Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Judith Curry, Take Your Meds

Controversy is raging in the blogosphere at Climate Progress and other websites, over remarks made by Dr. Judith Curry - a perplexing cipher - as is UK author Fred Pearce. Both are former icons of climate change research and rationality who have inexplicably become apostates - not in the religious connotation, but as former members of a collection of fact-based scientific experts who have veered into absolutely insane repudiations of the observed effects of climate change. Did they just get SO scared by what they see projected that they are wetting their pants?

Well, in a way I can't blame them. What is becoming inevitable is terrifying. If formerly intelligent, educated, aware and internationally known experts like Pearce and Curry recant and are capable of morphing into morons, as the evidence of climatecide mounts - what the hell can we expect from Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin? This is a side-show, but definitely NOT encouraging.

One of my comments at the climateprogress.org discussion:

Wit'sEnd says:

Judith Curry says:

“Stay tuned.”

Well, I tuned you out when I read the following in the UK Guardian (which at first I mistook for satire from the Onion for the ludicrous assertion that the IPCC is composed of self-appointed oracles, and the sheer pompous condescension towards a far more worthy scientist than you, Dr. Jones):

“The climate scientist most associated with efforts to reconciling warring factions, Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said the idea of IPCC scientists as “self-appointed oracles, enhanced by the Nobel Prize, is now in tatters”. The outside world now sees that “the science of climate is more complex and uncertain than they have been led to believe”.

Some IPCC scientists are in denial on this issue, she said, arguing that they would like to see the CRU incident as “an irrelevant blip” and to blame their problems on “a monolithic denial machine”, but that won’t wash.”

Curry exempted from this criticism Phil Jones, CRU director and the man at the centre of the furore. Put through the fire, “Jones seems genuinely repentant, and has been completely open and honest about what has been done and why… speaking with humility about the uncertainty in the data sets,” she said.

The affair “has pointed out the seamy side of peer review and consensus building in the IPCC assessment reports,” she said. “A host of issues need to be addressed.”

Judith, you need to take your meds now and retire from public life.


  1. you know, because of this I'm reevaluating Georgia Institute of Technology. I bought an undergraduate text "Signal Processing First" from there because I thought their approach was cool, but looking at Judith Curry thing, I'm backing off and going back to using University of Indiana Urbana Champaign/Stanford/Berkeley stuff...

  2. uhhh...be careful, that may brand you an arugula-munching, chardonnay-sipping elitist...

  3. Judith Curry can now make it onto our civilization's Climate Villainhood list.

  4. yeah, along with that Fred Pearce guy. What's up with that? I just don't know how to address the shoulda coulda woulda tempest in a teapot email issue at CRU. Like Phil Jones should hold his head in shame or something, riiight. Fred Pearce is like what, a science writer for the graudian for keerist's sake... and with his population decline thing he's like that economics guy, bjorn lomberg, know nothing deceptive little sh* ooops, end of the day here... bite my tongue

  5. heh heh...The most bizarre thing is that Pearce wrote "With Speed and Violence" which is the most devastating description of climate changes in the distant past - what triggered them, and how what we are doing now compares (much faster, much worse). Even though he is now a turncoat I highly recommend the book, it is scholarly, and riveting. It's almost like he is two different people.

    I seriously wonder if he and Curry just are so scared they have gone off the deep end.

  6. That little drive-by from Revkin on the RC thread also was annoying.

  7. I will take your word for it - I could not bring myself to read it. Revkin is loathsome.

  8. Actually such acquired delusion it is quite plausible.

    Figure that any scientist will quickly be overwhelmed by the enormity of conclusions - so I can see a few of them going bonkers.

    I say this out of mercy, not forgiveness.

  9. People look at weather, scientists are looking at climate. One is a short-term viewpoint, the other can span thousands of years. People won't understand climate unless they stop looking at the weather as their "yardstick".

    Curry may have found religion (or something else, cannabis maybe?). Climate trends are perfectly clear on what is happening, and for that matters, so is the "weather".

    I've sort of given up trying to convince unchangeable minds. Anyone looking at the "weather" (short term events / trends / issues) is failing to assess the actual climate. Doesn't even matter what the subject matter is, as I'm sure you understand, the trends, direction and implications are there for all to "see" if they want to.

    Or not. Lots of people are in this latter camp, it does not fit their world-view (or their religion). Cognitive dissonance happens to real scientists too. Or it something else, I always say, "follow the money".

    From Climate Progress on Curry: "These day Curry spends her time demonizing the much-exonerated Michael Mann, repeating the long-discredited attacks on the much-vindicated Hockey Stick, praising the well-debunked Wegman report (repeatedly asserting the falsehood that it is an NRC report), and actually criticizing a blogger for failing to include WUWT in his blogroll."

    This does not sound like "science" anymore, indicating a fundamental (possible pun intended) change within.

    The link I provided above is quite revealing in fact, suggested reading.

    Anybody is entitled to change their mind, however the evidence more then suggest that what we are still learning about climate and the effects upon this planet are devastating. Any move "away" from this increasing evidence is a move towards classic denial.

    So you may be right -- fear has a strong motivation towards denial. ~Survival Acres~

  10. Admin - some of the most passionate deniers are elderly. Even Lovelock has his own special and unsubstantiated need to be convinced some people will survive (especially white Anglo-Saxon people with large, inherited estates in Britain).

    I think they are afraid of guilt. Guilt is one of the most painful of conditions.

  11. OMG, the Judith Curry trainwreck continues on RC and CP. It's breathtaking...

  12. I probably could have ignored it at least until after I had my morning coffee if not for your comment Jim!


Blog Archive

My Blog List

Search This Blog