‘I Was Tossed Out Of The Tribe’: Climate Scientist Judith Curry

Submitted by: jayme21 1 year ago in Science
davidrose Formerly respected scientist Judith Curry explains how choosing to engage with climate skeptics , Questioning priorities or others research has made her a pariah and how climate resources are not necessarily being used well. CLICK HERE FOR THE WHOLE STORY.
There are 7 comments:
Male 40,751
You not only have to drink the Kool-Aid? You MUST ask for seconds to prove your loyalty to The Cause! Anyone who fails to be enthusiastic enough will be outcast and ostracized: because the science is settled! Only the impure question AGW, even an iota of it... and Big Brother is always watching...
0
Reply
Male 1,397
Well, what a genuine shock!! I'd never have thunk!
0
Reply
Female 8,052
There is also the issue of public policy. If we had enough acceptance at a global and (more importantly) a corporate level that climate change is a thing then she would be better received. At present climate sceptics are falling on every bit of information which can be used to argue climate change is not happening, by us, to us, right now. It means people feel they must present a united front.. as LordJim said, academia is a horrendously cutthroat place, and this is one situation where assuming a worst case scenario is the safest option.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
Let's bear in mind that she " does not dispute for a moment that human-generated carbon dioxide warms the planet.", she's arguing the nuances, which is good. But let's also bear in mind that scientists are people and can be bitchy as hell. Geologists are the worst. And paleontologists, they are also the worst.
0
Reply
Male 1,741
"I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements." As much as I'd like to read to a rational argument from the other side, after perusing both this article, and her blog, it seems like she uses the same tactic that many other anti-AGW supporters use. They look at ONE part of the data, say, "this one conclusion doesn't have enough evidence, which means that EVERYTHING ELSE must be wrong!!!" She also doesn't really cite to peer-reviewed papers for her arguments. She just attacks other papers instead of doing the work of SUPPORTING her arguments. Meh
0
Reply
Male 7,926
Hey I like this type of Skeptic that uses real science. I fully support both sides. There's room for skepticism that's how science works. She should be granted the same money that pro AGW scientists get for their research. It's how you keep things honest. As long as she keeps avoiding bias I'm okay with it!
0
Reply
Male 2,618
"..her trenchant critique of the supposed consensus on global warming is..from solid data and analysis." --> Wish it was presented here.
0
Reply