BPSDB
Guest post by Martha
Martha has been a frequent participant in discussions on Judith Curry‘s blog and shares with us some thoughts and observations.
It seems like only yesterday that American scientist Judith Curry announced her arrival on the blogosphere. She has created a blog based on the idea that climate change deniers are good for science and she insists deniers are skeptics, compelled to expose what they (and she) see as the ‘corruption’ of climate science and the peer review process.
While she brandishes a contrarian sword she strongly presents as disinterested in the usual denier conspiracy theories about a one-world government plot threatening the free market economy.
Judith Curry asserts she is independent of all that. She is the right scientist: the good scientist. She denies any ulterior motives that might be perceived negatively by others.
Sure, she has disclosed a small private commercial venture associated with the resources and students at her academic institute, but this is not generally viewed as problematic (although maybe it should be). While attempts to downplay or dismiss the scientific consensus on climate change are not new, especially for ideological or profit motives, she insists she is only interested in the scientific evidence.
‘I am right’.
Judith Curry sometimes posts bone-dry data, which I guess at least ensures the appearance of some examination of the science. However, it is apparent that she doesn’t let the most current research or huge holes in her basic knowledge hold her back. She litters her blog with posts that are a curious grab-bag of recycled denier arguments and irrelevancies that she calls ‘common sense’.
Apparently being right requires an abundance of false misleading comments, deliberate confusion and other mischief-making. Her juxtaposition of serious claims to science with what amounts to denier ad copy is bizarre. She disputes whatever she can think of and excoriates colleagues as often as possible.
It is impossible to ignore how often she makes facile mistakes. In one small but typical example, I recall how she expressed great excitement about what she identified as a ‘new’ paper just provided to her by a student. She had examined the paper and felt it would seriously impact the direction of the next IPCC report, along the lines of her own concerns.
It was a party-crasher when I noted that the paper was 7 years old, familiar to many people, discussed in the science, and referenced in AR4. (Privately, of course, I wondered why neither she nor all the commenters were unable to read a date at the top of a paper, or at least recognize the general vintage of research.)
She responded that she has become so busy and interested in new things and people that such a mistake is understandable. Her comments, she argued, stand – as did the promotion of other work by co-author Pielke Sr, who arrived to promote both of them, to their mutual delight.
And so it goes, with a Judith Curry ad post. Indeed, post after post is such tired and thinly masked ad copy that she must supplement it with her own sagging psychological processes.
‘I am good’.
Judith Curry frequently presents herself as morally superior. Perhaps not entirely coincidentally, she also seems to believe that the CRU incident involves a morally motivated whistleblower. A host of dubious claims on denier sites and in the media have tried to portray this sensationaistl story, but not an accurate story. Judith Curry’s clear preference for romanticizing the wilder shores of denialism has nothing to objectively recommend it, but it does likely serve a crucial psychological purpose in the service of her beliefs.
Basically, it’s a simple formula. She ensures she is not responsible for what she says by mostly relying on re-posting what others say. If it’s wrong, she is not responsible because someone else said it. This is a magical key to the avoidance of accountability. Hence she is still “good” (and deserving of attention).
So what if post after post is breathlessly error-filled or that some aspects of reality appear too problematic for her? She sees a certain charm in the way she sticks to her guns no matter what anybody says. And she is combing through old issues and going to set things straight for the good of us all, by golly.
‘Some dysfunctions of sexism’.
Judith Curry recycles what all other denier blogs say, while dressed up in a skirt, to the applause of a cadre of old fashioned, mostly retired males who express a high level of rivalry with scientists. Frankly, the whole thing is like watching a skit from 1950’s era college interaction. I have to admit, it was interesting for a few minutes if only because of these dynamics, especially since it enables her to ignore all threats to her ego.
Together, they employ the strategy of suggesting that attacks on her are inherently sexist. Since we live in a sexist society, there is unfortunately always that possibility; however, given that I have seen more attacks on her blog directed at me and other women, by men expressing unusual contempt for women who challenge Judith Curry, I would say it’s a perceptual reversal.
I can also say that I don’t think there is any of the usual quasi-pornographic perceptions of her going on in their defense of her, eg I don’t think they are diminishing her by envisioning her in leather. However, there is something perhaps even more unsettling about a grown woman who likes to play mischief-making little girl to a group of dissatisfied men.
Is it tied to the inferiority complex of a woman whose entry to science was facilitated by an affirmative action program? Probably not, because she seems to be in possession of an ego that assumes its own merit. However, since she does want to need to be the central figure in her own universe, it raises other questions for thoughtful women and men.
We live in a culture where girls traditionally have not been the centre of the universe as
often as boys. It’s understandable if she has needed to matter more than she has. So perhaps she set her sights on science, filtering ambition through a discipline that was traditionally male dominated.
