BPSDB
MENU
Linguiça Hodge Podge
Curry’ed Menudo (Tripe)
Jumped Shark Fin Soup
Carbonnade à la Flamande Hash
Banh Tieu Chiffonade
Dog(ma) Imbottito con Ideologia
Trockenbeerenauslese Trifle
Lemon Curry Fool
A recipe for Ms Curry
Curry şiş Kebabs
I have finally gotten around to reading Judith Curry‘s contributions to the climate change debate and I have to say Stewart Shaw’s paraphrasing of the old axiom sums it up best:
“It’s like making sausage. The more you know about what goes into it and how it’s done, the less you like it.“
Insomuch as Ms Curry’s stated objective is to build bridges and “have a civil conversation about climate” I thought it would be interesting to have a look at the Curry phenomenon from a conflict resolution perspective. Specifically to look at and assess Ms Curry’s contribution to facilitating civil discourse.
Curry and her take on climate science has been much discussed and vivisected (Curry şiş Kebabs below) and although I present some samplings to illustrate how she deals with contentious issues, I will not be repeating or reviewing the scientific or political perspective. There are far too many threads and Curry’s dissembling has made most of them more convoluted and Byzantine than they needed to be.
What I found is that while Curry claims to want to build bridges, she is going about it with a flame thrower. Her approach, whether intentional or not, is a recipe to make matters far worse, and it’s working!
Linguiça Hodge Podge
In her piece Doubt Ms Curry begins her incendiary bridge building by attempting to conflate the the terms “Denier” and “Skeptic”, and does so by referring to them as “labels.” She states “Not only do these labels have nothing to do with science, but the labels are polarizing and are used to denigrate opposing “tribes””
First let’s drop the label “label” as it is a loaded word meant to denigrate the practice of using precise terminology to communicate information.
“Nothing to do with science“? perhaps not, but:
- using precise language accurately is very much a hallmark of science, and arguing for the obverse is not. Why not then also conflate “skeptics” and “AGW crowd”? then there is no division at all! (reductio ad absurdum)
- insomuch as the discussions involving the term “Denier” are not about science per se, but about the ideologically motivated campaign of disinformation to discredit science, how is your point even relevant?
- “tribes“? … interesting “label.”
“Denier” and “skeptic” are not synonyms as 
has been pointed out both generally and specifically with respect to Curry (and here); they are almost polar opposites. They describe radically different, indeed antithetical, approaches to information and knowledge.
Both exist within the climate debate, and that Denierism is real and rampant within the social discourse about climate is well documented and indisputable.
If one wishes to do away with the term “Denier” the logical and scientific approach would be to show that it is unnecessary, not useful, or is consistently being used inaccurately.
That it would be impossible to do any of the above might be one reason Ms Curry does not attempt it (more likely it never occurred to her).
Regardless, I have some questions for Ms Curry
- Did you not take the trouble to investigate why many people use the term “Denier”? and whether they use it correctly? or did you just launch into a polemic based on your assumptions and biases?
- If so, not a good start for a piece admonishing people for presumably acting on assumptions and biases.
- If not the former, do you not understand the difference between the frauds and hoaxes of Denierism and actual climate science? (there is some evidence for this, but also con).
- If so, not a good start for someone pretending some authority on the subject.
- If not the former, why seek to obfuscate the difference between the two? what possible purpose could it serve other than to grant the Deniers a totally undeserved and false appearance of legitimacy?
- If so, not a good start for someone pretending to be impartial.
- Is there some other explanation for this?
Using muddled and imprecise language to obfuscate seems to be a consistent problem with Curry (eg here, here, and here).
Curry’ed Menudo (Tripe)
From there “Doubt” goes on:
“A considerable amount of climate skepticism has been fueled by big business, attempting to protect their personal financial interests (e.g. the Koch brothers, ExxonMobil). True, but so what?”
“So what”? the “so what” is that they have not fueled “climate skepticism”, they have bought and paid for an orchestrated campaign of misinformation and fraud, of outright climate change Denial. That is well documented and commonly known, so I have more questions for Ms Curry:
- Where are the published peer reviewed papers that any of these businesses have funded? where exactly is the legitimate scientific skepticism that came out of their frauds?
- Why do you misrepresent this campaign of disinformation and lies as merely ‘promoting scientific skepticism’?
- Are/were you not aware of the extent and nature of their lies and frauds?
- Do you wish to go on record as explicitly stating that lies, frauds and disinformation contribute to healthy scientific debate? You have said so implicitly, how about saying so explicitly?
A little further along we get:
“I’m hoping that this strategy takes the wind out the sails of “support the consensus or you are a skeptic,”[1] making the merchant of doubt strategy [2] basically irrelevant and labels such as “denier” [3] unecessary [sic]. Then science can be science again and the politicians can stop waging their political battles through the science and start grappling with the hard problems. We have to start somewhere, lets start here and give it a try.[4]
[1] Straw Man argument – There never was such a position, so refuting it is inane and pointless (except as a strategy to trivialize your opposition by misrepresenting them). The position has always been “Accept OR refute the science [not the consensus]; if you can’t refute it then say so” (and by the way, you are parroting Denier talking points again).
[2] The Merchants’ strategy is to create doubt by pretending certainty, including certainty about inadequacies in the science that do not in fact exist … a strategy that you Ms Curry, have started to use liberally.
[3] As long as there is Denial and Deniers the term will continue to be useful.
[4] A Disney movie hockey Mom/Coach’s “gosh golly kids, let’s do it” is no substitute for an actual strategy based on techniques that actually work to resolve conflict, which this clearly isn’t.
Ms Curry’s “strategy” is nonsense.
Put bluntly, it boils down to dismissing the concerns of the climate science community and accepting the lies and frauds of the Deniers at face value. Even some of her supporters acknowledge the double standard.
This is not an actual, sincere attempt at conflict resolution; it is a disingenuous attempt to get one side to capitulate by misrepresenting them as intractable and unreasonable while misrepresenting the other as reasonable and legitimate. It is a partisan ploy trying to masquerade as mediation (but then she is just parroting the Denier talking points). It’s a lie.
And on it goes. These examples of vacuous dissembling and disingenuous remonstrating seem to be pretty typical of her idea of mediating conflict and creating dialogue.
