Bad Science Bait & Switch Climate Change Global Warming Media Non-Science Political Nightmare Public Relations Realistic Models Science Rules The Data Unqualified Opinion

Judith Curry : Lost to the Dark Side ?

This is my second appeal to Dr Judith Curry to come in from the cold, wrap up warm and sit by the fire of rational sanity with her professional colleagues.

While the “Curry Unfavour” saga continues, I have continued reading some history on anti-science propaganda, “Merchants of Doubt”, courtesy of Naomi Oreskes and her pardner-in-grime Erik M. Conway.

It is a lesson in how easily we can forget things, how meddling sceptics, deniers, delayers and obstructers down the decades have influenced the course of public communications on science, and prevented sound policy.

All the same arguments that were used against the science and scientists back in the 1980s, about the research on nuclear winter, acid rain and ozone depletion have been resurrected in the attacks on Climate Change.

Sadly, some of those involved in attacking the process of scientific progress were themselves scientists, some having been instrumental in fighting regulation on smoking by downplaying and warping the conclusions of the medical evidence.

It seems that Dr Judith Curry of Georgia Tech may be travelling down the same slippery slope as Professor S. Fred Singer, who in the 1970s appears to have been a reasonably concerned, quasi-environmentalist, but once apparently infected with ideas on the excessively high costs of environmental remedies, turned tail, turned coat, and has been seen as a bane of the true course of science ever since :-

Shall we say goodbye as we part company with Judith Curry ?

Shall we implore her to use her full powers of reason and come back ?

She seems to prefer to trust those who are cynical above those who are sane, and those who are scornful above those who are respectful.

More importantly, she seems to want to make allies amongst those whose mission appears to be to destroy rather than build up.

The sceptic-deniers don’t deploy the techniques of empirical science, they merely repeat refuted arguments, again and again and again.

If they want to go join Tony Hayward in Siberia, to do some proper data collection on the impacts of Global Warming in the formerly Arctic wastes and squidgy permafrost, then I might read something they write :-

It’s all very well sending your unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV spy toys) over the North Pole, Judith, but you need to get up there, and get your hands messy with rotting sea ice so you can begin to understand what’s really going on :-
“Inoue, J., J.A. Curry, J.A. Maslanik, 2008: Application of Aerosondes to melt-pond observations over Arctic Sea ice. J. Atmos. Oceanic Tech., 25 (2): 327-334.”

I trust the Polar Explorers. I do not trust Steve McIntyre and his whirling whining buddies. I trust NASA, NOAA and the Hadley Centre. I don’t trust people who are propagandising in the national newspapers without proper qualifications.

Don’t run off into the night of shame, poor reasoning, mangled graphs and dodgy statistics, Judith. Come back !

Don’t listen to that Steve McIntyre fellow. He’s probably at heart got a plan to kick science down, and his ideology goes right back to the 1980s.

You remember the 1980s, don’t you Judith ? I certainly do. Science painfully staggered on with body blows and toxic blow dart injuries until it reached the sunlight of the international environmental conferences of the early 1990s.

Don’t forget all we have achieved. Don’t gamble and lose it all by betting on the enemies of reason.

There’s no talking sensibly with these sceptic-deniers, honestly. You can’t bridge the divide. They haven’t taken the Empirical Science oath. They don’t couch their results in terms of probabilities of outcomes.

When they say that Climate Change Scientists are lying or manipulating (for example), they don’t give error bars, or Standard Deviations. How can you accept their thesis that all Climate Change Scientists are lying without properly analysing the data ?

4 replies on “Judith Curry : Lost to the Dark Side ?”

i trust nasa funded data as well.

Northern hemisphere has been greening over the last 20-30 years.

Sorry – I do not follow the logic – as an layman who is very interested in the the future of this planet I have to say I find far more rational comment from Dr Judith Curry and Steve McIntyre than I do here.

Perhaps you would care to share with us some more of your illuminating (but rather under-explained) points. You say of Steve Mcintyre that ‘He’s probably at heart got a plan to kick science down, and his ideology goes right back to the 1980s.’ Are the words ‘probably at heart’ meant to tell us you have evidence for this man’s fiendish plots? Did he support, for example, Stephen Schneider’s contribution to the the previous current global cooling debate in the 70s? (Schneider afterwards recanted, happily for the world of intelligent, consensus obeying adults)

You then say Deniers (grr! Aux lanternes!) are ‘anti-empirical’. Again, we need more, because Mcintyre (Kill! Kill!) once earnt his living as a statistician. O, but you then do imply he doesn’t understand standard deviation. Can this be true? All these years, assessing companies for their (often dodgy) future predictions, and he couldn’t understand a basic like that? Mcintyre certainly owes someone a lot of dosh, and no mistake! How many of these companies went to the wall as a result of this charlatan? Do you know…? (you don’t, do you…)

And there’s more!…Two separate independent reports have upheld his claims against the superlative ‘Hockey Stick’. They can’t do sums either, I suppose…ah me. What a wicked world. Time for a spot of ‘Denier cleansing’, eh? The ‘Dark Side’ indeed!

The Kiwigate scam showed that data was not the problem but the adjustments done to the data by scientific fraud. I think the best scientific article about Climate Change is from the high IQ society Mensa called “Global Warming on Mars and Climate Change from Space”. They show a way of calibrating Carbon Dioxide warming on Earth using the Atmosphere of Mars, and is the reason why Mensa members are very much on the side of the sceptics.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.