For whatever reasons, perhaps she again feels she doesn’t matter, so has decided she should be the major character in a story now of her own creation. Her sense of blogosphere celebrity is neither meaningful nor important, but it does provide her with the attention and protection of a like-minded group who cries ‘more, more!’ when she performs for them.
Further, we have to understand that she gets power from her protectors, and that there are benefits to playing the victim. Mostly, she is reassured that she matters – but not in a way that requires any responsibility-taking and honesty for what she says or does.
Her protectors are reassured that they matter, too, and they share the same personal and political illusions. All in all, there are enough lollipops to go around. Judith Curry has either erased or doesn’t remember her previous accomplishments; either that, or previous accomplishments were based in similar dysfunctional gender dynamics.
‘Horsepoop’
She recycles hysterical accusations of misleading use of data, but also routinely demonstrates that she is herself incapable of the most basic internet and reading skills. She treats Republican press releases as if they are statements of fact. Where it is possible to follow up on her sources of information, she is often found to be satisfied with seriously misrepresenting information or just making things up.
Many of her posts reveal surprising ignorance about domestic and international decision-making considerations and mechanisms, and almost no ability to relate to the human dimensions of impacts. Skills for media analysis are completely absent.
Her strongest enthusiasm is reserved for posts that recycle fears about the potential for policy to impose targets that she believes will threaten individual freedoms in America, and her country’s industrial competitiveness. She describes the evidence for human-caused climate change as ‘mixed’. She pretends that there isn’t an enormous body of climate science research that provides overall evidence and a basis for CO2 emissions reductions.
She can (and probably will) continue to insist that she is only interested in scientific evidence, even though this is clearly at odds with posts filtered through the lens of a simple-minded free market Bush-era perspective that relies on tricks and horsepoop to stretch and distort the science.
‘missing reasons’.
Judith Curry can’t explain her special insights or why she considers her response to the scientific evidence to be more rational than that of most colleagues. She uses the language of hierarchy to represent her operating assumptions, and places not only her reasoning but her status above colleagues, other women, children, and the natural world. Clearly she has a standpoint.
Yet in posts where she wishes to highlight the ‘corrupting’ influence of ‘groupthink’ on other climate scientists, she shows herself entirely unable to examine or discuss her own assumptions or the filter through which she views things, preferring instead to assume her own superior objectivity and hope that nobody notices. Of course, on her blog, pretty much nobody does.
In bursts of especially creative activity, she appeals to an idea or two from theories of the social construction of knowledge or philosophy of science. While she is evasive about explaining exactly how a massive IPCC ‘groupthink’ could have happened, she hints that it might have something to do with Thomas Kuhn.
She is drawn to an entirely opportunistic use of relativist arguments, however, which she uses to dismiss her colleagues – without realizing that she has not ensured an escape hatch for her own captive subjectivity.
It’s remindful of magazine cartoonist Bill Maul cartoon depiction of the figures inside a classical snow-scene paperweight saying ‘how do we know we’re not inside someone else’s paperweight?’
‘The picture of libertarian womanhood’. The more women rise up against deniers, the more we all rise up. My guess is that Judith Curry will not be viewed positively by other women, and for good reasons. She gives herself no guidelines for being accurate or honest, and her support of efforts to deny the scientific consensus on the extent of human-caused climate change and its significance are based on the deliberate use of ideology to downplay the communication of the science and mask obedience to Bush-era politics.
While I sympathize with her status anxiety and her dependence on males for feelings of self-worth, her blog is flagrantly abusive and indifferent to the those set to suffer the most from climate change, especially women and children with no resources to cope.
There is no question about climate change or the nature of the crisis. A realistic 
economic understanding, from any political perspective, recognizes this. If for no other reason than their motivation to try to retain a market share, corporations already understand this. Judith Curry does too, but she is completely unable to examine her own beliefs.
Like a plastic doll, she has re-purposed herself and regularly updates her clothes and accessories on her blog. Sure she has a science job, ambition, and rooted hair and eyes: but she is just a libertarian cut-out doll, and we need to look afresh at this version of sexism.
Unfortunately, all Judith Curry shows other women is that with enough professional status, conservative belief, time and money – you too can have a blog full of patronizing old men.
.
Image Credits:
Free Child Holding A Bunch of Yummy Colorful Candy Lollipops by Pink Sherbet Photography
Horse Poop! A Day at the Ponies by Chris Breikss
My current obsession is paperweights by jessica mullen
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Comment Policy
–
It is worth knowing and abiding by whether you comment on this blog or not.
- 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.
- The “Spam” Comment Thread is for comments posted by people who think that they can ignore site policy.
Greenfyre's 
I read some when the website opened but haven’t gone back. It’s boring and anti-science.
I find the gender-based speculation in this post highly unnecessary, and even inappropriate. Stick to criticizing the lack of science in JC’s blog rather than attempting amateur psychoanalysis.
