tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post1084452911865265105..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: What never occurred to Judith Curry (and does 50% equal half?)Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65918573463246037142015-03-15T22:24:31.566+11:002015-03-15T22:24:31.566+11:00Well. If a stranger is a friend you do not know ye...Well. If a stranger is a friend you do not know yet, that idiot might be right. <br />:D<br /><br /><br />ps: it's a joke.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49023755389510888062015-01-22T12:36:27.084+11:002015-01-22T12:36:27.084+11:00A couple of points about that, Anon. Judith didn&#...A couple of points about that, Anon. Judith didn't just tweet it, she wrote a comment about it on her blog, which is where I first saw it:<br /><br />https://archive.today/gC5t3#selection-13483.0-13507.155<br /><br />Also, what could cause an cooling trend of 220% of the warming since 1950 and remain undetected - and if there were an offsetting cooling of 220% then that would require a warming forcing of the same amount in addition to the CO2 warming, in order to balance the books. I think someone would have noticed :)<br /><br />You could be right about her being deliberately provocative, but it's a funny way to do it - making out she is dumb as.<br /><br />I don't know if she's angling for Fred Singer's job or an advisory role to the GOP deniers but it's clear she's gone way beyond ordinary denial and into nuttiness. That latest article of hers is of a standard rarely even seen at WUWT. If her strategy is to totally divorce herself from climate science and become a nutty conspiracy theorist writing nonsense, then she's already there. She doesn't need to change a thing from here on in. Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-23989023371722423322015-01-22T11:01:43.148+11:002015-01-22T11:01:43.148+11:00And if I completely missed the point, mea culpa. I...And if I completely missed the point, mea culpa. I just can't believe that half of what Curry says is worthy of the time put into debunking it.<br />But then, the same could be said of someone else, and I DO love your blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17259788465621105832015-01-22T10:52:12.912+11:002015-01-22T10:52:12.912+11:00Wouldn't the 'other piece' be the proj...Wouldn't the 'other piece' be the projected cooling trend absent human contributions, including volcanic aerosols and whatnot? I'm skeptical that JC's 220% tweet was more than a deliberate non sequitur, not unlike the silliness RSJTol drops on ATTP when summoned.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11422423507008904982015-01-22T10:33:03.911+11:002015-01-22T10:33:03.911+11:00Curry has gone for the full on conspiracy theory i...Curry has gone for the full on conspiracy theory in her latest post.<br /><br />"Naive scientist that I am, it didn’t occur to me until last night that the timing of the NASA/NOAA press release on warmest year was motivated by the timing of the President’s SOTU address, and that a narrative of ‘warmest year’ was needed to provide the President with a sound bite to motivate his climate agenda. "<br /><br />Apparently it did not occur to here that the NASA/NOAA press release was motivated by the fact that it was January 2015, the month that follows the last month of 2014 and the same month that the assessment is normally released.<br /><br />Curry's faux skepticism is no longer a disagreement about science . She is too busy throwing red meat to her entourage of climate cranks.<br /><br />MikeHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32979189642588841292015-01-22T09:24:37.538+11:002015-01-22T09:24:37.538+11:00PG,
you'll have guessed I'm no fan of cur...PG,<br /><br />you'll have guessed I'm no fan of curry's, but to be fair, I am an anonymous sniper and I don't think she's obligated to respond to me. <br /><br />Her post is a total embarrassment mind, a logical car crash of the same scale as her previous ethical fail when she referred to opponents as "equivalent to racists and anti semites"*<br /><br />I'm thinking of formulating"curry's law", something along the lines of<br /><br /><i>the point at which you become convinced Judith Curry can stoop no lower, she will immediately prove you wrong"</i><br /><br />*hard to believe but yes, she genuinely wrote this. And then proved Curry's law by quoting a comparison of climate consensus to Nazism**<br /><br />**yes, I know. You can't believe this is possible but it really did happen. <br /><br />Ref http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/11/charlie-challenging-free-speech/#comment-663239<br /><br />verytallguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-62319639588536100212015-01-22T08:23:09.166+11:002015-01-22T08:23:09.166+11:00The word "magical" springs to mind when ...The word "magical" springs to mind when Curry proposes that a 220% cooling influence might exist - she doesn't claim (there's that word :) ) that it does, but her worldview encompasses the possibility, or at least that's the impression she gives. It may be an act, of course, since a facility for magical thinking is a requirement at right-wing think-tanks.