no interest either.

So don't expect to be taken seriously.....in fact...expect

 

[lomiller]

Whoa - you seem to have totally misread my posts. Where did I say that I agreed with Curry or that I thought the consensus is too dogmatic?

You specifically said you though her claim was reasonable. If you did not intend that to be interpreted as agreement with her, you should have chosen different language.

 

[Trakar]

Nice example of the anticipated vituperation I suggested would be happening, even though I don't know if you are a "peer" in either grouping you made.

Again, that you apparently consider statements of fact inconvenient to your druthers to be "vituperation" is neither surprising nor particularly interesting. When you have a science or technology post related to AGW to discuss, please flag it for consideration.

 

[AlBell]

Sorry, but this thread is not discussing science, rather Ms Curry and attacks directed at Ms Curry.

You provided a fine example. Nor has there much science anywhere in this thread, just the usual arm-waving from the group who think consensus means "everyone else shut-up".

 

[dlorde]

You specifically said you though her claim was reasonable. If you did not intend that to be interpreted as agreement with her, you should have chosen different language.

I specifically said that? Care to actually quote me?

I actually said I thought her opinion was reasonable - given her beliefs that the scientific consensus was overly dogmatic and that science should not be that dogmatic. This doesn't mean I agree with her beliefs, or her opinion.

Didn't I explain all this already?

 

[lomiller]

you said

I read the OP quote as Dr. Curry's opinion that she sees the current consensus as unscientific because it is too dogmatically adhered to, and she feels science should be less dogmatic.

That seemed like a reasonable opinion.

 

[Trakar]

Sorry, but this thread is not discussing science, rather Ms Curry and attacks directed at Ms Curry.

You provided a fine example. Nor has there much science anywhere in this thread, just the usual arm-waving from the group who think consensus means "everyone else shut-up".

Do you often consider reality (facts) to be "attacks" upon people who have chosen a divergent path from those facts? Given that this is a Science and Technology board, these subjects are always, implicitly, the preferred focus of discussion, that others have not adhered to that standard in no way obliviates that fact. I don't believe that anyone here has directly or indirectly told anyone else to "shut-up." Your use of straw arguments is noted, additionally you seem to be projecting your own desires onto the intents of others, is this normal for you, or merely some misunderstanding on my part of your "style of discussion?"

 

[dlorde]

you said

I read the OP quote as Dr. Curry's opinion that she sees the current consensus as unscientific because it is too dogmatically adhered to, and she feels science should be less dogmatic.

That seemed like a reasonable opinion.

Exactly. No mention of a claim. An opinion isn't a claim. To (crudely) paraphrase: It's reasonable to have the opinion that the current consensus is unscientific, if you believe that it is dogmatic and that science should not be dogmatic.

If I was to say that it's reasonable to believe children can have memories of past lives if you believe in reincarnation, would you say that makes me a believer in reincarnation?

 

[bit_pattern]

It amuses to hear AL Bell make claims of politicisation because, almost to a man, the type of AGW "skeptic" you get on JREF are invariably political conservatives who are seeing the issue through a conservative prism. Their projection would almost be comical if not for their earnestness.

On a side not, I'm of to see Naomi Oreskes give a lecture on the denial machine at the State Library today, should be an interesting presentation

 

[AlBell]

Do you often consider reality (facts) to be "attacks" upon people who have chosen a divergent path from those facts?

No, nor do I find declaring people who do not find the consensus that's been mentioned necessarily correct as "the odd-ball collection of contrarians composed largely of political operatives, pseudoscience woosters and an assortment of cranks" (facts).

Given that this is a Science and Technology board, these subjects are always, implicitly, the preferred focus of discussion, that others have not adhered to that standard in no way obliviates that fact.

Since this thread makes no effort to discuss science but is more directed at character assassination it is in the wrong forum. Politics would be a better location.

I don't believe that anyone here has directly or indirectly told anyone else to "shut-up."

Nor did I mean to suggest so. It's possible Moderators will do so at any time, though.

Your use of straw arguments is noted, additionally you seem to be projecting your own desires onto the intents of others, is this normal for you, or merely some misunderstanding on my part of your "style of discussion?"

Someone appears to have a projection problem. As to your understanding of my "style of discussion" that would be your call.

It amuses to hear AL Bell make claims of politicisation ...

As I read them the OP and subsequent posts by those who seem to buy the consensus offer nothing but politicization; certainly no science.

On a side not, I'm of to see Naomi Oreskes give a lecture on the denial machine at the State Library today, should be an interesting presentation

Perhaps at least part of the presentation will involve science.

 

[bit_pattern]

Perhaps at least part of the presentation will involve science.

Well, it will have a great deal to do with the history of science, since that is, after all, what she did her masters on...

 

[CapelDodger]

An interesting contention; which AGM efforts received and are receiving more funding than, say, An Inconvenient Truth, and various 'favorable' websites, or "the campaign against climate science" some perceive as the problem?

Sorry, I can't quite parse that.

It's my contention that the fossil-fuel industry in combination with consumer products dependent on cheap energy is a far more significant slice of the economy than, for instance, the tobacco industry. Given the campaign the tobacco industry ran to protect itself it seems unlikely that an even larger (and more practiced) campaign isn't being run by the fossil-fuel industry, and such individuals as the Koch brothers or Rupert Murdoch.

Of course, Murdoch doesn't need to provide funding, he provides a direct service to the campaign. That's beyond price.

 

[CapelDodger]

You'll have to leave Cardiff to find a decent hill though - Caerphilly might do you and it's not too far .

I have friends in Caerphilly, some of them with a bit of land .

I'll be ok on my hill overlooking Neath when it turns from fine estuary town into an expanded Swansea Bay. Still, I've often fancied a place by the sea - I'll have to buy a boat though.

You'll be fine over by there. In Cardiff we have plans in place to demolish the yuppy flats by the Bay to build up the Barrier.

 

[CapelDodger]

I read the OP quote as Dr. Curry's opinion that she sees the current consensus as unscientific because it is too dogmatically adhered to, and she feels science should be less dogmatic.

That seemed like a reasonable opinion. It might be wrong, but if you feel the consensus is too dogmatic and that science shouldn't be too dogmatic, it's reasonable.

The unreason of Dr Curry is in believing that somehow the consensus on climate science is dogmatically adhered to. (Or she possibly means that all consensus in science is dogmatically adhered to, which would be even more irrational.)

The reason the consensus on climate science remains much as it was thirty years ago is that events have served to confirm it. Even the predicted rate was about right. There's no dogma in that.

 

[CapelDodger]

And one possible problem is 'who is providing the peer review process'? In climatology, there seems to be a significant effort to ensure papers from scientific crackpots, mavericks, iconoclasts (a group now including Ms Curry) never see publication.

"Seems" why? Because such papers aren't being published? Isn't it possible that no worthwhile papers are being presented?

Crackpots and mavericks have an outlet in Energy and Environment for a paper which isn't complete gibberish - as long as it strikes the right note, of course. And utter gibberish can turn to WattsUpMyButt, they'll take anything there.

Of course I could be wrong in this assessment.

It's clear that you are, or these suppressed papers would be on the internet anyway. Ergo, they don't exist.

Not to mention the scramble for 'favorable peer review', publication in the 'right' journals, and funding, which must have some bearing on the field.

Oh the funding, that'll be it. No wonder science has stagnated these last two centuries: the scientists have just wanted the favourable reviews and the money. Such careerism has never been good for science.

Meanwhile, reality continues to give the climate science consensus a very favourable review.

 

[Tricky]

Please make sure your posts address the topic and not each other. It's getting a little uncivil in here.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky