Difference between revisions of "Judith Curry"

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (SW: →‎Other: minor wording)
(SW: →‎Personal: removed spousish stuff altogether)
Line 223: Line 223:
  
 
==Personal==
 
==Personal==
−
Curry is not<ref name=notspouse>Curry, pers. comm. to A.Haynes, 2010-04-04 (I didn't ask her, she emailed to criticize the (referenced) identification of Webster as her husband as incorrect.)</ref> married to colleague [[Peter J. Webster]], despite others' statements.<ref name=spouse>{{cite web
+
Curry is not related to [[Koch network attendee]] and [[Manhattan Institute]] trustee [[Ravenel Curry III]].<ref>(Curry, pers. comm.; and confirmed with another source)</ref>
−
|publisher=Climate Progress
 
−
|title=New Scientist’s Fred Pearce jumps the shark
 
−
|url=http://climateprogress.org/2011/02/03/new-scientists-fred-pearce-jumps-the-shark/
 
−
|accessdate=2011-04-04
 
−
|author=Joe Romm
 
−
|date=2011-02-03
 
−
|quote=One reporter (not Pearce) actually tried to convince me that the conference was legitimate because Peter Webster attended.  Yes, Webster was certainly the most serious scientists to attend the conference — but he is Curry’s husband!
 
−
}}</ref>
 
−
 
−
(Curry is not related to [[Koch network attendee]] and [[Manhattan Institute]] trustee [[Ravenel Curry III]].<ref>(Curry, pers. comm.; and confirmed with another source)</ref>)
 
  
 
==Research interests==
 
==Research interests==

Revision as of 03:55, 3 August 2011

{{#badges:Climate change}} Judith A. Curry is chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. A high profile climate communicator, she runs a climate blog[3] and is regularly invited by Republicans to testify at climate hearings about uncertainties in climate understanding and predictions.

Her climate outreach communication has been critized for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence.

Views

Views on climate

Curry believes the IPCC has done a bad job of characterizing uncertainty".[1]

While Curry herself is not a climate change doubter, she has urged that climate scientists listen to doubters' criticisms[citation needed], and she does not view herself as a climate hawk[2] (one who judges that the risks of climate change are sufficient to warrant a robust response.[3]) - though somewhat confusingly, she denies playing down the urgency of climate action: "I am saying nothing about that one way or the other".

In September 2010, Curry started a weblog, Climate Etc., which adopted the same "stress-the-uncertainties" approach taken by past efforts to thwart science-based policy actions, as documented by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway in Merchants of Doubt[4].

Views on disclosure

Curry has said she is not willing to accept non-disclosure as acceptable behavior by scientists.[5] But it's nuanced: when asked "If someone was...[publicly] playing down the urgency of climate action, and they had a relative affiliated with a libertarian organization, would there be an obligation to [voluntarily] disclose the connection?," she replied "No."

Contrarian assertions and evidence

"Skeptics have difficulty getting published"

"And I continue to see examples where skeptical scientists have substantial difficulty in getting their papers published." (Curry, July 2011)[6]

Evidence

Curry states, "A number of scientists have mentioned this issue publicly, including Pielke Senior and Roy Spencer and [economist] Ross McKitrick and [mining executive] Steve McIntyre."[7]

Other

James Annan has provided examples of other assertions made by Curry - e.g. on no-feedback climate sensitivity, on aerosols, and on detection&attribution.[8]

Criticisms from climate scientists

Criticisms of published research

Liu and Curry's August 2010 paper, "Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice"[9], has been criticized for its failure to cite previous papers drawing the same conclusion, and for its "uncritical use of invalid data".[10], [11]

Criticisms of outreach communication

Curry's "public outreach" communication is criticized by prominent climate scientists and other science-aligned climate bloggers for its propensity toward "inflammatory language and over-the-top accusations ...with the...absence of any concrete evidence and [with] errors in matters of simple fact."[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17].

Coby Beck said:[12]

"...Examples of the unreliability of Curry's blog publications are illustrated by Michael Tobis[18] and James Annan[19], who both showed basic flaws in her understanding of uncertainty and probability, or at least an irresponsible level of sloppiness in expressing herself. Arthur Smith pointed out an under-grad level misunderstanding[20] in her own field's basic terminology. In one comment some months ago[21] she called the blogger Deep Climate's detailed and documented investigation into the Wegman Report "one of the most reprehensible attacks on a reputable scientist that I have seen" even as she revealed in her incorrect synopsis of the charges that she had not even read it for herself. ... [i.e.] she shows herself ready to publicly criticise someone else in the strongest terms based entirely on second hand information gleaned from places like Climate Audit and Watts Up With That."