M, Can you say a little more about why you find this unnecessary? I find that using a gender analysis helps us raise questions about who is in control of a situation, and how a situation has developed. It often provides important information about relationships.
It is also fundamental in any social and economic analysis, and climate change has differential gender effects – which I hope Greenfyre’s will discuss more in future.
It is not impossible that there are relevant gender-based dynamics, but I don’t think your analysis does a good job in actually providing any concrete evidence for such, and I think this inclusion of the gender-based analysis based on ungrounded supposition detracts from the rest of your arguments, and indeed, from the quality of the host blog.
And specific quotes that are just ugly:
“I can also say that I don’t think there is any of the usual quasi-pornographic perceptions of her going on in their defense of her, eg don’t think they are diminishing her by envisioning her in leather. However, there is something perhaps even more unsettling about a grown woman who likes to play mischief-making little girl to a group of dissatisfied men.”
Ugh! I find this kind of statement inappropriate whether applied to women I admire (Hillary Clinton) or women I disagree with (Condoleezza Rice) (and yes, I have seen parallel kinds of comments applied to both). There are plenty of scientists out there who are milking the contrarian cow, and it isn’t obvious to me why Curry’s actions are gender-based in contrast to Christy, Spencer, Watts, Pielke, or any of the others. I find a sentence like this to be rather sexist, actually. It is hard enough to be a woman in science without having everyone dissecting your every action in terms of gender. Yes, female contrarian scientists are a rare breed, but that doesn’t mean that criticisms should be about their gender rather than their ideas and behavior.
You then go on to note that _probably_ this isn’t an inferiority complex issue – but go on to spend 4 paragraphs making poorly supported suppositions about how everything she does is driven by this protector/victim complex, that she depends on males for her self-worth, etc. etc.
And you end this section by raising the possibility that her previous accomplishments were based on “dysfunctional gender dynamics.”
If you want an example of a _good_ gender driven analysis, look at the MIT report on gender-based discrimination in their own faculty. Based on factual analysis, with clear conclusions, and clear recommendations. In contrast, this blog post is, in my opinion, a sad attempt to take a female contrarian and make it all about her gender rather than her contrarian beliefs.
M, I see. We are, for sure, having conflicting perceptions.
“But picking out one particular contrarian and talking about how her actions are driven by her gender is in my opinion not useful, and in this case, not supported by hard evidence.”
Except I think I say pretty unambiguously that I am interested in climate change denial (not just Judith Curry) and the problem is that she misrepresents the science and policy issues because of her conservative ideology. There is plenty of ‘hard evidence’ linking to discussion of the serious gaps in her knowledge of current science, by other scientists; and as anyone can see, she has a striking pattern of error-filled and politically biased posts. So there is no question, she is arguing backwards from ideology; but she denies it, and insists she is only interested in science. That is not about sex or gender.
““I can also say that I don’t think there is any of the usual quasi-pornographic perceptions of her going on in their defense of her, eg don’t think they are diminishing her by envisioning her in leather. However, there is something perhaps even more unsettling about a grown woman who likes to play mischief-making little girl to a group of dissatisfied men.” Ugh! I find this kind of statement inappropriate whether applied to women I admire (Hillary Clinton) or women I disagree with (Condoleezza Rice) (and yes, I have seen parallel kinds of comments applied to both).”
I’m not sure you take my meaning. I was acknowledging that the objectification of women as objects, especially sexual objects, is often a central aspect of gender analysis; but that there are other more subtle and not sexual (but equally unsettling) aspects to sexism, such as being infantilized. This aspect of sexism is perhaps more complex but just as widely discussed, not only for its risks to women’s e.g. as an aspect of violence perpetrated against women, but also its perverse benefits e.g. to ensure you are not challenged by information or objectivity, when you are just a lil’ innocent scientist with a blog, doing her very best to spread truth and goodness. It has nothing to do with sex and children.
“it isn’t obvious to me why Curry’s actions are gender-based in contrast to Christy, Spencer, Watts, Pielke, or any of the others.”
Great, because it’s not obvious to me, either. I perceive no contrast. The issue is the sexism of climate change denial, whether internalized she is not in any solidarity with women around the world, set to experience some of the worst impacts of climate change) or expressed in the libertarian and neoconservative paternalism of Christy, Spencer, Watts and Pielke, or lesser but similar-minded male supporters at Judith Curry’s. Her actions and interactions complement theirs, both ideologically, and in terms of traditional attitudes of privilege, values, and beliefs. What is obvious is that actions are based in many things that shape gender, and are shaped by gender.
“And you end this section by raising the possibility that her previous accomplishments were based on “dysfunctional gender dynamics.””
I have previously discussed that the affirmative action program for women in science at the university where she was educated has been found to have screened out qualified black women and been focused on promotion of white women. Also when someone consistently demonstrate the inability to get much current climate science right, and seems unable to self-assess, it raises the question of whether they were always not so competent, and what enabled them (over others).
