"System change is now inevitable. Either because we do something about it, or because we will be hit by climate change. '...

"We need to develop economic models that are fit for purpose. The current economic frameworks, the ones that dominate our governments, these frameworks... the current economic frameworks, the neoclassical, the market frameworks, can deal with small changes. It can tell you the difference, if a sock company puts up the price of socks, what the demand for socks will be. It cannot tell you about the sorts of system level changes we are talking about here. We would not use an understanding of laminar flow in fluid dynamics to understand turbulent flow. So why is it we are using marginal economics, small incremental change economics, to understand system level changes?"

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


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.

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.