4 ms·
Having skimmed the final paper and without being aware of Judith Curry or her reputation, my initial reaction while reading was "This seems to be a white paper
by fencepost 10y ago
Having skimmed the final paper and without being aware of Judith Curry or her reputation, my initial reaction while reading was "This seems to be a white paper in the school of 'here's something you can cite to justify why nothing should be done about climate change/global warming/CO2 emissions/etc.'"
Looking her up afterwards, it seems to me that this may also be her push for a significant position in the Trump administration. Seems that Judith Curry is the scientist who says "Well, they've revised the likely range so clearly they don't know what's likely and maybe it's too expensive to do anything right now."
I won't bother linking, a simple search based on her name will turn up a wide variety of links to her history, people bemoaning her stances, and people refuting some of the arguments she uses.
- mdisc 10y agoYeah it's kind of sad actually. I started reading this as serious piece and then sent it to a professor I had during my undergrad for a class on climate change. So embarrassing!! The broad points about training data and non-linearities are important- but on a second pass it's hard to believe that people who spend their lives building GCMs don't think deeply about these challenges.
- basurihn 10y agoPeople who spend their lives building models in other sciences, say psychology, have missed gaps in their model... their whole approach, actually. Why is it inconceivable that climatology had equally glaring gaps?
- jamez1 10y agoI think the worrying thing is that it's not hard to believe, she's pointing out the breakdown of the scientific process. She cops a lot of flack and hysteria, just for raising reasonable doubts! If climate science is solid, then it shouldn't feel the need to vilify anyone who questions it. If it isn't solid then it should be subject to as much scrutiny as possible given the derived policy will have tremendous impacts to life.
- barney54 10y agoWhy not bother linking if the things she has said are so obviously wrong?
- fencepost 10y agoBecause if I link to specific articles, it becomes about those articles, how the writers of them have their own axes to grind (e.g. William M. Connolley in http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/11/14/judith-curry-wtf/ http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/11/14/judith-curry-wtf/ or http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/ipcc-attribution-statements-redux-a-response-to-judith-curry/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/ipcc-a...), how the magazines and websites involved are all liberal mouthpieces (e.g. Scientific American via Nature.com, http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.ht...). Perhaps the most balanced article easily found is this one from the commie pinko NPR: http://www.npr.org/2013/08/22/213894792/uncertain-science-judith-currys-take-on-climate-change http://www.npr.org/2013/08/22/213894792/uncertain-science-ju... Re: William M. Connolley, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Connolley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Connolley as a starting point to differentiate from many others with slight name variations. edit: link in the wrong place