Jumped Shark Fin Soup
From there Curry launches into what she says is an attempt to quantify scientific uncertainty with her Italian Flag model of classifying the scientific evidence. It makes no sense at all as far as anyone can determine.
Michael Tobis put it “Somebody has to call “horseshit” here, and it might as well be me”, although James Annan trumped him with “While it might be possible to reverse-engineer some semblance of sense into some of her statements regarding it, they are mutually incoherent.”:
In my opinion what she really seems to be doing is trying to cloak her own subjective opinions in some sort of mantle of seemingly objective and scientific respectability. The method did not determine the conclusion, the conclusion determined the method. It seems to be a prime example of “motivated reasoning.”
Carbonnade à la flamande Hash
Curry seems to have no compunction about going off half-cocked, making wild claims about the science itself that are demonstrably false. Quite disturbing to see in a scientist.
“she has stated multiple times that she believes if we can not confidently attribute early 20th century climate change then we can not confidently attribute late 20th century climate change. I’m sorry to be blunt and with all due respect to her CV, this is grossly illogical”
As she is actually a climate scientist this is doubly disturbing. Indeed a consistent habit of Curry’s seems to be that of charging into discussions while having little or no idea what she is talking about, and that is the kinder version. A more cynical interpretation would be that of deliberate misrepresentation (ie lying) to make her main point.
Examples include (but by no means limited to):
- misrepresenting the claims about Wegman and making unfounded counter accusations;
- unsubstansitated (and hence hypocritical) claims of conspiracy and faith based science in the IPCC report;
- uninformed critiques (and here) of Tamino & “the Hockey Stick”;
- solar forcing.
The failure to respect one’s opposition enough to know the topic while still demanding to be treated as an equal in the debate is simply arrogant. All the more so when making serious accusations about other peoples honesty, integrity and ability, as she has done.
Unfortunately outright lying (or more charitably, gullibly repeating lies aka Denier talking points) seems to have become another practice of hers (eg here, here and here).
Banh Tieu Chiffonade
Ms Curry explains her position:
“When I refer to the IPCC dogma, it is the religious importance that the IPCC holds for this cadre of scientists; they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC. Who are these priests of the IPCC? …. This advancement of their careers is done with the complicity of the professional societies and the institutions that fund science. Eager for the publicity, high impact journals such as Nature, Science, and PNAS frequently publish sensational but dubious papers that support the climate alarm narrative.
….
While the IPCC priests loudly cry out against the heretical skeptical scientists and the dark influences of big oil and right wing ideology that are anti-science … ”
Nothing inflammatory about that … other than it being a bunch of non-specific, baseless, hysterical accusations of corruption, dishonesty, opportunism and what have you. Just plain old honest ” accusatory framing, based on mere innuendo and speculation.”
And again with “Some people were getting their papers rejected because they disagreed with the IPCC.”
Which people? what papers? what are the specifics? There are none of course. How could there be? it’s a complete and total fabrication.
And again “she is also very good at refusing to define her terms or clarify her open-ended smears on the integrity and judgment of climate scientists — no matter how often you ask.”
No worry though, because Curry never mentions specifics so she will never accept accountability for any of it, never have to demonstrate that she has the slightest idea of what she is talking about, all the while maintaining that it has never been refuted.
Any time that someone does manage to get hold of something specific or tangible Curry 
merely disavows it and changes her stance ie does not acknowledge having been wrong, but rather pretends her error wasn’t what she actually meant or wasn’t the real point, aka moving the goal posts.
Of her comments on Montford’s book she states “Note, this is off the top of my head“; more plausible deniability? whatever she said isn’t what she meant, nor will what she now says be what she really means if you are able to demonstrate that it is nonsense, and besides, you missed her real point which she hasn’t made yet.
Dog(ma) Imbottito con Ideologia
The thing that most baffles the science community is that even as Curry is claiming/attempting to hold it, and the IPCC in particular, to a high level of accountability and standards of accuracy, she gives the Denier frauds and charades an uncritical pass. Welcome to the blogosphere, Dr. Curry! does a ‘somewhat’ sarcastic review of this.
She cannot be said to be an apologist since there is no apology. Nor can it really be said to be a double standard since she holds the Deniers to no standards at all.
Her claim is that we benefit by embracing the Deniers because “If only 1 percent of it or 10 percent of what the skeptics say is right, that is time well spent because we have just been too encumbered by groupthink.” Well:
- 1% would be a staggering new high for the Deniers, 10% is just delusional;
- why not continue as the science community already has done, which is to accept the ≤1% when it comes up and reject the 99%+ for the idiotic drivel that it is?;
- why not ask the Denier community to drop the 99%+ that is lies and frauds so that it is easier to take them seriously?;
- “that is time well spent“? no it isn’t. The miniscule contributions that the Deniers have actually made are dwarfed by the damage they have done;
- “too encumbered by groupthink“? yet another Denier talking point (and a “label”) begging the question. Demonstrate it or drop it, but spare us the barrage of baseless accusations.
And that is just “off the top of my head.”
Yet Curry does not seem to be an ideologue sensu much of the Denier community; she mouths the talking points, but lacks the knee jerk frothing hysteria that characterizes them. Nevertheless, by embracing the Denier dogma she is also picking up some of their ideology since the two are inextricably linked; the one follows on the other.
There does seem to be something personal about her virulent antipathy to the IPCC. Her railings against it are extreme (above) and quite illogical. I have no idea what it could be, but given her many other signs of niavite perhaps it is a sense of betrayal. What she took as the true god turns out to be only human and hence must be cast into the pit of fire.
What seems to have happened to Curry looks like a variant of the false dichotomy fallacy, if not A then B. She feels that there are some problems in the science community and the IPCC in particular, therefore she allies herself with the not-science not-IPCC community as a response. Illogical, but not inconsistent.
Regarding Curry’s tirade about the IPCC (Banh Tieu Chiffonade above), climate scientists, and the scientific community in general , do you detect any uncertainty there? any room left for a more charitable interpretation of the IPCC and the scientific community? any hesitation or allowance for the possibility of error?
Of course not. This is not science, which according to Curry is riddled with uncertainty. This is Curry’s ideology and personal dogma, about which she is absolutely certain. No room for doubt or questions there.
