Sunday, October 30, 2011

What's Going On Here?

Now Eli, to be sure, really doesn't know what is going on between Richard Muller and Judy Curry, but this he does know, Judy is listed as an author on all of the five Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature papers, and the papers have been submitted for review (given some of the comments at places like Tamino and Real Climate, they are going to be improved before published). La Curry is not exactly casting aspersions on the papers, but in Pielkespeak she is not not casting aspersions. Clearly she disagrees with some of El Muller's conclusions. Big showdown in Santa Fe this week.

But the Rabett has a question. Journals (Nature for example) have a policy about authors disagreeing

The Nature journals do not require all authors of a research paper to sign the letter of submission, nor do they impose an order on the list of authors. Submission to a Nature journal is taken by the journal to mean that all the listed authors have agreed all of the contents. The corresponding (submitting) author is responsible for having ensured that this agreement has been reached, and for managing all communication between the journal and all co-authors, before and after publication. Any changes to the author list after submission, such as a change in the order of the authors, or the deletion or addition of authors, needs to be approved by a letter signed by every author. (The letter should be scanned and uploaded to the journal's online tracking system by the corresponding author, or sent in one combined email.)
So does she agree to all of the contents of all of the papers? The nice part of this is lots of someones are going to go cliff jumping no matter what. Judy has a choice of whether to do a Little Nell, and throw herself off the cliff, or invite Richard to go jump. Let's see if the bunnies can raise some M&Ms over at the Curry Shack. Rev up the indignation.

25 comments:

tamino said...

Curry made some very questionable statements, both in the article in the Daily Mail and on her blog.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/judith-curry-opens-mouth-inserts-foot/

dhogaza said...

Curry has already stated, on her blog, that the BEST effort is "tarnished", and that she'll be discussing her continued involvement with the project this week at the Santa Fe meeting.

Because teams of physicists including a very recent Nobel prize winner aren't to be trusted, after all, despite her putting her name to the papers ...

"Judy has a choice of whether to do a Little Nell, and throw herself off the cliff"

Judith has already jumped. Though maybe with a bungee cord, for self-preservation.

dhogaza said...

It is a bit odd for someone listed as an author on four papers to insist that the research that led to publication is "tarnished", after the fact, though.

It seems to me, as a humble software engineer, that it would be best to label such efforts as "tarnished" *before* they land on your resume.

Regardless, I have a hunch that the Nobel prize-winning physicist on the team, along with others, won't be paying much attention.

Poker Sign Up Bonus said...

Awesome picture. I am feeling very fresh and comfortable after reading you article. Nice work and keep doing well.

Belette said...

I think that "poker sign up bonus" has hit the nail on the head :-)

Curry Jude said...

belette i think you're hiding the decline in online poker popularity, and I am mystified as to why you don't highlight the uncertainty in the poker chip market. I base this on a rock-solid 5-day trend, not some bafflegab from scientists who have an agenda. Otherwise, of course, this discussion is beneath my dignity but I felt I had to inject true skepticism, because every detail is important in its own way!

Nick Stokes said...

"Regardless, I have a hunch that the Nobel prize-winning physicist on the team, along with others, won't be paying much attention. "

The famous statistician, Brillinger, kept his name off the papers.

Anonymous said...

Curry spoke to the same journalist who had at least one previous "conviction" for mangling the words of a climate scientist. She should have known better, but presumably she thought he was on "her team". The chancer's name is David Rose.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_david_rose_caught_mis.php

I think Robert Muller must rueing the day he ever went near the denialist crowd.

Toby

JCH said...

I thought the most interesting thing about Judy getting together with Dick in Santa Fe was the bit about CRU being an outlier.

Jeffrey Davis said...

Cosmologists like to contrive models of the universe. Have they considered the Judith Curry Model? Everything resembles intra-departmental politics.

EliRabett said...

Some spam is worth saving, but then again, spam is forever.

Holly Stick said...

Curry now has a post describing a long talk she had with Muller and concludes she's good with his explanations. I'd like to hear his version.

Some of her commenters think she is being too easily manipulated. They oughtta know.

J Bowers said...

Do neutrinos travel faster than light? Not all participants agree, so they're re-doing the experiment before a paper can be published and all are agreed about the data. Sounds like integrity, to me.

...The barman says, "Sorry, mate, we don't serve your kind of particles in here." A neutrino walks into a bar...

J Bowers said...

"The chancer's name is David Rose."

Who has been spotted in the past at Mintiresome's singing the beardy one's praises. So much for journalistic objectivity.

dhogaza said...

Holly Stick:

"Curry now has a post describing a long talk she had with Muller and concludes she's good with his explanations. I'd like to hear his version. "

Well, among other things, they discussed Climategate, the IPCC, and other extracurricular things. I imagine she's relieved to hear that Muller still thinks Climategate exposed nefarious behavior on the part to "the Team", that the IPCC is not to be trusted, etc.

Anonymous said...