“If you want an example of a _good_ gender driven analysis, look at the MIT report on gender-based discrimination in their own faculty. Based on factual analysis, with clear conclusions, and clear recommendations.”
Here, my purpose was just to raise questions.
On another thread you also wonder about the point of pictures of short skirts and dolls. I was o.k. with a stereotypically sexy and probably for many also sexist image (the Spice girls) book-ended with plastic dolls, because the Spice girls have perceived themselves to be empowering for women. Funnily enough, so does Judith Curry; but different packaging and probably much less real. 😉 I will re-consider the use of such images in future if it turns out this is badly misread.
Understanding one another is a two way street, and to be honest with you, I’m not all that sure your comments tell me that you are making an effort, too. Judith Curry has been excused and indulged and enabled. How do you explain it? I don’t know. But I have told you how I explain it.
cheers
Childish abuse has been deleted
“Martha” succeeds in revealing a lot more about herself in her poor attempt than she discovers about Judith Curry.
—-
The give-away on this personal attack on Dr. Curry comes just 4 paragraphs in, with the claim of “the scientific consensus” it is clear Martha is not talking science at all. No science is determined by a vote, and clearly the so-called evidence is not convincing to all scientists. Ergo, no consensus.
Then all the anti-market blather, i.e., opposition to people making free choices about who they deal with and what values they wish to support, leaves us with what alternative? Support for a dictatorship of those who want to impose their choices on the rest of us (“domestic and international decision-making considerations and mechanisms”)? It’s funny, too, how the biggest proponents of a restricted lifestyle for the masses are those like Gore and Cameron who themselves live in mansions that make most industrialists look like paupers.
No, thank you! I prefer the benefits of an advanced civilization that we enjoy in America, with reliable, cheap energy available to all, brought to us by corporations and other benefactors, assuming we choose to live comfortable lives and are productive enough to earn our own way. That’s the wonderful thing about a market-based economy, that each of us is able to make our own decisions as to what is best for us.
—–
Hello John. I’m not sure what you are reacting to. Domestic decision-making is made by both government and business, and in the U.S., major science and policy institutions are independent of the IPCC. NRC/NAS has been transparent about past industry ties that might have biased their reports (especially in the Bush era) and has recently fully reviewed the science and affirms both IPCC science and policy recommendations. But don’t take my word for it — check it out yourself. I’m interested in what information you have, that no one else has.
I find this analysis very insightful for the increasing number of people who see AGW belief as primarily a social movement that secondly uses climate science as a sort of clothing or mask:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Hrp2wdsvKikC&pg=PA230&lpg=PA230&dq=communist+dogma&source=bl&ots=V5aLFuBgR7&sig=fF-dWIRdD9e9mqfTC9i2oEfvJBg&hl=en&ei=Q8KmTYLDJ82ugQfc3uDzBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&sqi=2&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=communist%20dogma&f=false
—-
Hi Hunter, or to possibly consider things differently,
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=12168
‘Economic Thought and U.S. Climate Change Policy’
Martha,
It is sad that a reputable press like MIT Press would publish such a factually challenged book.
—-
The assumption in your rebuttal is that Martha is actuall offering anything rationl to respond to.
That is an assumption that reasonable people will dispute.
Also, ignoring the interesting parallels as documented in the citation I offered between committed AGW belief and the sad days of committed communists does not make your case more persuasive or less dismissive.
—–
Point out the error, please.
Is it an error to point out that AGW true believers feel empowered by their belief to make extreme demands?
is it an error to point out that chilling social movements of recent history attracted the same kind of extremist adherents? And that those extremists use amazingly similar rationalizations to justify their positions?
You claim skeptics reject empirical fact.
Please. This is your blog, so you can tell yourself this all you wish.
But I am certain you know that is not actually the case.
—-
Hunter, I don’t know if you have noticed this, but you have compulsive posting behaviour in relation to unusual suspicions or fears about communist conspiracies. I’m not sure how this behaviour or these delusions have hooked you, and I notice that you do not wish to examine this by relating to the information I provide in this post. No surprises, there.
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2009/06/06/a-code-of-conduct-for-effective-rational-discussion/
404.
I was gunna point out how the post violated the rules required of the comments, but got the old 404 when I clicked your link.
Prolly explains a lot
—
Martha:
“She gives herself no guidelines for being accurate or honest, and her support of efforts to deny the scientific consensus on the extent of human-caused climate change and its significance are based on the deliberate use of ideology to downplay the communication of the science and mask obedience to Bush-era politics.”
