Judith Curry abandons the science ship

[Garrison0fMars]

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

Actually, quite a few of the anti vaxers are right wing as well. Alex Jones, one of the biggest proponents of general vaccine scares, is pretty far right wing. But of course conspiracy theories and anti science beliefs can and do cut across the political spectrum. Incorrect beliefs are hardly partial to political bias.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

I'm not so sure engaging the "climate change skeptics" from an honest standpoint is really going to be that practical. Most "Climate change skeptics" aren't people who are genuinely misinformed, or have any real scientific concerns over the current AGW model being propagated, but people with particular political/economic agendas that action on AGW would contrast with. When your particular industry will be hurt by new regulations to combat AGW, of course you're going to propagate misinformation as a matter of staying in (good) business. But that doesn't mean we should engage them as if they're being honest.

 

[macdoc]

Exactly.....

and specifically....

simply because there is so much that is not accurately known and will not be accurately known for many years.

such as??

how about keeping it simple

It's getting warmer
We're primarily responsible due to fossil fuel use and other anthro activities.

There ARE consequences unfolding NOW and will be more regardless of what steps we take.

Where there are uncertainties is in how mcuh C02 we will continue to emit

 

[metzomagic]

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.

There is a consensus arrived at in the peer reviewed literature that acknowledges there is unprecedented recent warming, and that mankind is the primary cause. Yes, there are uncertainties, as there should be when the science on an issue this complex is correctly applied.

Arctic ice extent and thickness being verifiably unhealthy, glaciers retreating for the last century, spring coming earlier every year in the arctic region, mounting acidification of the oceans due to increased CO2 uptake, species migrating further north each year... these signs of pervasive warming are completely incidental to you?

 

[ThunderChunky]

Actually, quite a few of the anti vaxers are right wing as well. Alex Jones, one of the biggest proponents of general vaccine scares, is pretty far right wing. But of course conspiracy theories and anti science beliefs can and do cut across the political spectrum. Incorrect beliefs are hardly partial to political bias.

Alex Jones jumps on EVERY conspiracy theory, so he is not a good indicator, but I agree with your general point. Most woo tends to cross the political spectrum. However, some anti-science beliefs do seem to favor one side of the political spectrum or the other.

Examples:
Global warming deniers: right wing
Animal research deniers: left wing
Anti-stem cell research: right wing
Anti-GMO: left wing

 

[PixyMisa]

Actually, quite a few of the anti vaxers are right wing as well.

True. They seem to be a minority, though they try to make up for that by being even weirder than the left-wing ones.

Alex Jones, one of the biggest proponents of general vaccine scares, is pretty far right wing.

It's hard to tell the difference with someone that crazy.

But of course conspiracy theories and anti science beliefs can and do cut across the political spectrum. Incorrect beliefs are hardly partial to political bias.

Yep.

 

[Slimething]

Many of you may not be aware that Judith Curry has her own blog now.

It goes beyond that. Most of us don't know who JC is and couldn't care less. Why do you care?

I believe that accrued CO2 in the atmosphere is having a warming effect on the planet. However, I don't give a hoot as to who says what about it or when. My opinions have been drawn from the raw data as presented by many posters here at JREF. (Aside: I do believe that alarmists have pissed in their own soup but that's a topic for another day.)

I would advise you to ignore or downplay what any one personality does on this topic instead of obsessing on the scoreboard. Science is based on fact and has no personality. To inject specific persons into your arguments is to lower the science into the world of the paparazzi. Ignore it. The facts will win out. Why should you care? More importantly, why should I care what JC says or does?

 

[Garrison0fMars]

It's hard to tell the difference with someone that crazy.

Well, he calls himself a paleoconservative, and generally has views that are described as such. Anti gay, very anti immigrant (plays up Mexican invasion stories, North American Union conspiracy theories, which are just generally anti Mexican in nature and objective), pretty much believes in a paleoconservative Ron Paulish style of government, advocates a gold standard, etc. He's definitely right wing.

 

[Mr Clingford]

The facts will win out. Why should you care? More importantly, why should I care what JC says or does?

But will it be too late to act significantly when the facts have won this 'delaying action' PR war?

 

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by metzomagic: 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.

Quite. The opinion quoted in the OP sounded reasonable enough to me, and if it has been taken out of context, that is the fault of the OP. If metzomagic is arguing that my interpretation of the quote would be different if I knew more about the quotee, I would ask what happened to the idea of addressing the argument not the arguer?

 

[Soapy Sam]

Bingo.

 

[macdoc]

Which means simply that neither of you get the issue and will gladly stretch for any faint hope offered by a newly minted denidiot supporter ...

some background
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/24/my-response-to-dr-judith-currys-unconstructive-essay/

 

[AlBell]

Posts like the above being the reason AGW threads here get closed.

