Judith, I love ya, but you’re way wrong …

Judith, I love ya, but you’re way wrong …” Anthony Watt’s friend Willis Eschenbach, the self-appointed “citizen scientist”, rants about Dr. Judith Curry’s ill-conceived denialist-sympathetic comments about “credibility” in climate science.

His point? We can never trust scientists again. No matter what. They are stupid liars. Willis actually says with a straight face that scientists should emulate Steve McIntyre’s “transparency and openness and freewheeling scientific discussion and honest reporting“. My god, McIntyre is the most dishonest, manipulative, resentful, nit-picking denialist out there. He is the model for scientific behavior?

Epic fail.

1 thought on “Judith, I love ya, but you’re way wrong …

  1. Ben, perhaps this post is due an update/top posting, given the sheer amount of denier nonsense Judith is spouting, as of late (2012-11).

    Here, as posted on SkS, by ‘citizenschallenge,’ is a point-boy-point refutation of Curry’s sheer nonsense.

    citizenschallenge at 01:05 AM on 4 November, 2012
    For what it’s worth I’ve done a paragraph by paragraph review of Judith Curry’s latest publication. “Climate change: no consensus on consensus”
    I think it’s time to count up the falsehoods and slights of hand these mesmerists use.

    Dr. Curry’s “Climate change: no consensus on consensus” – challenged”

    A review of Dr. Judith Curry’s reader’s digest to “Climate change: no consensus on consensus”
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    re: ¶1

    “Manufacture consensus”

    Notice the slight of hand Curry has performed.

    Curry creates the assumption that the IPCC process is nothing but high octane politics…

    … now we try to look for her evidence.

    I intend to review Curry’s reader’s digest with an eye toward finding and evaluating the supporting evidence for her claims.
    ~ ~ ~

    Along the way I’ll be looking for intellectual slight-of-hand, such as turning suppositions into self-evidence truths. Which she has already done in her opening.
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    citizenschallenge at 08:17 AM on 5 November, 2012
    {Doug B @49
    Thanks great list!}

    My little “Curry’s No Consensus On Consensus – Challenged” is still a work in progress, so when I can I reread and refine. I want to share today’s rewrite of paragraph one’s review.

    Judith Curry writes:
    1) The manufactured consensus of the IPCC has had the unintended consequences of distorting the science, elevating the voices of scientists that dispute the consensus, and motivating actions by the consensus scientists and their supporters that have diminished the public’s trust in the IPCC.


    re: ¶1
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    JC: “manufactured consensus of the IPCC has had the unintended consequences of distorting the science…” <<<

    That is an incredibly big and damaging charge.

    Where is Curry’s evidence!?
    Specifically what topics have the IPCC distorted?
    Why no list?

    Where is Curry’s examination comparing the scientific community’s assessments
    with the IPCC’s manufactured and published "consensus"?

    Where does Curry outline and review the many meetings and conferences and writings and back and forth communication that goes on during this IPCC manufacturing process?

    Why make the base assumption: 'IPCC's all sinister'?
    {Just because the news is bad for big business? I thought this was science we were discussing?}

    The IPCC is actually a small organization tasked with compiling the available legitimate science.

    Curry doesn’t seriously examine who the IPCC are; what they have been legally tasked with doing; and how they have gone about their task.
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    JC: "… elevating the voices of scientists that dispute the consensus…" <<<

    What is Curry talking about?
    What's it supposed to mean?
    What point is Curry trying to weave into her story here?
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    JC: "… and motivating actions by the consensus scientists…" <<<

    Scientists read and talk and meet on all sorts of different levels. There are seasons and politics just as in every other professional endeavor. But, it’s still a serious organization with a planned process, openly established and openly conducted, and it’s produces reports on the state of the science. Fair and square.
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    JC: "have diminished the public’s trust in the IPCC." <<<

    You won’t find anything here about Seitz and Singer and the tactics of manufacturing doubt?

    Why not examine the various dirty tricks and PR tactics that have targeted the IPCC and climatologists in general?

    Why not ask if there’s evidence this “diminished pubic trust” was the product of a manufactured publicity campaign?


    Here’s some evidence:

    The American Denial of Global Warming

    Perspectives on Ocean Science

    Series: “Perspectives on Ocean Science” [12/2007] [Science] [Show ID: 13459]
    Uploaded by UCtelevision on Dec 20, 2007


    A Merchant of Doubt attacks Merchants of Doubt
    by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s