Maple Leaf Sums It Up
Good comments on the previous post are getting lost in the shuffle, having reached a new record height for droppings at Rabett Run, so Eli thought he would restart this with a comment from Maple Leaf that sums up what Judith Curry needs to think about. He (yes, that is a supposition) has posted it here, at Curry's blog and perhaps elsewhere
-
From Curry's place:
Mapleleaf
"Dr. Curry,
I'm sure that you agree (correct me if you don't) that the science behind the theory of anthropogenic induced climate change is a long one, and very well established (I can hear the cries of indignance from those in denial about AGW/ACC already), and borne out by multiple, independent data sets and consilience. Now, that integrated knowledge does not constitute a dogma, nor does defending the science against an onslaught of distortion , misinformation and personal attacks. At least it is not a "dogma" to reasonable, rational and informed (on the actual climate science) people.
Why have you elected to frame (and fabricate) the "debate" in such a (ludicrous) way so as to make it impossible for someone to defend any aspect of the theory of AGW/ACC or climate science in general without being accused of defending an alleged "dogma"? You need to choose your words and narrative much, much more carefully if you expect people to believe that you are being sincere.
Now your incoherence and ambiguity places you in an interesting/awkward position, because now you can never defend the climate science or your peers in the climate field who (like you) know AGW/ACC is a concern without being accused of defending the alleged "dogma"-- at least by many readers here. I will be watching for interest to see whether anyone accuses you of that should you decide to defend the climate science or IPCC at some point.
Moreover, it seems that in your model, Singer, Michaels et al. can distort and misrepresent the data and science at will and also malign scientists, and do whatever it takes to defend their very real "dogma"/ideology without so much as a word of critique from you or your fan base?
And when the science is repeatedly attacked by some of your friends (e.g., Michaels), and even people on your own blog, you are deathly silent-- heck, you even give them a pat on the back. Worse yet, when the scientists have the audacity (sarc) to stand up to the repeated attacks and to defend the integrity of the science, they are accused by you (a scientist) of defending the alleged IPCC "dogma".
This startling asymmetry (and hypocrisy on your part) flies in the face of your claims of honest intentions and sincerity.
Sure critique the IPCC and let us improve and advance the science, your peers are all for that (really), but you are not going to achieve anything this way. While we are counting how many angels can dance on a pinhead, nit pick, bicker, muse about hypotheticals and indulge your and your cohorts' sophistry-- GHG emissions continue to escalate. Or is that exactly what you want?
It is lost on you that your efforts are largely redundant, especially after the recommendations put forth by the AIC review and others. You know that, so why keep fabricating debate, fabricating controversy and sicking misguided and misinformed people on your peers?
Now this would all be bad enough, but then you have the gall to claim to be a mediator and to have the betterment of science at heart. How are these inane and clearly mendacious tactics meant to facilitate "building bridges" or constructive dialogue?
These are anything but felicitous actions on your part.
PS: There are some questions above, I would appreciate some direct and unambiguous answers not from your fan base, not Mosher-- you please. You framed the argument. You have made the assertions. You engaged in innuendo, insinuations and dog-whistling...now you need to answer to it." -
- and
-
Another cross post:
Dr. Curry,
Perhaps a more appropriate title might have been "Ending the assault on science and scientists by "skeptics"".
Anyhow, that brings me to the point of this post. As you know there are already musing about holding McCarthy-like interrogations of climate scientists by Republicans and Tea Party ideologues. These are indeed scary times, although your actions of late may have saved you experiencing the wrath of Barton and Inhofe. Time will tell.
You volunteered recently that you have been contacted by a politician/s. You allowed Mosher to post an (illegally obtained) email. So now I am going to ask you, very nicely, in the spirit of transparency and openness, to post a legally obtained email (or emails) that you received from the politician/s. Feel free to obfuscate their details, and name their name/s.