The only time the word “doubt” seems to enter her vocabulary is when she is berating others about their supposed shortcomings and apparent unwillingness to conform to her projections of what they should say and do.
Here are some more questions for Mrs Curry.
- If being right merely 1% of the time (still a gross overestimate for the Deneirs, but let’s humour her) is sufficient to justify praise and uncritical acceptance, what should the IPCC’s 99% (98? 99.9?) level of accuracy earn them? Roughly a 100 times more praise? even more uncritical acceptance?
- Or is there some threshold (50%?) beyond which being more right earns you the condemnation and abuse that you have been flinging at the IPCC? If so, what is the level, how was it determined, and what is the reasoning for it? Or is this another Italian Flag? is there a mid-zone where you are neither praised nor condemned?
Bear in mind that we are simply trying to understand the obvious contradictions in your behaviour and speech. Your rampant hypocrisy may be invisible to you, but it is glaring to everyone else.
Trockenbeerenauslese Trifle
Some have noted that Curry responds with politeness and more good grace than has been seen in her critics, including themselves.
I do not get any sense of true politeness from Curry; more that she is “correct”
By that I mean there does not appear to be any genuine interest in the point of view or well being of others, merely an adherence to forms in such a way that leaves no obvious cause for offence, but is devoid of actual good will.
I suspect that this superficiality is at least in part a clumsy attempt to avoid personal confrontation and the attendant discomfort, hence pretending the real causes of conflict do not exist.
It is the same time honoured technique whereby families ignore alcoholism, domestic violence, infidelities and diverse other abuses. Wielded by Curry the technique is every bit as effective at problem solving as it always has been.
More to the point, a key thing to note here is that Curry’s tone is consistently dismissive of her opponents positions and points (what Beck describes as “as-common-as-it-is-infuriating hand wave“; nicely put).
She does not take any of it seriously enough to actually address their points, to know what she is talking about, she accepts the climate science critics claims on faith, and certainly never troubles herself to actually understand why the climate science community has concerns about the Deniers.
All of the above communicate a profound lack of respect for the people she is talking to and about. That she does so in a tone that is superior and glib combined with the arrogance of expecting to be treated as an equal in the discussions while not doing the work to earn it is all the more infuriating.
Frankly, Curry’s artificial sweetness is 
cloying and nauseating; unpleasant when first ingested and leaving a bitter aftertaste. It fails to disguise, and insomuch as it is false, accentuates rather than hides the underlying sourness.
Being blunt, she is being rude, arrogant, disingenuous and quite probably dishonest.
Her conscious motives may be as noble and in good faith as some suggest, but her methods most certainly are not.
Lemon Curry Fool
So what are Curry’s actual methods for “conflict resolution?”
- not taking others seriously, being dismissive of their points without ever addressing them;
- using double standards and being hypocriitcal;
- moving goalposts & other failures to be accountable;
- evading by dissembling, lying and using language to confuse rather than clarify;
- baselessly attacking peoples honesty, integrity and ability
From conflict resolution and mediation work we know that attacking and evading are two types of behaviour that will invariably escalate conflict, and Curry constantly does both .
Curry Attacks directly with baseless accusations etc, and indirectly through acting dismissive, arrogant and superior.
She Evades by being disingenuous, dishonest and insincere.
She does not seem to use any of the behaviours that would actually de-escalate conflict, viz:
Informing: Honestly, clearly and fully stating your own position (and being accountable for it). No hidden agendas or changing it (as opposed to clarifying).
Opening: Sincerely enquiring about and looking into the other position. Honestly seeking to understand it in it’s entirety.
Understanding: Demonstrating and communicating that you have clearly understood the others point of view as they presented it.
Curry’s approach is a case study in how to escalate and exacerbate conflict while trying to appear guiltless. At best she seems to be trying to avoid personal confrontation while pretending the role of mediator, but without doing the actual work of mediation.
The most charitable interpretation is that her understanding of the causes of the conflict is niave and facile; not surprising given that she simply dismisses what the climate science community has to say.
A recipe for Ms Curry
Ms Curry recommends Andrew Montford’s book, ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion‘ to help climate scientists learn “how to avoid unnecessary conflict in the climate debate.”
Curry is clearly one of the last people one would ever want to consult on that topic (or on more than a few aspects of climate science it would seem). If Ms Curry really wants to help resolve the conflicts in the climate debate here are some helpful hints for curtailing her campaign of bridge burning:
- actually know what you are talking about;
- do not make unsubstantiated claims or accusations;
- stand by what you have said (easier done if you abide by point #1);
- do not be dismissive, glib or superior;
- as a corollary to point #4, learn some humility;
- treat your opponents points seriously (see point #1) and actually address them;
- avoid double standards, be consistent and apply the same standards to all, and most particularly yourself;
- use language for clarity, not to confuse and obfuscate;
- stop preaching, start listening;
- learn to accept that you may be wrong and the others in the right;
- be honest, genuine and sincere.
Take large amounts of each, mix well, repeat indefinitely.
Curry şiş Kebabs
An alphabetical collection of posts in which Ms Curry has been skewered and grilled:
- A take on Curry
- At Kloor’s and at Curry’s
- Attribution errors
- Beef with Curry
- Can’t think of any more amusing Curry jokes
- Confusionist Judith Curry goes ‘wicked’ and mangles the work of Martin Weitzman
- Curry
- Curry, part 2: the papers
- Currygate, part 3: the key papers exposed
- Curry, part 4
- Currying confusion
- Curry jumps the shark
- Curry’s Hallowe’en Piece
- Duck Curry
- Favoring Curry
- Hey JC, JC, that’s not alright by me
- Hockey Stick fight at the RC Corral:
- How the mighty have fallen
- Judith Curry advocates for a climate change “Team B”
- Judith Curry: Born Beyond the Shark?
- Judith Curry goes from building bridges to burning them
- Judith Curry on anthropogenic versus natural causes of global warming
- Judith Curry on climate science: Introspection or circling the wagons?
- Judith Curry sticks her neck out
- JC does not understand the internet!
- Judith Curry abandons science
- Judith Curry and the hockey stick
- Judith Curry on ‘dogma’ and ideology
- Judith Curry plants her flag
- Lost in translation
- Maybe it ain’t an act
- More Curried leftovers
- My response to Dr. Judith Curry’s unconstructive essay
- Round in circles with Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice?
