.

Saturday, September 13, 2014

Switching "sides" - it's official and public

Sou | 12:07 PM Go to the first of 16 comments. Add a comment

I just spotted this at DailyKos, Judith Curry
...will be featured in a George C. Marshall Institute event at The National Press Club. For those who are unaware, the Marshall Institute is a conservative "think tank" that began lobbying to support Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. Over time the Institute shifted from Cold War hype to the downplaying of environmental threats, including the dangers of secondhand smoke, CFCs' effect on the ozone, and now climate change.

This is the same Judith Curry who advocates that advocacy can lead to distrust of scientists.

She's been ramping up of late. Over the past few months she's peddled disinformation to the US Government. In the last day or so she (all but?) wrongly accused her self-selected nemesis, Professor Mann, of fraud. Today we find out that she's presenting to the George C. Marshall Institute.

About the George C. Marshall Institute.

That's all.


16 comments:

GSR said...

Sou, Judy's not changing sides.

Georgia Tech should feel uncomfortable if not down right nervous.

Sou said...

Perhaps, GSR. Arguably testifying to the US government on behalf of the denialists in the GOP was official and public. However, this surely confirms her 'official and public' declaration to the world at large.

Dave said...

To label organisations like the George C. Marshall Institute, Heartland, SPPI etc. as 'think-tanks' is a deceptive and deliberate misnomer of Orwellian proportions. The only 'thinking' that actually goes on is how to best represent their clients and donors, the fossil fuel and tobacco interests. How to destroy and misrepresent the science that proves that their clients are killing people (in the case of tobacco) and destabilising the earth's climate (fossil fuels). Those who align themselves with these organisations whose bailiwick is to professionally misrepresent and lie, have essentially sold their soul to the devil and lack any decency and credibility. Also, to them, bizarrely, it's organisations like Greenpeace who are the devil incarnate. Nature and science is the enemy. What a truly aberrant and freakish world these people inhabit.

GSR said...

BTW last night Paul Krugman published an op ed in the NYT re (lack of) US inflation. Watts rewrote it using the NYT formatting and passed it off as an op ed in support of deniers. He's just posted it as his lead article.
I think there may be copyright issues the NYT might wanna investigate. I've informed Paul.

Rattus Norvegicus said...

I saw it for a second, but for some reason it has disappeared. Imagine that!

numerobis said...

Is she nearing retirement? The date of her thesis suggest so. That means she could use a few extra dollars. I hope she's negotiated some hefty speaking fees.

GSR said...

She does all right. She spends time between 2 nice houses and runs a climate consultancy with her husband.

GSR said...

HA!!!!!!!!! It's gone.
Sorry Sou, I didn't get a screen grab. I saw it within a minute or so of its publication (had to be because here was only one comment).

Straight away I emailed the NYT Editor's Desk and Krugman's NYT email account.
I have no idea if they were read but I'd like to think they were and that I had a hand in its removal. It would be good to find out if another site has captured it. It's a fantastic snap shot of the state of Watt's ethics.

Joe said...

Don't forget she also now denies CO2 rise is anthropogenic...even defending Salby!!
https://twitter.com/theresphysics/status/508901803342430208

GSR said...

After BEST she was always a fake to me.

Marco said...

Do remember "plausible deniability". She does not deny the rise is anthropogenic, she 'just' argues there is uncertainty. She can always peddle back when Salby's analysis is so obviously wrong that even she cannot support it anymore, and at the same time maintain there is uncertainty

She's jumped very, very deep into the "we can't be certain so we don't know" swamp of the professional confusionists (and no, I don't mean confucionists).

Interestingly, she does not seem to realize that accepting Salby's hypothesis actually means she's getting yet another step closer to Slayer territory. After all, if CO2 rise is driven by temperature, it's not CO2 that causes the warming, which means CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, which is exactly what the Slayers argue...

Sou said...

Good for you, GSR.

Lesson for Anthony Watts: don't take on the NYT and expect to win. Unusually for Anthony, he decided in this case that discretion is the better part of valour. However, the internet doesn't forget.

Joe said...

Marco, fair on the "uncertainty monster" - but this is CO2 rise and defending Salby too? I had the same sentiment as ATTP: "Really. Substantial uncertainties? That seems to be a remarkable thing to say. I'm amazed. U really mean the CO2 rise?" He went on to mention acidification and isotopes after Dana went through the math. When you can get the same answer 3 or more different ways and you still mention "substantial uncertainties" - wow, time to hand in your scientist merit badge.

GSR has a point - after BEST it was clear...and after govt testimony it was clear...but at this point, she has moved into Slayer territory as you say. She's now gone further down the denier path than a lot of WUWT lukewarmer deniers. I would hate to leave that legacy even if the consulting money was good.

numerobis said...

You can never have too much of a safety blanket when the uncertainty monster is out and about.

I-beam said...

How long before the denialosphere massages up a story that she was driven out of academia because she refused to accept the 'warmist orthodoxy'? Play the victim card again, it's always a good one ...

GSR said...
This comment has been removed by the author.