Many of your readers here have been demanding investigations against climate scientists, so your position on such is pertinent. So your role in these developments is relevant and should be a matter for the public record given what is at stake and given that tax payers money will be used to fund any such interrogations.
Additionally, please answer these questions, again as unambiguously and clearly as possible:
1) Do you condone plans by Republicans and Tea Party representatives to launch investigations against climate scientists?
2) If yes, do you plan to do to prominently condemn such actions and what do you intend to do prevent them from happening?
3) If no. Why so?
4) If no. Do you plan to assist in any way the people launching and executing the investigations against your peers?
5) If such interrogations go ahead, do you agree that they should include interrogations/cross examination of climate scientists from both the “skeptical” (e.g., Christy, Spencer, Lindzen) and the “warmist” sides?
If such a horrid inquisition does go ahead, it will not herald the end of the war, if anything it will just make matters much, much worse. I fear the likes of Inhofe will only be content when a "warmist" climate scientist is physically hurt or worse.
Again, I am interested only in your position on this. Thank you."
Posts
39 comments:
Has Curry answered this yet? She's not very keen on answering, is she?
It's like throwing a burning cigarette in a parched bush and then walk away when the fire squad comes and asked what happened. Meanwhile the forest burns.
I would suggest Mapleleaf read his posts in the context they were directed at him and seriously ask himslef how he would respond to such attacks. Like the Democrats, some people think they are 100% correct and everyone else is just flawed, evil, or both.
What a marvelous election! The American people have spoken!
Celery Eater
Although I have to say she did give me some answers on a CaS thread the other day.
Eli,
Thank you for drawing attention to this, very much appreciated!
Despite my prolific posting at JC's, I am an incredibly busy rabbit (bunnies to look after, carrots to be tended to, partner bunny to be get happy), but now and again one has to make sacrifices.....
Anyhow, I do not expect JC to clarify her position as requested.
PS: Do not eat wild celery, it is disgusting.
MapleLeaf
Mapleleaf,
Thanks for the confirmation.
Obama is worse than Nixon as the Dems lost more House, Senate, and State Legislature seats than the Republicans did in 1974, after Watergate and Nixon's resignation!
Finally the opportunity to correct the trainwreck of the last four years of Democrat control of Congress.
Celery Eater
Dear Eli,
As mentioned earlier I'm a particularly busy bunny right now, and have some major deadlines looming. So this morning is pretty much the last time for quite a while that I will be able to invest (waste?) my tie to try and get Curry to clarify her position and to be more specific. Anyhow, I would be most grateful if other bunnies inspired by my efforts to continue on my behalf. Please do not let this fizzle. I will hop in here and elsewhere as time permits.
She has some more whoppers up today.....it never ends.
MapleLeaf
Mapleleaf,
Your inquiries in the twisted form of personal attacks and disparging comments are not going to yield any results. Look at your response to me after my comparing you to Democrats, your comparisons and attacks at Dr. Curry are more severe. It is pity you do not see the flaw in your logic.
Celery Eater
Sorry, CE, yours is just more of the usual whining about how every hates someone or other.
Eli,
Sorry Eli your projection of emotion is incorrect as usual. I am not whining about anything.
Here is the shorter version of Mapleleaf.
Dr. Curry since you are delusional stupid fin liar when are you going to reasonably respond to my questions?
Such an effective strategy to have an open discussion. Mapleleaf can say whatever he wants, but to think he is going to get a reasoned response with such aggressive tactics is quite delusional. You guys are comedy. Time to make more popcorn.
Celery Eater
No, that is your dogmatic interpretation of what Maple Leaf said.
"Why have you elected to frame (and fabricate) the "debate" in such a (ludicrous) way so as to make it impossible for someone to defend any aspect of the theory of AGW/ACC or climate science in general without being accused of defending an alleged "dogma"?
Since you are just making things up and what you do is ridiculous.
"Now your incoherence..."
You are a babbling idiot.