- “(S)He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense“
- The curious incident of Judith Curry with the fringe
- The Judith Curry Debunking Room is open
- The paradox of Curry
- UnScientific American: In Lionizing Curry, a Lion Loses its Way
- Who’s being naive? Yet more from J. Curry
- Welcome to the blogosphere, Dr. Curry!
- Willard on Curry
NB:
1) proving the axiom “Fools seldom differ” Stoat seems to have been the first to have characterised Curry’s gibberish as ‘tripe’ (Stoat has tripe as it’s own, separate category) followed by Coby Beck, but I swear I thought to do so independently.
2) Given Curry’s methods for “reconciliation” Sherman’s March to the Sea was a tempting metaphor for this piece, however Sherman’s Campaign had a certain honesty and forthrightness about its’ purpose and hence was felt to be inappropriate.
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
IMAGE CREDITS:
Menudo! It’s what’s for breakfast… by zarzoso
Puffy rice balls (Bánh Tiêu) by add1sun
Trockenbeerenauslese by milst1
Rich Apple Fool by the justified sinner
Kashgar lamb kebabs by Swamibu
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread” is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
Greenfyre's 
[…] Curry’ed Tripe and other recipes « Greenfyre’s […]
Excellent take-down, Greenfyre. One for the notes!
> I have finally gotten around to reading Judith Curry‘s contributions to the climate change debate…
You have my sincerest sympathies. I merely skimmed a few of her drive-by comments and the first few blog posts she made. Expletives aside, my main reaction was “how did this person get a PhD?!”
I think Gavin Schmidt summarised Curry’s contribution to the ‘debate’ most succinctly: “In future I will simply assume you are a conduit for untrue statements rather than their originator.”
I find her blog more disgusting and despicable than even wattsuphisbutt or climatefraudit. They are, at least, run by ignorant non-scientists. JC is, or at least was, a scientist. Why she allows the lies and slanderous comments about real scientists to be on her blog is a real mystery. She also appears to have no real understanding of how real science is conducted.
Tasty.
Note that the tactics mirror that of one of Eli’s great friends. Curry might be thought of as Pielke in drag
—-
I don’t have quite the same take on this.
I don’t disagree that her actions are problematic; but I think Judith Curry is being held to an unusual standard.
First, though, and along the lines of what I take to be the main topic of your post, it is the case that the sought-after communication (resolution) is not possible if it does not demonstrate support for everyone’s interests and helps develop relationships (within as well as outside the science community) based ultimately on mutual respect and cooperation. There would as well have to be no urgency, the facilitator would need to be gifted, and everyone should be minimally open. None of this is the case but I’m not sure she has put herself in the role of facilitator.
She has decided to blog. She is both part of the scientific community and an autonomous being, so she is allowed. If her blog is any indication, she is motivated by a crisis in her own confidence in how science is done in a highly bureauctratized, power-divided society – not the established facts of climate science.
She admits she is new to social thought. This probably explains why she is about two decades behind in voicing her concerns about the historically hegemonic framework of the UN. She would do better to recognize the increasingly empowering and democratizing force of the UN from globalizing pressures. I don’t consider it a coincidence that her perspective is American and that the US, previously flagrantly dominating the UN, is not currently participating positively in the framework.
She is trying to shed light on the area where science and politics meet. Ignoring it hasn’t been working so well and she recognizes that, at least.
All things considered, I think she would have done better to get her department to 1) hire a communicator and 2) hold a staff meeting to address bureaucracy. Then blog with clearer goals.
However if her blog is any indication, she is motivated more by a crisis in her own confidence than anything else. This, too, is an element of social identity and conflict so it potentially adds rather than takes away from her integrity, in the long run.
Unfortunately, in the short run, a lot of what Judith Curry says does come across as confusing and contradictory. But a lot of it isn’t, really: her comments are common criticisms of Academe and institutionalized activity. It’s about balance. It’s a shame she hasn’t put her ideological concerns in better context, especially with colleagues used to drawing battle lines.
Like everyone else, she is uncertain of the way forward given the lies and frauds of deniers. And like all other scientists, she shares a concern for scientific integrity, andn the perception of integrity.
Now I want to comment on something else.
She’s ‘arrogant’, ‘dismissive’, ‘disrespectful’, ‘rude’, ‘uncaring’,etc. but males with identical behaviours are often viewed as confident, competent, passionate, and intellectual.
Women are to be sweet, but not sickeningly so. O.K., but I’m not sure I have encountered this expectation of males. My point is not hard to follow, I’m sure.
Perhaps more importantly, those who are rushing to burn Judith Curry at the stake may also want to double-check that they are not making her a scapegoat for the collective anxiety of the climate science community, which is as a group understandably demoralized by the struggle for recognition and the desire to make headway on climate change communication.
—-
> My point is not hard to follow, I’m sure.
You’re insinuating there is an element of misogyny in the criticism of Curry. I’d like to see a shred of evidence for this, otherwise it’s the same type of baseless slander that Curry herself employs and a very unpleasant accusation on its own.
As best I can tell, Curry is being criticised without regard to the content of her underpants. Here’s Joe Romm in 2009: She is a first rate scientist (CV here) and someone I have great respect for.
Here’s Joe Romm a year later: Judith Curry abandons science. Unless Romm became a misogynist at some point in the past 12 months (his wife and daughter must be pissed off!), then it seems it must be due to Curry’s behaviour.
P.S. Before anyone starts wringing their hands over the unflattering photo of Curry used by Romm, here’s the one he chose for Monckton.
—-
“You’re insinuating there is an element of misogyny in the criticism of Curry. I’d like to see a shred of evidence for this, otherwise it’s the same type of baseless slander that Curry herself employs and a very unpleasant accusation on its own.”
I’m stating that the language people use reflects many things, including gender dynamics; that many people I respect overlook this aspect of their perceptions; and that it is relevant.
Misogyny (hating women) is not what I was referring to.