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-6229586148726361212015-01-22T08:14:37.226+11:002015-01-22T08:14:37.226+11:00Further supporting evidence: In her latest post Cu...Further supporting evidence: In her latest post Curry praises Jim Inhofe's attack on President Obama's SOTU climate reference and prefers Inhofe's assessment of climate threats to that of the Pentagon, NOAA and GISS and every major scientific joint on the planet. <br />JUDITH CURRY AGREES WITH JAMES INHOFE. Now try and convince me she is not going to replace Fred Singer.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-80951228950361352042015-01-22T05:42:30.665+11:002015-01-22T05:42:30.665+11:00FOLLOWING CURRY'S 'Magical" REPLY TO ...FOLLOWING CURRY'S 'Magical" REPLY TO Jim2 SHE SWITCHED TO SILENT RUNNING ON HER THREAD WHEN Verytallguy DIRECTLY ASKED CURRY THIS:<br /><br />verytallguy | January 20, 2015 at 3:34 am | Reply<br />Judith,<br />if you plug in the numbers from your paper with Nic Lewis into the change in GHGs over the period covered by the IPCC attribution statement, what proportion of temperature change is attributed to anthropogenic and what to natural?<br />Does your analysis support or contradict the IPPC?<br /><br />NO RESPONSE FROM CURRY<br /><br /><br /><br />LATER Joshua PUTS Verytallguy's QUESTION TO CURRY AGAIN<br /><br /><br />Joshua | January 20, 2015 at 9:32 am | Reply<br />Judith –<br />VTG has an interesting comment above, where he states that:<br />Lewis and Curry give TCR 1.05 – 1.8 as the 17-83% range; TCR 1.33 is the midpoint<br />Plug the numbers in and you get:<br />TCR % of warming attributed to Co2 1.05 49% 1.33 62% 1.80 84%<br />Now I recall you stating publically that someone would be “fooling themselves” if they thought that ACO2 “dominates” (corrected from your original assertion of “influences”) on decadal or centennial scales…<br />But VTG’s numbers indicate that you made that statement even when the paper you was in the process of getting published indicates that ACO2 in fact dominated climate on a decadal scale over the past 6 decades or so.”<br />Would you mind clarifying? Are VTG’s calculations incorrect? Is there a contradiction between your public statements and your published analysis?<br /><br />SILENT RUNNING CONTINUES INTO ITS 3RD DAY.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73809347512647735772015-01-22T02:54:11.150+11:002015-01-22T02:54:11.150+11:00No.
Earlier this week I posted a possible explan...No. <br /><br />Earlier this week I posted a possible explanation for Dr Curry's unscientific behaviour as "early onset". That was silly on my part because cognitive decline does not render one a liar. <br /><br />So why lie in the face of evidence? Who does that? <br /><br />Well just about everybody at The Heritage Foundation, Heartland, Cato (in the matter of climate science) and the George C. Marshall Institute. Historically these right wing 'think tanks' have been a conduit to GOP White House science appointments.<br /><br />I'm betting that Curry has already curried favour with Jeb Bush and is in line for a senior appointment should Clinton lose in '16.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46491227791939763842015-01-22T02:09:05.571+11:002015-01-22T02:09:05.571+11:00"Her next appointment will be a fellowship at..."Her next appointment will be a fellowship at the Heritage Foundation."<br /><br />Always a possibility. But has the above statement been confirmed?Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68842945901802499952015-01-22T00:16:32.310+11:002015-01-22T00:16:32.310+11:00Judith is neither confused or mistaken. She knows ...Judith is neither confused or mistaken. She knows exactly what she's doing. <br /><br />Her next appointment will be a fellowship at the Heritage Foundation.<br />PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75464949578257777952015-01-21T20:23:40.909+11:002015-01-21T20:23:40.909+11:00I've added an update.
