|2011-06-06 03:24:38||Another Judith Curry quote -- Another rebuttal needed?|
Earlier today (June 5), the following post was made on the comment thread to the article, "Taking Stock of Climate-Change Skeptics" posted on NPR at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/storyComments.php?storyId=136884396&pageNum=2&pPageNum=2
...The change in my written views since 2008 is most easily summarized by my rejection of argumentum ad populam ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum ). I along with many others trusted what the IPCC has done and generally supported the consensus. I no longer substitute the judgment of the IPCC for my own in my written or oral presentations. And if you think I was wrong to do so in the first place, well so do I, but most everyone else was doing it, and I fell for the argument “don’t trust what one scientist says, but trust what thousands of international scientists have to say in a formal assessment process." The other change has been my serious investigation into the subject of scientific uncertainty, which I think has been woefully lacking in most of the field and certainly the IPCC...
Sunday, June 05, 2011 11:08:00 AM
For what it's worth, here's what I posted in repsonse:
By becoming an ornery climate science contrarian, Dr. Judith Curry has been elevated to sainthood by the Climate Denial Spin Machine and its drone bloggers.
I don't think this would qualify as a rebuttal. Maybe the basis of a blog post, i.e. 'when should you defer to the experts?'. This is actually an interesting question, because as 'skeptics' love to point out, the consensus could be wrong. Of course it could be wrong, but the default, unless you're in a position to intelligently and knowledgably assess the scientific evidence, which 99.9% of people aren't, should be to defer to the consensus of experts.
Curry is an interesting anomaly because hypothetically it seems like she should be able to intelligently assess the scientific data for herself, yet she seems incapable of that.
That's why she initially supported the findings of the IPCC: she couldn't be bothered to keep up with the literature herself.
And now that she has disavowed the IPCC and the consensus, she still doesn't bother to keep up with the literature.
She's just a climate scientist pretender.
"She's just a climate scientist pretender."
Sadly I agree, and she appears to simply be another manifestation of denial-- they are very devious those 'skeptics', always re-inventing themselves when people start seeing though their tactics, they are chameleons if you will. Everyone on this thread should also see how she glibly dismissed the body of science on extremes in her Yale Forum post. Un-bloody-believable:
"I have been completely unconvinced by any of the arguments that I have seen that attributes a single extreme weather event, a cluster of extreme weather events, or statistics of extreme weather events to anthropogenic forcing"
Does she not read papers by Zwiers, Santer and Stott and other experts in the field?!
And she starts with this whopper:
"The substantial interest in attributing extreme weather events to global warming seems rooted in the perceived need for some sort of a disaster to drive public opinion and the political process in the direction of taking action on climate change."
Curry clearly loves and craves attention-- so I do not know how we deal with her. Rebut her and it will be like wrestling with a pig, not so much her, but her fan base of uncritical drones.
Curry is like a never ending train wreck...