The scientific “consensus” was reached by deleting data, by hiding data and by rigging the peer review process as demonstrated by the climategate emails:
1) “I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue. …We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.”
http://bit.ly/eIf8M5
2) “Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer – 10 year – period [IT IS 13 YEARS NOW!] of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.”
http://bit.ly/ajuqdN
3) “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years [IT IS 13 YEARS NOW!] of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
http://bit.ly/6qYf9a
4) “I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate.”
http://bit.ly/hviRVE
5) “Whether we have the 1000 year trend right is far less certain (& one reason why I hedge my bets on whether there were any periods in Medieval times that might have been “warm”, to the irritation of my co-authors!”
http://bit.ly/ggpyM1
6) ‘The verification period, the biggest “miss” was an apparently very warm year in the late 19th century that we did not get right at all. This makes criticisms of the “antis” difficult to respond to (they have not yet risen to this level of sophistication, but they are “on the scent”).’
http://bit.ly/ggpyM1
7) “I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.”
http://bit.ly/8SPNry
8) “.. the fact is that in doing so the rules of IPCC have been softened to the point that in this way the IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science (which is its proclaimed goal) but production of results. The softened condition that the models themself have to be published does not even apply because the Japanese model for example is very different from the published one which gave results
not even close to the actual outlier version (in the old dataset the CCC model was the outlier). Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes.”
http://bit.ly/afSp5h
Martha, how is an honest person going to interpret the above information other than “corruption” of climate science?
—–
Girma grumbles:
Certainly in a much more honest manner than you continually use. You are one of the most dishonest posters who thinks that because they claim to have a Ph D people will believe what you have to say.
Just for everyone’s information Girma’s claim to fame is to assert that there is no trend in global temperatures over the past 100 or so years but that temperature varies due to “natural cycles” such as ENSO etc.
He even plots graphs to “prove” it. However, anyone who is more intelligent than a 12 year old can look at the graphs he shows and see that one of the “tricks” he uses is to plot “de-trended” data. No wonder he thinks that there is no trend. Remove it first and low and behold – no trend.
He is a frequent poster at rubbish sites such as JC’s where the faithful lap up what he has to say. Tells you a lot about the honesty and intelligence of the majority of the posters on her site.
You are dishonest Girma.
Hmmmm….who do I believe?
someone who is a PhD, and points out that climate has varied considerably over time, more than the present, or some anonymous true believer who calls the person pointing this out ‘dishonest’?
Hunter, you haven’t a clue of what you are talking about. Girma only shows temperature trends (or lack thereof) for the past 100 years or so. So, you think that it is honest to claim “no trend” after you have removed the significant and real trend? Shows how gullible, dishonest and ignorant of science the faithful at JC’s blog are. I can’t believe that she has any respectability left, especially after accepting that disgraceful T-shirt in Lisbon and laughing as she accepted it.
That has got to be one of the most blatant insults to science made by a scientist who is also a supporter of AGW denial.
Ian Forrester: “You are dishonest Girma.”
Let us look at the data and see whether I am dishonest:
Here the accelerated warming of the IPCC:
http://bit.ly/b9eKXz
Here is how the IPCC interprets the above data:
1) Global warming rate for the 150 years period (RED) from 1856 to 2005 was 0.045 deg C per decade.
2) Global warming rate for the 100 years period (PURPLE) from 1906 to 2005 was 0.074 deg C per decade.
3) Global warming rate for the 50 years period from (ORANGE) 1956 to 2005 was 0.128 deg C per decade.
4) Global warming rate for the 25 years period from (YELLOW) 1981 to 2005 was 0.177 deg C per decade.
IPCC then states:
“Note that for shorter recent periods, the slope is greater, indicating accelerated warming.”
Okay, let us apply this “IPCC interpretation of data” procedure to compare the global warming rates in the last 25 years to that in the last 13 years going backward from 2010 as shown in the following plot.
http://bit.ly/fMwWl1
This result gives:
1) Global warming rate for the 25 years period (RED) from 1986 to 2010 was 0.17 deg C per decade.
2) Global warming rate for the 13 years period (GREEN) from 1998 to 2010 was 0.00 deg C per decade. (No warming!)
Like the IPCC, I can then state.
“Note that for shorter recent periods, the slope is smaller, indicating decelerated warming.”
Instead of reporting this GOOD NEWS to the public, some have shifted the goal post by talking about individual year’s temperature by saying “we have had one of the hottest years on record.”
Can’t someone living at the end of the 1930s also say “we have had one of the hottest years on record.”?
http://bit.ly/9kJczm
Yes, the globe was also warming at 0.15 deg C per decade 80 years ago!
There is no warming now (http://bit.ly/fMwWl1).
AGW supporters, is it possible that instead of the accelerating warming of the IPCC shown above, the global mean temperature can be interpreted as a cyclic pattern with an overall warming of only 0.06 deg C per decade as shown in the following plot?
http://bit.ly/cO94in
Did not Feynman stated on doing science the following:
“Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them.”
http://bit.ly/CHGmZ
As the current DECADAL warming rate is zero (http://bit.ly/fMwWl1), not 0.2 deg C per decade as claimed by the IPCC, what is wrong in further validating the theory of man-made global warming before implementing policy based on the theory?
