Judith A. Curry is chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She runs a climate blog and has been invited by Republicans on several occasions to testify at climate hearings about uncertainties in climate understanding and predictions. Climate scientists criticize her uncertainty-focused climate outreach communication for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence. Curry is a regular at Anthony Watts' denier blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit, another denier site. She has further embarrassed herself (and her university) by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn't even read it in the first place.Criticisms from climate scientists
Criticisms of outreach communication
Curry's contrarian-leaning "public outreach" public communication is criticized by prominent climate scientists and other science-aligned climate bloggers for a propensity toward "inflammatory language and over-the-top accusations ...with the...absence of any concrete evidence and [with] errors in matters of simple fact.",,,,,.
"...Examples of the unreliability of Curry's blog publications are illustrated by Michael Tobis and James Annan, who both showed basic flaws in her understanding of uncertainty and probability, or at least an irresponsible level of sloppiness in expressing herself.
Arthur Smith pointed out an under-grad level misunderstanding in her own field's basic terminology," said Coby Beck.
Climate scientist James Annan has provided examples (with rebuttals) of assertions made by Curry on topics like no-feedback climate sensitivity, aerosols, climate change detection&attribution, and the IPCC tolerance of challengers; he finds there's a pattern of "throwing up vague or demonstrably wrong claims, then running away when shown to be wrong",
This is only one of dozens of examples in the link!
Judith_Curry is really building up quite a history of throwing up vague or demonstrably wrong claims, then running away when shown to be wrong! Judith Curry has abandoned science!
Here’s how I see it: Judith Curry really did nothing more nor less than to scour the IPCC AR5 looking for stuff she could claim weakens the case for dangerous man-made climate change. In so doing, she was willing to ignore what the IPCC report actually says in favor of her preferred interpretation of things. She demonstrated more than once that she doesn’t have sufficient knowledge of what the data have to say, or of what the peer-reviewed literature says, to know what she’s talking about.
It’s rather disappointing, really, because if you’re determined to find fault that’s usually ridiculously easy in any report as lengthy as the IPCC AR5, but she still managed to botch
the job. Dismally. She also utterly failed to mention, perhaps even to notice, anything in the IPCC report which strengthens the case. Seriously — are we actually to believe that there isn’t anything like that at all?
I also expect that regarding her testimony, Judith Curry will staunchly refuse to learn anything from the many critics (I’m far from the only one) who have found serious faults in her testimony.”
I end with this quote from a previous post which the right wing climate denier dope did not reproduce in full.
He omitted everything after the word climate typical of the manipulation and fraud and misrepresentation perpetrated by climate deniers like Inhere.
Science is not about certainty but about probabilities
A good example is smoking. Not everyone who smokes will die prematurely from a smoking related disease. But their is a high probability supported by evidence that 2 out of 3 smokers will die prematurely from a smoking related disease. This is sufficient to justify controls on the advertising and sale of the product! If the probability is very high that something adverse will happen then we should act!It is always easy to find gaps—even very significant gaps—in the understanding of a system as complex as the climate, but the issue on the table isn’t whether our understanding is complete, but whether it is complete enough to justify the need for serious controls on carbon dioxide emissions. It’s not the situation that the range of climate predictions runs from “pretty good” to “somewhat bad”—the truth is more like “bad” to “extremely bad,” unless emissions growth is halted and eventually reversed. “
Some aspects of the science of AGW are known with near 100% certainty.
The greenhouse effect itself is as established a phenomenon as any: it was discovered in the 1820s and the basic physics was essentially understood by the 1950s. There is no reasonable doubt that the global climate is warming. And there is also a clear trail of evidence leading to the conclusion that it’s caused by our greenhouse gas emissions.
Some aspects are less certain; for example, the net effect of aerosol pollution is known to be negative, but the exact value needs to be better constrained.
What about the remaining uncertainties? Shouldn’t we wait for 100% certainty before taking action?
Outside of logic and mathematics, we do not live in a world of certainties
. Science comes to tentative conclusions based on the balance of evidence
. The more independent lines of evidence are found to support a scientific theory, the closer it is likely to be to the truth. Just because some details are still not well understood should not cast into doubt our understanding of the big picture: humans are causing global warming.
In most aspects of our lives, we think it rational to make decisions based on incomplete information
. We will take out insurance when there is even a slight probability that we will need it. Why should our planet’s climate be any different?