I don’t feel any need to argue, with you, about this. My main points were not related to it. [1]
There is a problem (currently being played out and also discussed in Greenfyre’ link to Bart) with the battle mentality that has developed and it seems to be having very limited effectiveness with deniers, and communication of climate change to the public. [2]
I recognize that Greenfyre is arguing that the refusal to call out deniers, use the label, etc. is equivalent to parroting the denier canon. [3] I’m not sure I agree, and I made an initial attempt to explain why.
I am questioning perceptions and arguments that she is making the situation ‘far worse’.
She indicates she expected to be widely misunderstood by colleagues. She is correct. [4] I don’t know if her present understanding of other unintended consequences is as clear.
She is perceived as sort of suddenly striking out on her own but that may not be the case; she indicates she has questioned the approach of institutions to climate change communication for years but was dismissed; and her blog indicates that she is acting together with an informal support network of youth who fully accept the need to act on climate change.
She is being called arrogant and naive, at least in part for taking this step and seeming now to ignore colleauges’ concerns. It was also arrogant to have believed, as she did with other scientists previous to now, that the knowledge and expertise of scientists would be sufficient to convince the public. [5]
Meaningful communication takes time. Unfortunately, I see just as much defensiveness and dismissiveness in Gavin in their exchanges, as I see in Judith. It’s an all-around disappointment.
It will take some time for any changes to the usual dynamics to take any real shape or have any significance, one way or the other.
Her experience suggests she understands who deniers are, and what they’re all about. [6]
McIntyre presently has enormous blogosphere influence that has been growing not shrinking, for years. I am interested in what others think is working with the present approach to deniers, and not working, and will be very interested in following subsequent posts. [7]
—-
@Martha
> …many people I respect overlook this aspect of their perceptions; and that it is relevant.
I dare say we all overlook many aspects of our perception – but if you’re going to accuse people of doing so it would be nice to offer some evidence and not respond with “I don’t feel any need to argue, with you, about this.” I could just as easily suggest that some women see gender bias whenever they or their ‘sisters’ receive criticism.
> Misogyny (hating women) is not what I was referring to.
So, just double standards based on gender? Still an unpleasant accusation in my book.
> There is a problem … with the battle mentality that has developed…
Yes, there is a battle. One started a couple of decades ago by the fossil corporations who have paid for a tsunami of lies and propaganda. They’ve been joined by the free market gang and every wingnut who likes the attention they receive for spouting nonsense.
> …and it seems to be having very limited effectiveness with deniers,
The deniers are *unreachable*. No evidence or argument will sway them. They will not be reasonable, they will not compromise. The only solution is to expose their ignorance and lies and make them as laughable as creationists or flat-earthers.
> …and communication of climate change to the public.
Public concern about global warming is once again on the rise. Don’t confuse the howling of the deniers online with what the sane majority of the public think.
> I am questioning perceptions and arguments that she is making the situation ‘far worse’.
She provides legitimacy for the deniers. Why do you think her blog is swamped with them? They’ve found a real-life climate scientist who pumps out so much vague rhetoric and insinuations against other climate scientists that they believe she is on their side.
> She indicates she expected to be widely misunderstood by colleagues.
I predict I will be banned from this blog if I start declaring ACC is a hoax in every comment. So what?
> …her blog indicates that she is acting together with an informal support network of youth who fully accept the need to act on climate change.
There are many contradictory elements of her output – but that does not excuse the bad parts.
> She is being called arrogant and naive…
She is being called and accused of many things – because of what she is saying. The climate community did not wake up one morning and unanimously decide to pick on Judith Curry.
> It was also arrogant to have believed … that the knowledge and expertise of scientists would be sufficient to convince the public.
Naive perhaps, not arrogant. And no one could have predicted the massive propaganda campaign that has been conducted against ACC and science itself.
> …I see just as much defensiveness and dismissiveness in Gavin in their exchanges, as I see in Judith.
But only one of them is *right*. You’ll see as much “defensiveness and dismissiveness” in a mathematician being told that “2 + 2 = 5”. Did you read the entirety of Curry’s output and Schmidt’s responses on RC? http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=4431 – I did and Curry received a proportionate response IMO.
> Her experience suggests she understands who deniers are, and what they’re all about.
The evidence does not support this. She sees e.g. McIntyre as being a valuable “citizen scientist” – contrary to all credible opinion of what he really is.
> McIntyre presently has enormous blogosphere influence that has been growing not shrinking, for years.
Absolutely not true. McIntyre has a small, devoted following of deniers. He had a moment in the sun following the stolen CRU emails when e.g. the Guardian stupidly gave him column inches. He’s now returned to sideshow blog status, picking away at the edges, trying to find loose threads to pull on. Perhaps he’ll start another campaign of harassment against a climate science following his failure against Prof. Jones?
> I am interested in what others think is working with the present approach to deniers…
Exposing their ignorance and dishonesty for all to see. Same as it ever was. And climate scientists recognise this, e.g. http://www.climaterapidresponse.org/
> …and not working…
Attempting to reason with people who are not reasonable. Giving people the benefit of the doubt when they have demonstrated their dishonesty. It’s a waste of time and energy. We need to move on without them – and that includes Judith Curry.
Actually, Martha, “we” make the same criticisms against men who employ similarly dubious ‘bridge-building’ methods. Eli referred to Roger Pielke above, who is very definitely a male. And see my comment on “winnipegman” below.
— frank
According to her own standards as a scientist, much of what Curry says (eg in the comments on the Montford Delusion post) is just incurrherence.
Excellent!
Good to have you back, Mike!
Hope to see you on the planet30 list soon.
I haven’t followed Dr. Curry’s latest on her blog. After seeing her spectacular self-immolation in the comments at RealClimate (followed by digging herself a deep hole as she tried to ‘explain’ herself) I knew she didn’t have the critical thinking skills necessary to do anything but confuse the issues even further.
Wasn’t sure what you were refering to at first but then I tracked down the exchange.
I’m stunned.
It’s like somebody took her name and tried to make her look awful on the Internet.
She opens her mouth only to cram both feet in there. I’ve read it twice already and I can’t believe that it could all go so horribly bad.
Spectacular immolation barely covers it.
The woman’s a wierdo.
Horrible to say but she’s off with the fairies.
“How the mighty have fallen” at Demon Haunted World Blog.
Until then I thought that Curry was worth reading because she seemed to be genuinely sceptical.
