‘I was tossed out of the tribe’: climate scientist Judith Curry interviewed

This is what happens to scientists who don't March in lockstep with the government funded warmer group. What a great and courageous lady!

"Curry’s independence has cost her dear. She began to be reviled after the 2009 ‘Climategate’ scandal, when leaked emails revealed that some scientists were fighting to suppress sceptical views. ‘I started saying that scientists should be more accountable, and I began to engage with sceptic bloggers. I thought that would calm the waters. Instead I was tossed out of the tribe. There’s no way I would have done this if I hadn’t been a tenured professor, fairly near the end of my career. If I were seeking a new job in the US academy, I’d be pretty much unemployable. I can still publish in the peer-reviewed journals. But there’s no way I could get a government research grant to do the research I want to do. Since then, I’ve stopped judging my career by these metrics. I’m doing what I do to stand up for science and to do the right thing.’

She remains optimistic that science will recover its equilibrium, and that the quasi-McCarthyite tide will recede: ‘I think that by 2030, temperatures will not have increased all that much. Maybe then there will be the funding to do the kind of research on natural variability that we need, to get the climate community motivated to look at things like the solar-climate connection.’ She even hopes that rational argument will find a place in the UN: ‘Maybe, too, there will be a closer interaction between the scientists, the economists and policymakers. Wouldn’t that be great?’"

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/...e-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/

 

This is an interview with Judith, a great read full of common sense science.
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/10-its-gettin-hot-in-here-big-battle-over-climate-science

 

Curry is full of bullcrap!

There is no tribe!
by ...and Then There's Physics
Posted on November 26, 2015
David Rose has a new article about Judith Curry called "I was tossed out of the tribe". Well, here’s problem number one. There is no tribe. If you’re a scientist/researcher, then you should be aiming to do research that is honest and objective, the results of which should not depend on who you regard as being your contemporaries. If you think there’s some kind of tribe to which you need to belong, then you’re doing it wrong.

Apparently, also, Judith Curry’s "record of peer-reviewed publication in the best climate-science journals is second to none". Sorry, but this is simply not true. It’s pretty decent, but it’s not "second to none". The article also says: "Warming alarmists are fond of proclaiming how 97 per cent of scientists agree that the world is getting hotter, and human beings are to blame." Ignoring the term "Warming alarmists", the reason people say this is because it is essentially true.

Judith Curry apparently also says

"…..A sensitivity of 2.5˚C makes it much less likely we will see 2˚C warming during the 21st century. There are so many uncertainties, but the policy people say the target is fixed. And if you question this, you will be slagged off as a denier."

Firstly, a sensitivity (ECS, I assume) of 2.5oC does not make it "much less likely" that we will see 2oC during the 21st century. Not only do the ranges of projected warming already include the possibility that the sensitivity might be 2.5oC, but what we will see depends largely on how much we emit. Also, the target is fixed in the sense that it is defined according to giving us some chance of keeping warming below 2oC; normally a 66% chance. It already includes the uncertainty about climate sensitivity and uncertainty about carbon cycle feedbacks. Maybe when Judith questions this, she gets slagged off for apearing to not understand this basic concept; something a scientist with a record that is apparently "second to none" should be able to understand.

Judith Curry also added that

"...her own work, conducted with the British independent scientist Nic Lewis, suggests that the sensitivity value may still lower, in which case the date when the world would be 2˚C warmer would be even further into the future."

Well, yes, but there are many reasons why their ECS estimate is probably too low. Just because you’re proud of your own work, doesn’t mean you get to dismiss everything else. That climate sensitivity "could" be lower than we currently think is likely, does not mean that it probably will be.

There are numerous other examples of nonsense, such as

"Meanwhile, the obsessive focus on CO2 as the driver of climate change means other research on natural climate variability is being neglected."

No, it’s not.

And,

"...solar experts believe we could be heading towards a ‘grand solar minimum’ — a reduction in solar output (and, ergo, a period of global cooling) similar to that which once saw ice fairs on the Thames. ‘The work to establish the solar-climate connection is lagging.’"

Firstly, there isn’t some lag in work on the solar-climate connection, and her "solar experts" were rather clueless about climate.

The article finishes with

"She remains optimistic that science will recover its equilibrium, and that the quasi-McCarthyite tide will recede."

Rather than it receding, Judith Curry appears to be helping it to start.

So, as far as I can tell, Judith Curry gets criticised because she says things that – for a senior scientist who has a record that is apparently "second to none" – are embarassingly wrong. She also appears to have ejected herself from a tribe that only exists in her imagination. Good thing there are credulous journalists, like David Rose, who are willing to write supportive articles.

 

Judith was ostracized for breaking lockstep, its as simple as that. Other scientists see this sort of thing and keep quiet with their opposing opinions and it is modern day McCarthyism.

 

Demented denier cult insanity with NO connection to reality.

