It is time to stop quivering in our boots in pointless fear of the future and just roll up our sleeves and build it.
- Ray Pierrehumbert

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Curry Blogs

Jeff Id writes,
It looks like Dr. Judith Curry has decided to start down the road of climate blogging. This should be an interesting experience and I’m glad that someone else in climate science is willing to address concerns of the public in a direct fashion.
I will take the rare opportunity to agree with Jeff Id. I have concerns about Curry's approach, which seems quite oblivious of the long history of the controversy surrounding the science. Sometimes this fresh perspective is helpful; other times it falls into one of the many traps that have been set over the past twenty years for the unwary. This will be interesting to watch, indeed.

Here. RSS here.

18 comments:

King of the Road said...

I note that Dr. Curry doesn't include "In It" in her blog roll. Fuller is there though.

Michael Tobis said...

You didn't need to rub it in.

Michael Tobis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
thingsbreak said...

Looks like Rabett Run got the shaft as well. Frankly, I'm surprised the WMC made it on there.

Daniel said...

"It is very difficult to know what to believe in a field outside your own personal expertise. In the climate world, alot of the trust that was placed in the experts (e.g. the IPCC) was destroyed by climategate, glaciergate, etc."
- JC (response to Phillip Bratby)


One toe dip in that cesspool was enough. I for one won't go back.

The train wreck continues...

The Yooper

Lou Grinzo said...

Daniel: Make that two of us. I read enough of JC's comments on RC and CP that my head still hurts.

Steve Bloom said...

Joe Romm in, but James and Jules out. Most peculiar. Actually for the moment I'd just chalk these discrepanacies up to her all-too-frequent sloppiness.

Rattus Norvegicus said...

I don't really care about her blogroll. What I do care about is her word limit on comments of 250. Out frikkin' local paper has a limit of 300 words. It is almost impossible to make a cogent point with supporting evidence in 300 words, much less 250.

She just doesn't want to get attacked in the comment section.

Michael Tobis said...

250 words leaves plenty of room for a URL.

If you only talk to people who agree with you, you will not convince anybody of anything.

thingsbreak said...

I would say that I'll stick to reading her papers, but even they seem to be nosediving in quality of late.

Good to know that the Pielkes and von Storch will have a little company in their efforts to validate the tinfoil hat brigade.

I especially enjoyed The Air Vent's latest gem. If that doesn't demonstrate the value of "auditors" to climate science, then nothing will.

pough said...

@thingsbreak - But it was written by somebody who went to school with Obama. Anyone who ever went to school with me knows me better than I know myself.

Oh wait. Hold on. I went to the reunion. Most of them didn't know my name. Well... it's convincing because of the connection regardless!

Alexander Ac said...

Oh yes,

we are curryous, what she will write about :-)

but given her comments on RC, not too much expectations..

Deech56 said...

Thingsbreak, James and Jules are there; so is Tamino. I think I'll still be able to find Michael and Eli without Judith's blogroll.

Steve Bloom, thanks for the chuckle. Id's credibility just shot sky high with that post. {/satire}

Marion Delgado said...

Even though she's a climate scientist, therefore there's at least an earthly reason to even consider her, her fan club are going to dominate that, and aren't going to be people you can discuss with. At least dotEarth was a venue where the broad public with an interest in the science or the controversy or the issue would be likely to show up. I don't mind the word limit, though - 250 words is quite a lot. This is about 80.

Belette said...

"Frankly, I'm surprised the WMC made it on there." Ha. I rulez. As for J+J - yes, leaving them out is odd, though its been all photos for a while.

As to the substance: I still think that Curry needs to actually write down, in a coherent way, what she actaully thinks. I'm not convincced that her blog is going to do that. But we shall see.

It will be amusing to see what she does with the comments, though. Will she tolerate vast long scientifically illiterate comment threads?

thingsbreak said...

Will she tolerate vast long scientifically illiterate comment threads?

Tolerate? She's implicitly encouraging it if you read her comments on moderation. I don't she's going to moderate even "Earth is flat" levels of scientific illiteracy.

David B. Benson said...

Sigh.

Gone emeritus as the saying is...

thingsbreak said...

Judith Curry writes:

I am thinking of doing a climategate thread, open style, next Monday. I’ve decided to stick with the word climategate, but expand its meaning to include issues that have been raised regarding errors and biases in the IPCC reports. I don’t plan to say much on this topic, I will just play policeman. I’m 90% convinced of doing this; your comments and suggestions here will convince me of whether or not I should do this.

The issue is still alive; the investigations (whatever their merits or shortcomings) have failed to restore confidence. Andrew Montford’s recent report http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf plus the IAC report http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/ should provide much fodder for reflection and discussion.

The challenge will be to keep this from turning into open warfare. Some guidelines I know I already want are:
• no mentioning of individual names that were involved in any aspect of climategate, with mention of “Mann” or “Jones” grounds for automatic deletion of the message
• no excerpts of emails (that has been hashed to death elsewhere)
• word count limit (i’m prepared to relax this to say 500 words on a more focused open thread)
• other suggestions?

We won’t get past the “climate wars” until this receives an airing. I’m hoping to focus on the constructive rather than the “blame game.” Thoughts for how to accomplish this?