"This startling asymmetry (and hypocrisy on your part) flies in the face of your claims of honest intentions and sincerity."
The irony of this statement made me LMAO.
"While we are counting how many angels can dance on a pinhead, nit pick, bicker, muse about hypotheticals and indulge your and your cohorts' sophistry-- GHG emissions continue to escalate. Or is that exactly what you want?"
In my mind CO2 is going to kill us all and I see you want that to happen.
"You know that, so why keep fabricating debate, fabricating controversy and sicking misguided and misinformed people on your peers?"
Why you do you keep making things up you fin liar, is it all to support stupid people in attacks on your peers?
"Now this would all be bad enough, but then you have the gall to claim to be a mediator and to have the betterment of science at heart. How are these inane and clearly mendacious tactics meant to facilitate "building bridges" or constructive dialogue?"
I am calling you a stupid fin deceitful liar, but I want to have a constructive dialogue with you.
Fascinating!
Celery Eater
Eli,
When one looks in the mirror, it is best to open ones eyes, to have the ability to see.
CE,
You need to put aside your emotional reaction to words like "incoherence" and realise that they have a substantial meaning.
Of course it's not enough to just say "incoherence", but to explain what the incoherence is, which I think was done.
While ML's critique is harsh, it is about JC's methods.
Anonymous Etc
This Little Mouse does get things wrong, but isn't too bad a spotting a trend or a pattern. The science of climate change has been built up over many many years. A considerable number of lines of evidence point to very similar conclusions.
I could not tell you the significance of the tropospheric hot spot, but I can see my world changing and not for the better. I see scientific argument that I am unqualified to choose between, but see most implying we are going to be in considerable trouble.
So much is already locked in that we are going to have to adapt. Continue as we are and we will face the unadaptable. We will not be able to feed 6 billion people in 2100.
Little Mouse
Anonymous Etc,
More emotional projection? I promise you there is zero emotion in my posts. Why would I get emotionally involved with two people I do not know? Strange that anyone who disagrees is on an emotional rant. All I am pointing out is it is extremely difficult to ask some one to have a cordial constructive coversation at the same time you are stating they must be either crazy or lying. Not much of a choice for that person.
We'll see if Dr. Curry responds to ML. I would be amazed if she did.
Celery Eater
Looks like MapleLeaf was pretty much blown off. Inferno's having a better time of it getting support. ;-)
CE,
Your response to ML's critique of JC's lack of coherence in her argument was;
"You are a babbling idiot."
Apologies if that was a reasoned refutation or request for clarification. It appeared to me to be a visceral reaction.
Anonymous Etc
Deech, Eli thought you were joking. Shame on him.
Well, I'm sad to report that Neven wins. This is her "response", and yes, the quotation marks are intentional:
"curryja | November 7, 2010 at 3:33 pm | Reply
Well i definitely didn’t see this the first time around. In the spirit of cooperating with the sourcewatch craziness, here goes
I don’t recall ever receiving an email from a politician, other than mass mailings.
1) Do you condone plans by Republicans and Tea Party representatives to launch investigations against climate scientists?
I haven’t been paying much attention, I don’t know what is being investigated. I have spoken out publicly against Cuccinelli’s investigation of Mann.
2) If yes, do you plan to do to prominently condemn such actions and what do you intend to do prevent them from happening?
If, like Cuccinelli’s investigation, I find it inappropriate, i will speak out in the blogosphere.
5) If such interrogations go ahead, do you agree that they should include interrogations/cross examination of climate scientists from both the “skeptical” (e.g., Christy, Spencer, Lindzen) and the “warmist” sides?
It depends on what the heck they are investigating."
Now are inquiring minds going to let her get away with her vacuous answers? I certainly hope not.
MapleLeaf
ML,
Seems that Dr. Curry is less inclined to support interrogations than you, since you seem to be conducting your very own.
More popcorn, need more popcorn
Celery Eater
My Cross Post. (call me the doddy bunny. no one else does..)