Judith is still pursuin...I've added <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/01/what-never-occurred-to-judith-curry-and.html#update" rel="nofollow">an update</a>.<br /><br />Judith is still pursuing her "other piece". I've just got two questions.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10591742316540754592015-01-21T06:54:09.936+11:002015-01-21T06:54:09.936+11:00See, crap like this just makes me doubt the whole ...See, crap like this just makes me doubt the whole ignorance thing...seriously, somehow she doesn't think Bob's oscillator is magical? She doesn't really understand ocean heat? <br /><br />Since Martin Luther King Day was yesterday in the US, I feel like I should quote from him:<br /><br />"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73424902661056593132015-01-21T03:47:29.527+11:002015-01-21T03:47:29.527+11:00Relax, jammy Dodger. I am trying (perhaps too subt...Relax, jammy Dodger. I am trying (perhaps too subtly) to point up Dr Curry's error.<br /><br /> I spent a couple of years debating at Bishop Hill, and know how they tie themselves in knots when evidence and their beliefs conflict.Entropic mannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65680643749937412072015-01-21T03:29:15.314+11:002015-01-21T03:29:15.314+11:00i'm not saying it was aliens, but it would be ...i'm not saying it was aliens, but it would be unscientific not to keep an open mind about this.<br /><br /><br /><br />[anti-poe: ;) ]lignenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39625285496370175732015-01-21T02:39:15.418+11:002015-01-21T02:39:15.418+11:00Also, from the comments:
Jim2 doesn't underst...Also, from the comments:<br /><br />Jim2 doesn't understand what some part of the system can cause warming even if the whole system is cooling:<br />"So, the temperature could go down for a couple of decades and man could still be responsible for the majority of warming. Interesting."<br /><br />And Curry (who is a climate scientists!) instead of explaining how that can happen, just replies:<br />"Seems to be the case. Like I said, ‘magical’"<br /><br />Luckily, someone that seems to understand the problem, <a href="https://archive.today/npRzG#selection-2251.0-2251.8" rel="nofollow">painstakingly tries to explain it</a>.<br /><br />I think it 'magical' how a scientists can apparently loose such a substantial part of her background knowledge. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07982409667756307764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-70442751332755506722015-01-21T02:26:48.368+11:002015-01-21T02:26:48.368+11:00What I think Curry is trying to do is slam the IPC...What I think Curry is trying to do is slam the IPCC any way she can. In this instance, she's (ab)using the inherent ambiguity of natural language to try to show that the IPCC does a lousy job of communicating the science. <br />This is extremely silly since for every ambiguity that she purports to find in this human-readable summary, you can find clarifications in the full report that solve all issues. For obvious reasons (at least to me, but maybe not to Curry), a short summary of a 1k pages report will not and cannot contain all the information it's trying to summarize. <br /><br />It's also silly because her whole argument seems to depend of <strong>her</strong> interpretation of the words in question and not on any real data of how people actually read it and what they understood by it. So those 1500+ words can be summarize (with minimum loss of information ;) ) in "I don't understand this statement so it's wrong". Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07982409667756307764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50967585723154151442015-01-21T01:34:12.098+11:002015-01-21T01:34:12.098+11:00numerobis
What if liking milk is on a scale, say ...numerobis<br /><br />What if liking milk is on a scale, say 1 to 10? :)Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-32229589605836731862015-01-21T01:32:39.592+11:002015-01-21T01:32:39.592+11:00I am not sure if Entropic man is joking or not.
...I am not sure if Entropic man is joking or not. <br /><br />If he is and laughing at how deniers think. Then :)<br /><br />If not ...<br />Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-64220511563786052542015-01-21T01:01:30.059+11:002015-01-21T01:01:30.059+11:00With a sample that small, you shouldn't approx...With a sample that small, you shouldn't approximate it with a normal distribution, but rather you should just use the binomial distribution directly.<br /><br />What does this have to do with climate attribution?numerobisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28311759878774465452015-01-21T00:18:05.149+11:002015-01-21T00:18:05.149+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-26374970404757328442015-01-20T23:48:32.584+11:002015-01-20T23:48:32.584+11:00Unless I've done my sums wrong (disclaimer: no...Unless I've done my sums wrong (disclaimer: not unlikely), then even if you plug in the TCR numbers from Curry's recent sensitivity paper with Nic Lewis, you get an attribution of >50% anthro over 1950 to 2010<br /><br />So she's arguing with herself.<br /><br />https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/curry-for-dinner/#comment-32151<br /><br />I've asked the question on the CE thread if Judith agrees with that. verytallguynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14116734508483134752015-01-20T23:39:15.907+11:002015-01-20T23:39:15.907+11:00Reductio absurdam
I poll a few friends and find ...Reductio absurdam<br /><br /> I poll a few friends and find that 80% of them like milk.<br /><br /> Because of the small sample size my survey's confidence limits are +/- 30%.<br /><br /> Only an idiot would seriously suggest that 110% of my friends like milk. :-) Entropic mannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67596352207993957592015-01-20T22:57:53.184+11:002015-01-20T22:57:53.184+11:00"Pick one:
a) Warming since 1950 is predomina..."Pick one:<br />a) Warming since 1950 is predominantly (more than 50%) caused by humans.<br />b) Warming since 1950 is predominantly caused by natural processes."<br /><br />what natural processes, Judith!? The sun? NO. Ocean cycles? NO. Cosmic rays? NO. <br /><br />cabcAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com