What if we have cooling until 2030?
The global mean temperature data for 2010 is out.
http://bit.ly/f2Ujfn
It is 0.475 deg C.
The previous maximum of 0.548 deg C for 1998, 13 years ago, has not been exceeded.
Global warming has stopped for 13 years, and we continue to count the number of years that the previous maximum has not been exceeded.
How many more years is required to declare global warming has stopped?
—-
“Ian Forrester: “You are dishonest Girma.”
I’m glad you stopped by to confirm my opinion of you and the faithful followers at JC’s blog.
Since you claim to be a scientist (though many people doubt this) you should know that cherry picking is dishonest as is “de-trending” data with an obvious trend and claiming that there is”no trend.”
Whatever Institution awarded you a Ph D should be ashamed of the lack of honesty and ability in one of their graduates.
Girma you insist on seriously defective reasoning, knowledge and ethics. You have been provided with your very own thread for this unameliorable condition– namely, the spam thread.
Going forward, maybe you can say something relevant to the post. Try to spot the ways your self-image is linked to your ridiculous behaviour.
Martha,
Nothing much to say other than very nicely written, well argued and thought-provoking. Thanks.
P.S. That last line is a delicious and fully deserved put-down of Curry!
This piece of work nicely exemplifies what the climate change debate is really all about. From a practical point of view I suppose the question is where does one get a woman to match Curry? Martha is a possibility but she would have to reveal her identity.
Dear David,
Unfortunately, I will not use my last name: I already sometimes experience significant safety issues in my work with violence against women; and I have had a couple of disturbing encounters with stalkers from the internet. So that’s a consideration for me, as it is for anyone.
It’s nice to see you here. While I generally don’t find myself in agreement with anything you say, you are at least honest about your associations e.g. the petroleum industry, and interests e.g. promoting Heartland.
🙂
My pleasure, Martha. I find the psycho-sexual gambit quite stirring. Maybe Carol Browner is now available.
I don’t think a post like this – particularly from an anonymous contributor – is appropriate or constructive.
(I’m thinking of the tone, and the over-the-top statements. There may be efforts to goad people into writing stuff like this. Don’t do it; keep a lid on your id.)
On the other hand it addresses an important question, namely why is Curry’s blog so popular, with 60,000+ often technical comments in just 7 months. But I agree that Martha’s coarseness is id-iomatic (sorry). While I gleefully admit to a certain abstract fondness for women, it is not why I post there. It is for the technical bi-partisan debate.
Ironically, Martha is one of Curry’s most prolific female contributers. Might this be a case of id-sider rivalry?
> …why is Curry’s blog so popular…
Because those in denial of scientific reality have very few web destinations that are hosted by someone with scientific qualifications who are sympathetic to that denial.
> …with 60,000+ often technical comments…
Define “often”. The vast majority are the usual empty, ignorant denier drivel. Regardless, people yapping in comment threads on blogs on the internet have little or no impact on science or reality.
How do the qualifications of the host account for the popularity of the blog? Curry herself is not an active debater, except for some special cases, mostly when she defends the greenhouse theory.
Her position was that there is a genuine scientific debate and her blog, taken as data, proves her conjecture. The more technical threads are quite dense scientifically. (My Ph.D. field is the logic of science so this is an expert opinion.) Here is just the latest such: http://judithcurry.com/2011/04/14/scafetta-on-climate-oscillations/
As for the “yapping,” in case you have not noticed blogs have changed the nature of scientific communication with the public. Nor is the term “drivel” useful in a serious debate. You may not fully understand the situation.
> How do the qualifications of the host account for the popularity of the blog?
Because you deniers think it lends legitimacy to your denial and ignorance of the subject. You flock to people who you think are credible and who tell you want you want to hear.
Yes, I’m familiar with the drivel that Curry is producing.
Many of the participants exhibit a detailed knowledge of some aspect of the topic, some are even published. I myself know quite a bit about the issues, having studied and written about them for 18 years. You may not like what they say but their knowledge is obvious on inspection.
You seem to be confusing disagreement with ignorance. People who can cite and discuss scientific databases or published articles are not ignorant. Try a different word. Calling knowledgeable people who disagree with you “ignorant” is rather foolish.
The credibility derives from the quality of the discussion, not the credentials of the host. This is why so many people are committing so much time to it. Her credentials no doubt had something to do with why people looked at the blog originally, but they do not explain why so many participate so intently. Something important is going on there.
That’s fascinating. How has the overwhelming science that demonstrates humans are dangerously heating the climate been changed as a result of people yapping on Curry’s blog?
> People who can cite and discuss scientific databases or published articles are not ignorant.