Well, let's take a look:
1. Absence of doubt
Well, I see many 'skeptics' even posting here who appear to have no doubt whatsoever that AGW is wrong, or vastly overstated, even given that they have no coherent alternative position.
2. Intolerance of debate
'Skeptics' in the climate debate have a strong dislike of scientific debate. By scientific debate, I mean things like taking scientific positions (such as 'The sun is causing the observed temperature changes') and being able to make a reasoned scientific argument for them, subject to later correction. No, 'skeptics' only like debate where fact-checking is minimal and the ability to argue by assertion and soundbite is unchallenged. How much effort has Mr McIntyre or Mr Watts put into publishing papers?
3. Appeal to authority
Bellamy. Pilmer. Hal Lewis. Petition projects. 'Nuff said.
4. A desire to convince others of the ideological “truth”
I'm yet to find an Internet messageboard on which any topic even tangentially relating to global warming, weather, climate, or geology does not get hijacked by the resident AGW-denial troll, with the usual canards about AGW being used to justify taxation, it all being a big commie conspiracy, and of course, it's not happening but if it is it's the Sun.
5. A willingness to punish those that don’t concur
http://www.realstreet.co.uk/2009/11/lord-monckton-warmist-criminals/
"I haven’t been paying much attention..."
I find this response interesting. Haven't the plans by the incoming Republicans been all over the media, highlighted by many of the various "realist" climate blogs?
Maybe people do operate from different knowledge bases
To the question "Do you condone plans by Republicans and Tea Party representatives to launch investigations against climate scientists?", Mapleleaf shows her replying (on 7 Nov) "I haven’t been paying much attention, I don’t know what is being investigated. I have spoken out publicly against Cuccinelli’s investigation of Mann."
And yet, over on Collide-a-scape she wrote (on 4 Nov) : "And the specter of investigations into this situation (not just the emails, but more broadly) in the U.S. with the new Republican congress clearly has at least Mann worried, as per his WaPo editorial."
So, she knows about the possible investigations on 4 Nov but claims to be not "paying much attention" on the 7th ? Maybe the reply to Mapleleaf (when she didn't know what was going on) was written earlier than the 4th; she then worked out what was going on; said so on the 4th; then replied to Mapleleaf with that reply she'd written when she didn't know what was going on ?
JMurphy,
Curry's intriguing response was posted yesterday, 7 November 2010. Her response to the first post above is also on her site.
Curry knows that the Republicans want to investigate alleged "fraud" and "misconduct" by climate scientists. Now what I wanted to know from here is whether or not that should also include so-called "skeptical" scientists....Her answer shown above claims ignorance as to what the inquiries/hearings will be about. We know that claim is very likely not true (thanks JMurphy). So my take on this is that Curry seems to think that "skeptics" should be given free pass, but to be honest it is hard to tell just what she thinks
It is my recollection that she has been on the intertubes claiming that at least one have emailed her recently...I can't recall where she has made that claim on the web, so perhaps I am remembering wrong. Maybe some here could track that down?
And please do go to JC's place to ask the same questions that you are asking here. I am but one, insignificant person.
MapleLeaf
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate-scientists-20101108,0,545056.story
"Prominent Republican congressmen such as Darrell Issa of Vista, Joe L. Barton of Texas and F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin have pledged to investigate the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. They say they also intend to investigate the so-called Climategate scandal, in which thousands of e-mails of leading climate scientists were hacked and released to the public last year."
Re, the suggestion to go to Curry's blog to ask questions : having just read some of the comments on her latest thread (seemingly mostly 'disproving' AGW or chatting amongst themselves as to which scientist/branch of climatology/etc. is the most wicked/stupid/evil and which of the posters themselves is the most clever/knowledgeable), I gave up and refuse to get involved in such nonsense. And she allows all that without a murmur !
Kudos to anyone brave enough to post there but I think you are wasting your time - with regards to those who post there, and Curry herself, who seems to like to play around with words and definitions as she sees fit.
