Today she writes (archived here):
The idea of asking the IPCC questions is an interesting one. It seems to me that there somewhat of a disconnect between what the public/policy makers want to know, and the way that the IPCC frames it’s conclusions.
In the past, I’ve criticized and made recommendations regarding the IPCC. But I’ve never thought about asking them questions. Well, at the top of my list would be:
How have you responded to the IAC recommendations? If you have not yet implemented the IAC’s recommendations, then why not?
That's typical of Judith Curry - criticising something that she knows nothing about but "never thought about asking them questions" first. Had she ever thought about looking for the answer?
I had to check the date of her article to make sure I hadn't inadvertently gone back a few years. It was her latest. Brand new.
I remembered that review, which took place three years ago. The IAC made a few recommendations. It took all of ten seconds to Google IAC IPCC to confirm the answer - which anyone who's followed the recent changes at the IPCC would already know.
Yes, Judith. The IPCC has responded to the IAC recommendations.
Yes, Judith. The IPCC has implemented changes in response to the IAC recommendations.
Judith Curry is constantly criticising things she knows nothing about - like climate models, like the IPCC.
Wattsupwiththat has been boring the past few days. Judith Curry's site is painful. It's looking more like WUWT every day. Her previous article was by someone arguing that metabolic changes to phytoplankton in a warming world - and the flow-on effects - won't be bad because the populations will be able to move easily. I'll hazard a guess that her guest author had never heard of food webs or ecosystems (or harmful phytoplankton blooms). There was a lot more wrong with the article than that but I can't be bothered going into it further. It reminded me of Anthony's "OMG it's insects" series. I've archived it here for the curious.