The issue Curry has is over Muller not parading around the fact that there's no statistically significant warming (if you cherry-pick 1998 as the starting point, in a time series too short to give statistically meaningful results... so basically her issue is over nothing). When she talks about them being "tarnished," she's saying that the public credibility of the project is being tarnished by Muller's publicity stunts after-the-fact. From the little I've read, I think she's fine with the papers to which her name is attached (or at least the data), but doesn't appreciate what she sees as spin. The papers have nothing to do with it, just Muller's behavior.

Although the idea that madam Curry is displeased with misleading public spin does make one giggle more than a bit. Seems that Muller can't win with anybody; most scientists knew he was misconstruing climate science/scientists the whole time, now the "skeptics" and some of his colleagues think he's misconstruing the other way. Neither he nor Curry have anyone to blame but themselves at this point.

-Wheels

J Bowers said...

David Rose says...

"...But I think your memory is at fault when you state that it was I who first used the phrase “hide the decline”. You did this, twice, in our first conversation, although it’s true I was the first to mention it in our second talk..."

Anonymous said...

perhaps i've misuunderstood, but Curry seems to disagree with Muller's PR, not with the papers

/MangoChutney

Anonymous said...

"Curry seems to disagree with Muller's PR, not with the papers"

Curry to David Rose:

"There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped."

Muller, Curry et al.:

"Though it is sometimes argued that global warming has abated since the 1998 El Nino event (e.g. Easterling and Wehner 2009, Meehl et al. 2011), we find no evidence of this in the GHCN land data. Applying our analysis over the interval 1998 to 2010, we find the land temperature trend to be 2.84 ± 0.73 C / century, consistent with prior decades."

Curry at her blog:

"However, please understand that my statement to Rose was about the plot with the 10 year running mean ending in 2006 being misleading. It is misleading."

This 'misleading' plot was taken FROM HER OWN GODDAMN PAPER
(Figure 5).

Wiley Coyote said...

Dear Mr. Dr. Professor Rabbit,

I was disturbed to learn of this apparent increase in certain Hominids imitating the decidedly self-defeating behavior of our distant cousins the Lemminids, as documented here. Especially given that the latter's reputation for self destruction is decidedly a false wive's tail, as we all know, whereas that of the former proceeds in real time before our very eyes. This brings up the curious question of why such Hominids should be less astute, shall we say, than than our rodent cousins in terms of their adaptive behavior, a topic which even the former Mr. Dr. Professor Gould does not seem to address in his opus as far as we have been able to ascertain in our book club readings.

I hope that I do not appear too callous when I also voice my concerns about who is going to clean the blood off the rocks at the cliff base, although I suppose the rising sea levels will take care of this in due time.

Please send my regards to the Mrs along with our sincere appreciations for inserting the bastard file into the cake, which nearly made up for the ineptitude of our lawyers following our incident at the drive in this summer. Our mistake there was in the mistaken view that fidelity the facts would win the day, when Mr. Dr. Professor Pielke The Younger, among others, demonstrate clearly that this is not how to gain traction.

Sincerely,
Wiley

Anonymous said...

That CRU is an outlier argument is hilarious if it weren't so sad. The series they have taken for "CRU" is land+ocean HadCRUT product and all the other series are land only. An egg is distinct from a chicken its not an outlier from a chicken ... although actually ... maybe that's not a great metaphor? Must try harder next time?

I guess I should sign myself land_not_land+ocean right?

J Bowers said...

Daily Express: GLOBAL WARMING IS OVER, SAYS EXPERT

"But is it? Not according to Prof Judith Curry, a member of Prof Muller’s team, who claims the same findings have shown that global warming has stopped – plunging the rest of us into a quandary of what and who to believe."

Anonymous said...

As Watts reckons BEST are submitting to JGR, I looked for their policies on multi-authorship.

"...The corresponding author also attests that all living coauthors have seen the final version of the article, agree with the major conclusions, and have agreed to its submission for publication.”

http://www.agu.org/pubs/authors/manuscript_tools/journals/pub_guidelines.shtml

Going to need a bigger bag for popcorn.

barry

Anonymous said...

It seems that Muller is trying to score some cheap points from the denialists again:

"No, the Climate-gate was a scandal, it’s terrible what they did, it’s shameful the way they hid the data. There’s real skepticism, valid skepticism about the degree of warming that’s caused by humans and at this meeting today, we’re hearing a range of things that were not incorporated in the IPCC report (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations panel that in 2007 said increased temperatures since 1950 is more than 90 percent due to man-made greenhouse gas concentrations) and need to be incorporated in the future. It isn’t whether there’s global warming; it’s how much there is. And how much of that is caused by humans? And there’s still a lot of uncertainty that and the skeptics are raising very good points on that issue."

http://www.capitolreportnewmexico.com/?p=6691

This guy is amazing.

Rattus Norvegicus said...

Nice to see that James has no respect for Curry.