Any delusional ignoramus can cite a scientific paper.
The science as you describe it does not exist and I think Curry’s blog has had some small influence in this regard. But the issue was blogs in general, which have had a significant influence. People see that there is a serious scientific debate.
As for anyone who disagrees with you being a “delusional ignoramus,” even if they read the scientific literature, your claim is unsupportable. In fact it is inarticulate. If you want to be believed, or even understood, you need to use words properly.
> The science as you describe it does not exist…
You deniers remind me of hamsters. Furiously running on your little wheels, going nowhere.
> …Curry’s blog has had some small influence…
Yes, it reaffirmed the denial of a few deniers. Beyond on that, nothing of note.
> …you need to use words properly.
My eloquence or your lack of reading comprehension have no effect on climate change science. There is no credible scientific doubt that humans are dangerously heating the planet.
Many knowledgeable people disagree with you (including me). That is a scientific fact, which is illustrated by Curry’s blog, and many others. Calling us names does not change these observable facts. If you cannot understand the debate, as apparently you cannot, that calls into question your scientific judgement.
David, there is a ‘genuine scientific debate’ on the theory of evolution, too, if one is to believe the blogosphere…
Or about HIV causing AIDS. Or vaccines being the main cause of autism (and a range of other ailments). You’ll easily find your share of ‘intelligent’ people with ‘credentials’ arguing this.
There really is no problem in finding PhDs arguing for creationism, or more commonly, intelligent design (cough). Want a Nobel prize winner arguing HIV does not cause AIDS? No problem either!
And make no mistake, people contribute on blogs containing this stuff intently and often with great apparent ‘knowledge’ of the literature. However, you mistake “knowledge” with “understanding”. For example, I have seen something *you* wrote in 2006, in which you claimed that the increasing warming of the arctic contradicted the enhanced greenhouse effect (i.e., that rising greenhouse gases were involved in the warming). Funny thing is, it may have sounded knowledgable, and you yourself probably thought it was quite insightful, but those who understand the issue know that this is actually exactly what is expected. Thus, you claimed a contradiction where there was none. On Curry’s blog you see many make such ‘knowledgable’ claims, which in reality are just plain wrong. Judith Curry herself has made her share of ‘knowledgable’ claims which were wrong (or unsubstantiated). As an example, she claimed papers were being kept out of the literature because they contradicted the IPCC. She has never been willing (and I guess, in reality never was *able*) to substantiate that claim. Some believe she merely repeated one of Andrew Montford’s claims about a paper by Huang…which as anyone with REAL knowledge knows was published…
Sorry, David, but you better go back to Judith’s blog, where you can sprout any nonsense you like, as long as it can be constructed as saying that continuous emission of significant amounts of greenhouse gases is “mostly harmless”.
> Many knowledgeable people disagree with you (including me).
lol. I’ll stick with the near-100% of the planet’s climate scientists that confirm and support the findings of the IPCC rather than anonymous internet experts.
You keep yapping in internet blog comments. Let us know when you change the *science* in any way.
My estimate is that only about 70-80% of the community supports the IPCC findings, which do not include that the warming is necessarily dangerous. As for the science, it is what it is. I do not have to change it, just to understand it. But I have made my own small contributions.
Speaking of anonymous internet experts, I note that you, like Martha, choose not reveal yourself, while I do.
> My estimate is that only about 70-80% of the community supports the IPCC findings…
Your “estimate”?! You mean your delusional belief that ignores reality?
* Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract + http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-many-climate-scientists-are-climate-skeptics.html
* 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php + http://www.miller-mccune.com/news/scientists-public-drift-apart-on-climate-change-948
Any more denier sh!te you need debunking today?
The belief that humans have some influence on climate, which is what these studies tested for, is not the issue in question. Moreover, as demographic studies these are very bad. Polls have indicated support for dangerous AGW as low as 67% within the climate community. It would be nice to see some proper polling.
> It would be nice to see some proper polling.
All national science academies on the planet. Close to 100% of climate scientists.
But you think you know better. You are a delusional crank.
Marco, you seem to claim that there is a big difference between being knowledgeable on a topic and having understanding of that topic. So far as I can tell the only difference is that the ones with understanding are the ones that agree with you. The hypocrisy of that distinction should be obvious. I understand the issues very well and I disagree with you.
The fact is that reasonable people of good will can look at the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions. The debate is real.
> The debate is real.
Only in your head and on sideshow blogs on the internet. There is no credible scientific debate about the reality of global warming and the existential threat it presents to humanity and life on this planet.
* Every national science academy of every major industrialised country on the planet confirms recent climate change is due to human activity as per the IPCC. No scientific body of national or international standing offers a dissenting opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
* The American Geophysical Union, world’s largest scientific society of Earth and space scientists: “The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system … are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. … Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities.”