Like many I was shocked and appalled by her performance at RC in the Montford thread. She came over as no better than an average ignorant denier non-scientist. What a disappointment!
greenfyre:
This sounds really similar to the approach of a ClimateSight commenter named “winnipegman”: basically, they preach ‘respect’ and ‘humility’ and ‘open-mindedness’ even while they arrogantly portray themselves as the true arbiters of other people’s behaviour and science.
— frank
On second thought, I think I’m a bit uncomfortable with looking at a science brouhaha in terms of ‘conflict resolution’. Science is about fact-finding (discovering the underlying facts of an issue), while conflict resolution is more about horse-trading (simply finding some solution that makes everyone happy).
— frank
—-
greenfyre:
Perhaps… they may be sort of similar in some ways. But in the end, I think it’s important to distinguish between fact-finding and horse-trading, especially when the two are quite confusable.
— frank
Excellent job.
Enjoyed this one immensely.
Welcome back.
—-
This comment has been moved to “The Dunce’s Corner” as per stated policy:
The author does not seem to have read the post and said nothing relevant to it. He was simply abusing this space and as such has been moved to where he belongs.
It looks more like you are scared of greenfyre’s debunking, given that you’ve summarily ignored all of greenfyre’s actual points.
— frank
So I’m guessing we’ll see you at Currys for a frank (no pun) scientific discourse?
—-
There is no “fear” of Curry. Her errors, ignorance and mealy-mouthed accusations are trivially simple to expose. Perhaps if you’d read and responded to Greenfyre’s excellent analysis, you would understand that?
As for being scared of you deniers, yapping in the comments of some sideshow blog?! Hardly! The only real problem is that the scientifically illiterate have a vote… but fortunately you are in a minority of any population.
Of course, it’s obvious why you deniers have flocked to her blog: you think you’ve found that massively rare creature – a real climate scientist who supports your denial of the near-total scientific evidence and opinion. And given her serial errors with the science, her easy accusations and insinuations of professional misconduct amongst the planet’s climate scientists, it’s easy to believe she has become a denier herself.
Sadly for you deniers, you’re still no further forward. Curry can “cover … the Radiative Transfer model” on her blog until she turns blue – it won’t alter the peer-reviewed literature. Science 101: science is not done on blogs.
Do you ever wonder why you need to go to blogs to find the answers that you *want*? You should. There’s a reason that *every* credible, expert scientific body on the planet accepts and supports the fact of ACC. Can you guess why that is? Or are you scared of the answer?
Some people began referring to this piece (I can’t call it discussion, it is the usual Denier gigglefest) on a completely unrelated post over at Ms Curry’s Climate etc. I replied merely noting their lack of substance and stating “Let me know if any adults have something to say“, which in turn has drawn a response from Ms Curry..
Readers of this blog know I dislike having the comment thread for a post kidnapped, so to extend the same courtesy to Ms Curry & not kidnapping her Evangelicals and environmentalism comment thread, I am moving that discussion to here, attached to the post that it is actually about.
Ms Curry said:
[1] If you can point me to any of the comments made so far that suggest the author has actually read this piece, much less has anything of substance to say, I would appreciate it as it has eluded me;
[2] As you do not substantiate this claim it is an appeal to ridicule fallacy rather than simply ridicule. Do you have anything of substance to say? and if so, what?;
[3] The post makes many substantive, documented points, one of them (repeatedly made) being that you are dismissive and fail to respond to criticism of particulars. Are you failing to respond to this criticism by simply dismissing it? and hoping that by proving it you have somehow refuted it?
[4] Can you point me to any relevant to the subject of this post? It has a very particular and narrow focus; if I missed something relevant I would love to hear about it.
[5] Because they are not relevant to the subject of this post? If there are any that are which I missed, as per #4, please tell me.
[6] As per point #5, none seem to be relevant to the subject of this post As none seem to be relevant to my topic here, what was your point in directing me there?
Did you even read this post? Did you understand what it was about?.
I note your comment does not refer to anything specific within this post, and nothing you say actually suggests that you grasped what the piece was about. In the post I even ask you a number of very specific questions which are not rhetorical, but no sign that you even registered their existence, much less a reply.
In replying please show some sign that you are not doing a generic brush off to a piece barely skimmed because i) I assure that is not going to work here ii) it would rather prove the main point of the post rather than refute it.
Thank you
Judith Curry dismissing something she hasn’t read? How odd, she NEVER did that before! Well, apart from that Deepclimate plagiarism thingie…
—-
J
… and that Mann et al 2008 thingie…
[Response: (by Gavin Schmidt)
Then again, those would be little more than “Mini tempests in a blogospheric teapot”, right?
What relevance does reading original sources have to critiquing anyway?
you write purty… but at the end of the day you’re substance is on a par with dhogaza. Insult without evidence, slime, retreat and repeat.
kinda of a waste of time and energy, unless your goal in life is to pull a Tobis and erect a living monument of hatred and despair.
nice pictures, though.
—-
Tom Fuller:
Oh the irony. You just described yourself.
— frank
Not so. Tom Fuller has to be banned, as he never retreats.
You have a point. 🙂 — frank
> …erect a living monument of hatred and despair.
^ Exhibit #529 from Tom Fuller.
I will do my level best to live with the humiliation of being so moved. It will be tough, but my resolve is strong.
—-
Instead of portraying yourself as some sort of modern-day hybrid of Spartacus and William Wallace and Joan of Arc, you can simply address the points in greenfyre’s blog post, instead of ignoring them and spouting talking points.
— frank
—-
This comment has been moved to “The Dunce’s Corner” as per stated policy:
The author does not seem to have read the post and said nothing relevant to it. He was simply abusing this space and as such has been moved to where he belongs.
Well this is entertaining. For those of you who haven’t stopped by my blog Climate Etc. at judithcurry.com, I encourage you to do so.
On a recent thread, i selected the “editors choice” top ten posts for the year, I encourage you read these and make up your mind about what I am all about and what I have to say on the subject of climate change.
Uncertainty gets a seat at the big table: Part IV (my congressional testimony)
Testimony Followup: Part II
Decision making under climate uncertainty: Part I
What can we learn from climate models?