 

[macdoc]

Truth hurt ???

Denial of AGW belong in the conspiracy theory section along with flat earth fans and anti-evo cranks.

If Curry and others want to support such clowns....then she and they need to be called on it....in no uncertain terms.

Have you read the accompanying background?

This is her FRIEND speaking about

Aside from some factual misstatements and the false equivalence that suffuses piece, the essay makes no useful contribution to the climate debate

and another scientists comments...

john atcheson says:
February 24, 2010 at 3:02 pm
God save us from the scientists like Dr. Curry — and I say that as a scientist. What a lame attempt at communication! What extraordinary ignorance of context. What a disservice to humanity.

Now, you really think I'm being polemic?

The OP is rightfully disgusted....the apologists for ignorant or willful denial slip their nonsense in trying to lend credibility, as JC attempts to the likes of Watts et al...

Pretty good summary by another commenter and very relevant to this board.

As far as I am concerned, anyone who refers to the ExxonMobil-funded denialist frauds and liars and cranks, or their Ditto-Head dupes, as “skeptics” has thereby immediately discredited herself.

They are in no way “skeptical”. They are delusional, or dishonest, or brainwashed. None of which have anything to do with skepticism.

 

[AlBell]

And another one.

 

[metzomagic]

dlorde and Soapy Sam,

Think of the two 'camps' in this issue (the climatologists and the climate 'skeptics') being on opposite sides of a river, shouting across at each other. Then Dr. Curry leaves the climatologist camp, drives over the river on one of the few remaining bridges, burns the bridge behind her, and starts yelling "So how are things going for you lately?" at the climatologists on the other side.

See, context matters. A prominent scientist equating agreeing with the consensus view on AGW (well supported by the peer-reviewed literature) as "religious adherence to consensus dogma."?! That statement alone simply beggars belief. That's like something a creationist would say to an evolutionary biologist. It's called 'projection'.

 

[AlBell]

Thanks for sharing ... your opinion.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Metzomagic- The context of Dr.Curry's comments may matter to you, or to the persons to whom she addressed it. I merely reiterate that I see nothing wrong with what she said in the passage you quoted in the OP.
I will also repeat this- http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5973697#post5973697
which I would remind all posters is the formal JREF policy regarding AGW threads.
So long as this thread stuck to discussing your OP it does not violate that policy.
As we seem to have drifted over that edge, I shall , like AlBell, thank you politely for your opinion and exit this thread permanently.
Cheers.

 

[tensordyne]

skepticism and concensus

Since part of the OP addresses scientific concensus and by implication peer review I would just like to comment specifically on that.

The peer review system has come up for heavy criticism in the past on other contentious issues. I find it odd that we have to rely on the words of a few reviewers on any topic covered by science. In the past, information was much harder to get at and review, but now we have computers that can send information across the entire planet in the blink of an eye. Why not make all submissions to scientific journals be posted openly to the public? The technology is there. You can even use technology to "drown out the noise" by using various settings.

From what I understand most scientists now do not read journals in physical form anymore anyways, and yet Universities and other major scientific players still pay incredible sums of money on journal subscriptions.

As for concensus, that should never be a goal of science. At best, concensus should be something that happens organically over time.

 

[CapelDodger]

Metzomagic- The context of Dr.Curry's comments may matter to you, or to the persons to whom she addressed it. I merely reiterate that I see nothing wrong with what she said in the passage you quoted in the OP.

You see no problem with scientific consensus being equated to a religious dogma? The whole point of science is that its consensus is subect to change when evidence points that way, whereas religious dogma cannot change without spawning an entirely new religion.

Dr Curry takes on the mantle of heresy and asks "Why am I being singled out?". I ask "Why is she loving it so much?", and the answer is pretty clear. I follow climate science quite closely and I'd never heard of her until she chose to become a "Heretic". Some people chose that path to fame when the price was actually the auto da fe. In Dr Curry's case the only price is the very public blathering idiocy she's has to resort to to justify the role.

Why does Dr Curry matter? Well, why is the denier cult pushing her "conversion" so hard? They don't have many actual scientists on their play-list, let alone climate scientists, so Dr Curry wins the deniers' X-Factor Prize. That's why she matters to those of us who follow the unfolding saga of climate denial.

The science of climate change is pretty boring now, but the human interest is in the PR campaign that Dr Curry thinks the scientists are losing. (They're actually not, but Dr Curry's new friends tell her that they are and that, apparently, is good enough for her.) I've never seen an actual train-wreck so this is the sort of thing I have to fall back on for amusement in my autumn years.