* American Physical Society: “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. … The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”
* The Geological Society of America: “This position statement summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming;…”.
* Position statement Geological Society of London: “…emitting further large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise, uncomfortable though that fact may be.”
* American Association for the Advancement of Science: “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.”
* American Chemical Society: “Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles. There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change… The costs of unchecked climate change in economic loss, human misery, and loss of ecosystem services are likely to be enormous.”
What you have is not “knowledge” or “understanding” or “expertise”. You have Dunning Kruger… a massive dose of it. Your incompetence robs you of the ability see that you are incompetent.
You and most of the inhabitants of Curry’s blog are cranks. No different to creationists or flat-earthers in your denial of overwhelming science.
I hope you realize that these are lobbyists, echoing the national policies of their sponsors.
—-
Thank you. Now you reveal your inner wingnut. All the science academies are part of some shady conspiracy with “sponsors” telling them what they can say. Of course!
No matter how many times I see it, I still marvel at the depth of stupidity that you deniers dig down to.
Bluerock (and Marco)
My god.
I have previously been open to the idea that David was one of the more articulate neocons at Curry’s, in as much as he is honest about his blatant ideological promotion of Heartland and its corporate lies. He illuminated these lies with particular clarity.
Turns out I may be wrong. He seems actually scientifically illiterate, and not just pretending.
I’m shocked, shocked.
Martha,
I’ve yet to encounter one who doesn’t eventually expose themselves, when pushed hard enough, to be one of:
* dishonest
* dumb
* delusional
Some of the talented ones can juggle all three at once! 😉
Again, great essay. Hopefully it’ll spur you to write more.
Best,
David.
David, you understand the issues so very well, that one minute of googling revealed you to make a whopper of a mistake (failing to understand that arctic amplification is exactly what we expect from warming). I see you conveniently ignore that issue. You’ve been taught well by Judith Curry, apparently.
And I also see you conveniently ignore the other areas of science where “reasonable people” manage to come to opposite conclusions, even when it should be obvious to anyone that one side is many times more right than the other.
But of course you already gave yourself a cop out, Gish Gallop-style whenever the evidence goes further and further away from your ‘reality’: just proclaim there is no evidence of *dangerous* warming. There, after been shown wrong on everything else, you can always go to that fall-back position. And by the time is does get dangerous, you’ll likely be dead anyway (old age does that to people).
Marco, AGW models suggest high latitude warming, not Arctic warming. Arctic warming alone is against AGW. Plus most Arctic warming in single jump, also against AGW. See?
—–
Loads of handwaving by David, factual rebuttal provided by our host, a pattern that just keeps on returning whenever we discuss with a climate ‘skeptic’…
When will David Wojick start to question himself? I’m guessing never, he’s invested in the narrative too much.
Anna, I wasn’t ‘goaded’. Nor would I be.
If you find this over the top, maybe it’s because the situation with Curry is exactly as I say it is. It surprises me (well, maybe not) that she has had no difficulty finding a cadre of enabling men, and a few women. I’m not one of the latter.
Also, I’m not anonymous. I feel fully accountable to people, for what I do and say – on or off the internet. But it is interesting to me that your assumption would be that since you know Judith Curry’s last name, she has increased her accountability or credibility.
Clearly that has not been the case.
She has indicated that she considers your Sourcewatch page on her to be a potentially litigious smear job. I have indicated that the risks of liability for a blogger go up if a blogger chooses to deliberately post lies and misrepresentations of climate science, especially given the potential harm.
Take care Anna and good luck with your work.
Anna,
I recognize I have not added to the moral climate in a way that everyone will like. I am sure you are not the only woman who will not like it. I appreciate your opinon — personal and political.
This will be fun but must wait until tomorrow. Traveling now. My field is federal science, especially policy. Basic research is $60 billion a year, a lot of money. Advocates (lobbyists) are sci societies plus uni groups. Complex synergy with sci funders (program managers).
Sci society climate statements call for political action, so are political docs. Endorse funding policy which is strongly AGW. Political movement dominates this system. Not a conspiracy, just a movement. My job to stop. Doing well, thank you.
—-
David, it’s a bit misleading to state you are in ‘federal science’. You’re a civil engineer with a private consultancy firm that has had both industry and government clients in the past, with a focus on regulatory efficiency and system design. You and I have had previous discussions regarding your ‘advanced’ knowledge of logic and science history that no one here will be interested in having you repeat.
Now you spend most of your time on web-based consultancy –knowingly misleading industry and corporate funded groups who wish to be misled about climate science or wish to mislead the public, amusedly contributing to propaganda for conservative media and front groups like Heartland as an endpoint to your career and continued enjoyment of your estate horse farm.
You are the typical denier demographic I refer to in this post.
Of course this could be the case, and you could actually be scientifically literate and have penetrating political insights. Except you aren’t. And you don’t. 😦