The only thing we can be sure of about the future is that it will be absolutely fantastic. So if what I say now seems to you to be very reasonable, then I have failed completely. Only if what I tell you appears absolutely unbelievable, have we any chance of visualizing the future as it really will happen.

- Arthur C. Clarke (h/t Brin)

Friday, November 5, 2010

A take on Curry

I just came across this. I think it's wasted as a Google Reader annotation, so I thought to pass it along.
The largest problem with Curry imho. is that she is on the way of marginalizing herself. It is a fair point that scientists should try to understand the views of some of the "citizen scientists" - but by not addressing (and even to some extent adding to) the noise to signal ratio, she isn't helping.

If you are going to criticise something, then make sure that you have the facts right - if you generalize, then make certain that you state out front that it is a generalization - and don't make the mistake of giving examples that are easily shown not to match the generalized points.

With regards to the SPM (summary for policy makers): Uncertainties should be stated up front - but only to the same summary level as the general text. Otherwise we end up with a "teach the controversy" unbalanced approach.
- Kim Dabelstein Petersen

3 comments:

Marco said...

Kim! One of the other Wikipedia editors who was targeted by Lawrence Solomon.

Lou Grinzo said...

I've been making an effort lately to catch up on Curry's writing and the comments of others about it. What a depressing exercise this has been.

While I won't speculate what's driving Curry, since that's irrelevant to science and policy issues, I will observe that she seems determined not only to play tennis without a net, but to do so using an invisible ball.

bluegrue said...

The reactions of Curry in the wake of this comment by Eric Steig are telling.
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/03/reversing-the-direction-of-the-positive-feedback-loop/#comment-7499

1. Curry claims “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. ”

2. Eric Steig tells how he criticised AR4 and what followed, giving a counterexample to Curry's claim

3. Curry needs to be dragged to the comment, belittles it as "the experience of one person" and "the opinion of one person".

4. When Lazar won't let it go she evades to "ok lazar, i give in, my statement should have said “never tolerated (except for Eric Steig)”".

5. When Steig points out James Annan as a second example Curry takes pretends not to understand.

The games people play.