Confidence in Radiative Transfer Models
Overconfidence in IPCC’s detection and Attribution: Part I, II, III
Culture of building confidence in climate models
The Uncertainty Monster
Pakistan on my mind
Hurricanes and global warming: 5 years post Katrina
The links to these posts are provided on this thread:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/31/climate-etc-s-greatest-hits-for-2010/
—-
> For those of you who haven’t stopped by my blog Climate Etc. at judithcurry.com, I encourage you to do so.
I did and have. It’s just another denier-friendly blog, pandering to the deniers with weasely rhetoric. A complete waste of time to anyone interested in learning about climate science and the anti-science propaganda that attempts to undermine the science.
The conclusions about your output from the likes of Dr Schmidt, Dr Romm, Dr Lambert, etc. include:
* “a conduit for false statements” … “Curry abandons science” … “The list of reliable sources in climatology just got a bit shorter.”
We know that the deniers love your output – but are there any credible sources that are applauding your ‘unique contribution’ to the ‘debate’? The single journalist at SciAm who has fallen for your spiel is as close as it gets – and that’s a *very* weak endorsement.
> I refer you to the significant statements about climate change that I have made. … I have expounded on these issues at length in the blogosphere.
It’s always somewhere else that you’ve addressed all the points, isn’t it? 😉
> …sliming me by the petty tyrants of the climate blogosphere is important…
Is that how you’re describing Drs Romm, Schmidt, Lambert, et al?!
Judith,
I have stopped by your blog and spent time reading your posts and discussion. It’s good that you are stopping by this blog and doing the same.
Gryposaurus asks you important questions that should be addressed (below) for accountability. Thanks.
On your blog, you ask to engage with philosophical and political issues. I can do that here, as can others.
I want to speak with you about two problems right now. The first is related to the importance of a thoughtful use of terms to reflect meaning. The second is the importance of skills to engage intelligibly in argumentation.
Firstly, then, you engage in heavy use of the term ‘tribalism’. This term is used both in and outside of scholarship, and is generally not helpful. I’m sure you are at least aware that it is tied to colonialist views of Africans as primitive and stupid people. Enough already. It is pejorative (as you intend) but also racist as you use it, to any thoughtful person. To be clear, it is not a neutral word outside of your use of it i.e., to describe the problems with communication about climate. You use it so constantly and thoughtlessly that I have to assume you do not have much conception of meaningful language use that includes adequate awareness of key power relations.
I hope you further your understanding of power relations, and in keeping with thta, I encourage you to be up to date on criticisms of the U.N. framework and specifically the historical role of dominating American foreign policy interests. This will add to a coherent understanding of why the U.S. is not presently participating in an international agreement to curb emissions. This is a separate, specific and far more important power relationship and explanatory point than the general nature of institutionalized social activity, such as science and Academe. Of course it’s all related for anyone with a social analysis, but the problems with science as an establishment are widely understood and discussed in philosophy of science and date back to the Popper-Kuhn debate and before that to critiques of positivism. We live in a highly bureaucratized economic system and I am used to speaking with scientists, here and elsewhere, who know that, consider it, and understand it, in relation to the production of knowledge.
Secondly, you have chosen to approach the situation using argumentation but to be honest with you your skills in this area are not the best.
In particular, there is a pattern of not making it clear when you are putting forward or outlining the arguments of others e.g. McIntyre on Mann. Clarity of this sort is a basic step in communicating reasoning and discussion. Maybe you think you are doing this, or doing it well, but it’s not the case. At all.
Also, it is important to learn to clearly state your own view, separately from your attempts to outline the views of others. You’re not doing that. It involves not only being able to accurately summarize and contextualize the views of others and make it clear when you are doing that, but also, where you see things similarly, where you see things differently, why, criticisms you would like to make, your own assumptions, your own value considerations, what you are rejecting, some resulting questions, some awareness of what others are doing to contribute to moving forward, and what you don’t know.
Ongoing discussion of your goals, interests, and how you think you’re doing with what you want your actions to contribute, would probably make your project all that much more intreresting to everyone. 🙂
—-
Uh, the relevance to your post is this. The post is about me. [1] I refer you to the significant statements about climate change that I have made. [2] Rather than discuss anything of substance that I have said, you focus on issues that are mini tempests in the blogospheric teapot. [3] I have expounded on these issues at length in the blogosphere. [4] If you want to waste your time on these little tempests and think that sliming me by the petty tyrants of the climate blogosphere [5] is important, well go ahead and have fun.
—-
Judith, those that have been going into your substance have found it disappointingly lacking substance. Your whole Italian flag stuff was, to quote James Annan, incoherent nonsense. Many others have pointed out that much of your uncertainty discussions are based on, in lack of a kinder word, ignorance. That covers quite a few of the “editor’s picks” you listed!
“I have finally gotten around to reading Judith Curry‘s contributions to the climate change debate…”
“An alphabetical collection of posts in which Ms Curry has been skewered and grilled:
[list of linked posts from articles itself removed due to length]
First off let me say I love your writing. Great vocabulary but not verbose.
Quick question, what’s the motivation to dig up a debate from 2-3 months ago that has been, as you’ve thoroughly documented, exhaustively covered elsewhere? You’ve obviously got some chops as a writer, why waste it on such low hanging fruit? Why are you getting yourself so riled up about this, what do you hope to accomplish?
—-
Do you know that Curry is a credentialed climate scientist? Can you really not think why she should be the subject of further analysis and exposure? And do you not realise that Greenfyre’s analysis is different to the other ones?
P.S. A more cynical man than me would suspect that you’re one of Curry’s fans who is feeling threatened and aggrieved by this in-depth evisceration of Curry and her claims. 😉
I’ve had several questions for Judith that have gone unanswered over the past few months. Now whether this is because I am an anonymous internet presence, or because she thinks my questions are beneath her to answer, or because she lacks time, or because of some other reason, I cannot say. But I think they are very relevant to the “building bridges” discussion.
The first is a continuation of her assault on the IPCC climate models, that as far as I know, she has yet to correct the record on, even after Gavin train-wreck at Collide-a-scape, which was well before her post on her own blog.
The second is her ideas on the feedback loop that she sees in the IPCC “dogma” or “ideology” or whatever new word she wants to call it. This, to me, is the basic skeptic overshoot that makes it difficult to extend any “bridge” afterwards.