 

So Judith and any other scientists who break AGW lockstep are deemed insane. Thanks for proving my point.

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the denier party?

 

I was very obviously referring to you and your demented posts, not Curry, although she is a piece of work.

Judith Curry abandons science

 

All I did was quote Judith. HERESY he cries!

 

Nope! That's a lie. Here is the fraudulent drivel you yourself posted that I referred to as insane. No "quote" involved.

"Judith was ostracized for breaking lockstep, its as simple as that. Other scientists see this sort of thing and keep quiet with their opposing opinions and it is modern day McCarthyism."

Nope! She is just almost always completely wrong, and she constantly tries to recycle long debunked denier cult talking points. She is a disgrace to science.

 

And this from your article

 

LOL. Vacuous as ever.

From post #3...

"...solar experts believe we could be heading towards a ‘grand solar minimum’ — a reduction in solar output (and, ergo, a period of global cooling) similar to that which once saw ice fairs on the Thames. ‘The work to establish the solar-climate connection is lagging.’"

Firstly, there isn’t some lag in work on the solar-climate connection, and her "solar experts" were rather clueless about climate.

 

We pilots and meteorologists get training on climate plus weather.

We must know weather since we fly in weather. We must know what dangers one can evade. The fact that thunderstorms are super dangerous to airplanes must be learned. We can't wade into bad weather and not understand it.

I was watching a video of clouds moving around the visible side of earth this past week and it shows them moving one way then back again. And some keep moving one way.

Mountains impact on climate. Deserts impact on climate. Oceans impact on climate. So many variables that it is direct observation that affords us decent prediction models of weather. Climate is still not modeled correctly.

The people who want society changed due to climate are wild eyed types. They shout at you on forums. They talk in hugh capital letters. They assume this fixes your problem.

As Dr. Lindzen has proven time after time, climate is super difficult to model. This is why the climate models are all over the place.

Climate from the past 100 years really has not changed. Nobody can explain when climate changed. They try to tie it to the industrial age but really can't cite how or when we got hurt.

Take a normal day in freezing temps. Even very cold has never hurt me and I lived in very cold for a year and half.

But then I have lived in very warm too. That has not harmed me.

Matter of fact, when you want to see nature get pretty, it warms up.

The warmers really have no science. They have politics.

When is nature at it's finest? On the very warm days.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/breathta...ahead-of-possible--super-bloom-170344029.html

Note that these superblooms happen perhaps every ten years. But they are not more frequent.

 

Shouting at us is a sign you believe you lost the argument.

 

The real money is made by being paid off by Government.

Grants by the millions of dollars flow to the warmers. We so called deniers can't get a dime for research.

If you promise politicians you are a warmer, they reward you. Forget getting money from oil companies. They don't pay for bad science.

Democrats pay for bad science.

 

That is why Judith is so impressive. She is a tenured professor with no dog in the fight. She isn't chasing government grants and is beholding to nobody. She isn't afraid to stand up to those that would mock and attack her for heresy to the cause. Three cheers for Judith!

 

And just who are you to call this lady a disgrace to science? You are just some obsessed child posting on the net about nothing but global warming. Calling this lady a disgrace to science from your mom's basement in your dirty pajamas is really kind of funny.

 

People who want to research bigfoot also get very little in government funding. For the exact same reason

 

That's hilarious because AGW is essentially Bigfoot. Nobody has proved the existence of either one

 

Nobody has proven the laws of motion either. When you use such faulty terms you expose your lack of scientific knowledge

 

And now you are equating a law with an hypothesis, even more hilarious

 

So you admit that you have no idea what you are talking about or even what you got wrong. I love it.

 

I am lucky to have e mailed back and forth with Dr. Richard Lindzen when he was head of climatology at MIT.

I am happy to supply links to his papers. And they number around 250 so clearly he put in a lot of time in his field.

 

They are collecting big money so long as they claim there is AGW.

HARM

First think of that. They promise us all super dire consequences.

They will see a storm someplace and announce with great pride, that is evidence of global warming.

How can a huge storm in Asia be proof of global warming? It might prove some storm was caused by warm climate in Asia, but it does not prove AGW.

The believers don't need proof. They think proof is CO2 measurements. But that is not proof. This is why there is a huge debate. The warmers gain cash. We only speak our ideas of the silly notion you or I warm earth.

I look at evidence. Take NY City for instance, at one point a glacier was there. Would we be better off today if the entire upper east coast was still under ice?

And the great lakes. More warming. Will they blame that too on man?

Then you have Yosemite Valley, carved from granite by 3 glaciers that came and went. Where was man in that equation?

They won't listen. They persist in trying to run our lives by trying to use science as a jack hammer.

 

I googled him, very impressive man. I will read his stuff, thanks

 

In physics, you never call a thing a law unless it is completely proven.

A good solid course in physics would have taught you that.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific-law

scientific law