JMurphy,
I really do not blame you. I stayed away form her place until last week for those very reasons, but the rhetoric and misinformation finally sucked me in. I'll be the first to admit that doing so was a big waste of my time. I'm hoping though that it was not a complete waste of time and did shed a little light on the bizarre goings on there.
MapleLeaf
Well, as for someone getting hurt:
1) We have heard that climate scientists should be "drawn and quartered" (Rush Limbaugh), that there weren't enough hari-kari knives (Glenn Beck), but Marc Morano disagreed.
He would settle for public flogging.
2) I know/have known at least 6 folks who get/have gotten death threats, just offhand, and it's not like I know that many people.
Well, I've been trying my feeble Adelady best. But it's really, really discouraging to see the pats on the back for the tin foil hat mob and the enthusiastic agreement with some of the dyed in the wool ideologues. I'm still sticking with my personal view that this is largely naivete on jc's part with a spicing up of dislike or resentment for some of the acknowledged geniuses in the hard science fields.
And I really really think she needs a crash course in sociology / anthropology for a better perspective on how groups and cultures perpetuate themselves and reinforce belief and value systems. Finding that some people share your _stated_ preference for 'civility' should not blind you to the obvious fact that they use their _stated_ claims to manners to cover deeply nasty remarks (my infamous Aunt Violet is a classic case).
If you've previously been a bit put off by the bad language and pushy disagreements in a family or group you're more familiar with, it's too easy to overlook and dismiss the virtues of those interactions underlying their surface awkwardness. How many of us find the families of friends a bit strange with their shouting and fighting. I have a hard time accepting that those habitual interactions are harmless - but I'm pretty sure that the harm done by some of the impeccably polite, prissy-mouthed family and church members I once knew was a lot, lot worse than the occasional blowup in other groups.
MinniesMum
Judith's dropped another clanger in comments.
Media interest in the 'discussion with sceptics' exists, why? - "This isn’t news unless the science has gotten caught up in ideology."
I'll try to explain how the media works (or doesn't, IMHO).
I think it is important for climate scientists and others who are knowledgable about the science of AGW to regularly post on Judith Curry's blog and to challenge the tin foil hat brigade. I know it's tedious and doesn't change the opinions of the nutters* but her blog is getting a lot of traffic and it is likely to have a substantial number of lurkers. Many skeptics are now claiming that most people agree with them. If scientists just stepped out of the debate, that is increasingly likely to be true.
Also, Dr Curry is likley to be pointed to by the MSM and blogosphere as "a climate scientist who is unafraid to speak the TRUTH as opposed to all those frauds and villains who hide in their ivory towers and worship the IPCC". I think Dr Curry should be prompted to acknowledge the facts that even she must recognise and not be allowed to hide behind the waffle smoke screen that she throws up.
* I'm a psychologist so sorry for slipping into technical jargon
cheers - Louise
From Bart Verheggen's,
"dhogaza, Rattus and Sou,
Trenberth also has serious issues with the work that JC and JeffId were getting all excited about. As per usual, the fuss was not over a null issue, but it is a storm in a tea cup, and people like TTT and JeffId were getting way too excited. We are not facing a paradigm shift here, not even close.
Anyhow, sad that JC does not have the savvy to figure out the flaws in the papers in question--Trenberth has, but instead uses the situation to make snide remarks and yet more insinuations of nefarious goings on.
IMHO, Sou probably has offered the best advice yet. We all suspected that this is what JC was going to do on her blog, and she verifies that prediction pretty much daily. Maybe we should let "Hot Air" etc. self implode...besides there are far more important things to deal with as Sou points out.
That all said, someone like Rattus or dhogaza or Sou going over there once in a while to shine some light (good luck trying to get a straight answer from her on anything) on some of her more egregious nonsense would be good-and would to remind her that people are observing and taking notes of her bad behaviour.