The third is a question about her advice to Congress, specifically about what she suggests happens to funding. This just looks like an extension of the IPCC attack.
Now these questions may not be important overall, and perhaps I can answer them myself, although not completely, but I can tell you that these are the types of questions that are on a lot of supporters of mainstream science have on their minds. If she wants to do what she says she wants to do, then it would help to build bridges in both directions. If she thought that the IPCC needed to take it’s skeptics more seriously and answer their questions with more diligence, then I think the first example could be her own.
I’ll also add that she really doesn’t define her words much, and this adds to her overall vagueness. I’ve tried to square this also, to no avail.
[1] That would be this Richard S Courtney
[2] Interesting given that I am linked by Tamino, Tobis, Deltoid, Brook, Rabett, etc … many of the science blogs actually.
[3] Actually I am kind of surprised it was that few. Of course many here are already familiar with you and your site, and for the most part it’s not relevant except to ascertain that I quoted you fairly and in context (which I did), but still … only 11?
[4] Appeal to ridicule fallacy. I assume that you are aware that this is not an acceptable substitute for actually addressing the points raised here, and is in fact a sign of weak or sloppy thinking? you may want to provide some substance first; then at least it would not be a logical fallacy.
You spent your time writing this rather than answering any of the questions and points raised here? Well I assume that you know who your audience is, what will appeal to them, and what your real goal is.
One would think that having people like Courteney (Dip Phil) and Oliver K Manuel (iron sun) as regulars would make Curry have some second thoughts….
Indeed. As I commented on Curry’s blog: “…you are known by the company you keep… and you’re not keeping good company.”
Sadly, I don’t think she’s really aware any more. She’s gone in to ‘lock-down mode’ – one “tribe” (her word) is attacking her, the other is serenading her with praise and sympathy. As she has demonstrated here and many other places, she is not responding to specifics – just ‘feelings’ and reading from some internal script.
—-
Rest assured I read this blog and wouldn’t click through to Curry’s unless necessary. I don’t recall doing so last week.
Courtney is well known for popping up on blogs, making superficially acceptable but ultimately wrong statements, then running away when people start asking difficult questions.
Oh, wait, thats already covered in the thread you link to. I wonder what Courtney thinks of the point that it looks like 2010 will be warmest on record? What happened to 10 years of global cooling then?
—-
Just to join the tubes up: Romm did a nice piece on Courtney – British coal industry flack pushes geo-engineering “ploy” to give politicians “viable reason to do nothing” about global warming.
> Interesting given that I am linked by Tamino, Tobis, Deltoid, Brook, Rabett, etc … many of the science blogs actually.
And the Guardian: prominent reference in an article and permanent sidebar link on Monbiot’s page, at least.
Assuming Curry is being truthful, just goes to show how little attention she pays to the reality-based climate community. Perhaps if she spent less time on the websites of a retired mining executive and a permanently wrong radio weather presenter, she might have a better grasp of reality!
—-
Mike – since you linked to my blog, and Dr. Curry didn’t name names, I can only conclude I’m now officially one of the “petty tyrants of the climate blogosphere”. Can we organize? Maybe start a rock band? I think that’d be a pretty cool name 🙂
Thanks for this summary post, and #2, I’m looking forward to part 3!
Arthur
—-
Maybe Tom Petty would agree to join.
Then you could call it “Tom’s Petty Tyrants and the Incoherents”
Horatio would join up if you sang the blues
—-
Horatio has also done a few other “cover” (your ears) tunes and has been looking for a label (but “Petty Tyrant Records” might do)
House of Lords Diner
Denyin’ Lies
Who’ll Stop the (Runaway) Train?
Tangled up in CO2
Sunspots get in your eyes
Lookin’ for Correlation
There might be others (admittedly a scary thought)
If you are petty tyrants, then I guess you should play march music, e.g. “The imperial march” from the Star Wars movies. “Petty Tyrants of the Climate Blogosphere March Band”.
—-
Uh-oh, what have I started? 🙂 I was envisioning something along the lines of “Daft Punk” rather than country, blues, or a marching band, but maybe we should just let the talents bloom as it were… though it looks like Horatio’s way ahead of the rest of us, as usual!
—-
I’m going on down to Greenfyre’s Farm,
I’m gonna join in a rock and roll band.
I’m gonna camp out on the land.
I’m gonna get my carbon free (and fee, too)
We are tardust.
We are warmin’
And we’ve got to get ourselves back to the garden.
Horatio knows he needs help.
Maybe Lindsay Lohan has an extra room.
—–
Petty Tyrants of the Climate Blogosphere
— by Horatio Algeranon
How indubitably inspirant
To be dubbed a “Petty Tyrant”
By a Climate Oracle perched on high
On Mount Parnassus, at Delphi.
—-
You were being fair re. Judith Curry. I needed to see for myself.
I am actually astonished by the type of incompetence she displays.
It’s so disappointing to me.
She is about a decade behind on the evidence.
But I have to say that one of the biggest surprises to me has been her general lack of intellectual capacity. There is such little breadth or depth to her knowledge that I am tempted to feel it is a waste of a spot in academe, and unfair to so many women I know who work so hard, have such good minds, and can offer outstanding levels of competence in their fields, and beyond.
She is trying to read more broadly e.g. in economics, social thought and philosophy. The results are clear: she misunderstands and misapplies just about everything that demands good intellectual ability.
Along the same lines, she struggles with her ability to objectively self-assess.
She is without question the same version of talking head that I have observed among so many of her retired American engineer groupies. Sorry — not to diminish a particular group within the profession but the demographic is so striking and such a majority of her support base that it really demands explanation.
Which brings me closer to my point. Since in discussions of the science she demonstrates such a surprising lack of some foundational knowledge and intellecutalism in key areas, and makes such surprisingly simple errors, when she shared the views of the climate community she had to have been just as unable to appreciate the evidence correctly and reflect on the complexity of the surrounding issues. So, she was just going along with others. That’s very concerning.
It’s concerning not only in terms of quality science, since science is an area where there must be accountability and credibility. But it means she slipped by, all this time. I need to think about whether the gender issues I first wanted to consider, here, actually explain anything about how she a) was admitted and advanced, despite only minimal ability, and b) slipped along undetected for most of her career.
😦
Girls just want to have fun 😉