PS: The tactics being used now by Curry, are strikingly similar to those used by Dr. Bernadine Healy during the (ongoing) vaccine wars. According to Specter,
"She [Healy] often tries to present herself as a calm voice of reason between two equally emotional camps"
Maybe Curry fancies herself as Healy, only problem is that Healy's musings on the vaccine debate have done much more harm than good, and only fueled the the rhetoric of the anti-vaccine groups. Maybe something for Curry to keep in mind....unless to do harm is JC's intention, then never mind."
MapleLeaf
Good points Louise. Personally I am torn, if scientists are going to go there they need to go there en mass. Once or two of us doing so is having no impact.
Then again, commenter Sou makes some good points on this thread at Bart's place:
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/science-dissent-polarization-and-ideology/
Oh well.....
MapleLeaf
I'm sure there is a point to all this, but ...
OK, one LAST kick at the bucket here.
"Dr. Curry,
This is very curious. I asked you this on November 7, 2010 at 12:59 am:
"You volunteered recently that you have been contacted by a politician/s. You allowed Mosher to post an (illegally obtained) email. So now I am going to ask you, very nicely, in the spirit of transparency and openness, to post a legally obtained email (or emails) that you received from the politician/s. Feel free to obfuscate their details, and name their name/s."
Your answer, on November 7, 2010 at 3:33 pm was:
"I don’t recall ever receiving an email from a politician, other than mass mailings."
And
"I haven’t been paying much attention, I don’t know what is being investigated."
But over at Collide-a-scape on 4 November 2010 you said this:
"And the specter of investigations into this situation (not just the emails, but more broadly) in the U.S. with the new Republican congress clearly has at least Mann worried, as per his WaPo editorial."
So you were paying attention. Now you volunteer on 10 November 2010 that you have in fact been invited (by Republicans) to provide testimony to a U.S. House of Representative’s Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
A web-site, Knoxnews.com, reported about the hearing on 8 November @ 10:30 am. Your name was not on the list at that time.
Enquiring minds would be grateful if you could please clarify the timeline. When exactly did the committee (or politicans) contact you for the first time to request your attendance at this hearing or to ask whether or not you would be interested in participating? Could we please see that email? Unlikely as it may be, if presented with credible evidence I will accept that you were contacted for the very first time on Monday (8th) or Tuesday (9th), that is, after I posed my question to you.
Either way, I find your claims about "not been paying much attention" and not ever having been contacted by email by a politician inconsistent with how events have unfolded over the last week or so, especially given that you stating above that you have testified twice before for the minority party.
Maybe I should also contact Santer, Feely and Alley to see when they were first contacted.
Good luck with the testimony, I hope everyone works towards making the dialogue productive, and that some misconceptions/misunderstandings can be ironed out."
And the enlightening response is?
"curryja | November 11, 2010 at 1:48 pm | Reply
i don’t understand your questions. here’s an easy answer: i was the last person to be invited onto these panels."
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/10/uncertainty-gets-a-seat-at-the-“big-table”/#comment-10824
My final post on this.....draw your own conclusions from her response.
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/10/uncertainty-gets-a-seat-at-the-“big-table”/#comment-10863
MapleLeaf
PS: I do not know why some of her fans are so intimidated, especially by a nobody like me asking questions, that they have to start making threats.
"all i i know is that this hearing was mentioned to me a few weeks ago, with my participation as a possibility. it was confirmed a few days ago. they sent me a copy of the press release, everyone else on the panels was named, my slot was listed as TBD. this is all i know. i still don’t understand the point of your questions."
What happened to her shift key?
S. F. Singer is what she wants to straddle between? (See Tom Toles cartoon in today's WaPo on the lovely fun of taking a position "half way in between".)
Here's is Singer's latest stomach churning post:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/the_global_warming_court_battl.html
His anniversary present of "climategate". Or is he seeking a place to testify before a House committee hearing?
Post a Comment