Gavin Schmidt has criticised Curry for "not knowing enough about what she has chosen to talk about[22], for not thinking clearly about the claims she has made with respect to the IPCC[23], and for flinging serious accusations at other scientists without just cause."[24].

James Annan has laid out examples of Curry's "history of throwing up vague or demonstrably wrong claims, then running away when shown to be wrong."[8]

Recognition

Judith Curry was awarded the title "climatologist of the year" at the 'post-normal science conference' in Lisbon 2011[25]. It is unclear whether any Institution of note supports this award.

Institutions

From Cury's CV:[4]

Earlier positions at Penn State, Purdue University, University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Personal

Curry is not related to Koch network attendee and Manhattan Institute trustee Ravenel Curry III.[26]

Research interests

Curry's research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research.

Business interests and potential conflicts of interest

Aerosonde, -2006

Partner was board member, and North America CEO

The business interests of Curry's partner[27],[28] dovetailed with her research into the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research; partner Peter Webster was affiliated with Aerosonde, a maker of unmanned aerial vehicles used for atmospheric research, including Curry's.[29], Curriculum Vitae

Conflict? Curry's response

Curry has not yet responded to questions posed as to whether her and her partner's Aerosonde activities constituted a conflict of interest; see reference for details.[30]

CFAN, 2006+

With her partner[31], Curry has run a weather prediction consulting business, Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN), since 2006.[32].

Conflict? Curry suggests no

Curry to Lemonick: no correlation

During Michael Lemonick's interview with Curry for a October 2010 Scientific American profile[33], Lemonick reports (pers. comm.) that he asked Curry about potential conflicts of interest, and she responded:

"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."

Curry to SourceWatch: full extent of fossil fuel ties

Further details from Curry would seem to suggest no conflict: Curry has clarified that this is the full extent of her ties to fossil fuel interests, and that she has no ties to organizations or individuals with an interest in delaying climate action, or to organizations working on behalf of such interests such as PR firms and science-for-hire firms like New Hope Environmental Services, or subcontractors of such firms.

CFAN's clients not disclosed

The identities of CFAN's clients have not been disclosed.

Disclosure policy questions; Curry's response

Curry has not yet answered two questions about CFAN's clients: why they are not identified, and whether this is by their preference or hers; see reference for details.[30]

Articles and Resources

References

  1. ↑ Keith Kloor (2010-04-23). An Inconvenient Provocateur. Collide-a-scape. Retrieved on 2010-10-29. “"Chapter 2.3 in the IPCC WG1 Third Assessment Report and Chapter 6 in the IPCC WG1 Fourth Assessment Report, both of which address the paleoclimate proxy record, were not accurate assessments of the science and its uncertainties."”
  2. ↑ John Rennie (2010-10-25). Update on Climate Hawks, Judith Curry and more. Retort. Retrieved on 2010-10-28. “"...So the answer is no, I am not going to sign up to be a climate hawk"”
  3. ↑ Dave Roberts (2010-10-20). Introducing ‘climate hawks’. Grist. Retrieved on 2010-10-29. “it evokes a judgment: that the risks of climate change are sufficient to warrant a robust response.”
  4. ↑ Brian Angliss (2010-07-08). WordsDay: Merchants of Doubt. Scholars and Rogues. Retrieved on 2010-10-28. “Merchants of Doubt also describes how Seitz et al misrepresented scientific uncertainty to their advantage over the course of the last 60 years. The scientists did this in a number of ways...”
  5. ↑ Judith Curry (2010-09-18). Recent challenges to the credibility of climate science. Climate Etc.. Retrieved on 2010-10-29. “As a scientist, I am willing to accept sound science. I am not willing to accept tribalism, non-disclosure, shoddy methodologies, demonization of critical inquiry, nor shutting out public discourse as acceptable behavior by scientists.”
  6. ↑ Judith Curry (2011-07-27). Nature on Heartland. Climate Etc.. Retrieved on 2011-07-28.
  7. ↑ Curry, pers. comm., 2011-07-28
  8. ↑ Jump up to: 8.0 8.1 James Annan (2010-11-06). Where's the beef, Curry?. James' Empty Blog. Retrieved on 2010-11-12. “She's really building up quite a history of throwing up vague or demonstrably wrong claims, then running away when shown to be wrong. Here on the no-feedback climate sensitivity, for example. Gryposaurus took her to task here on aerosols and D&A (based partly on comments from Gavin) and found her response lacking. Here is Eric Steig refuting her absurd claim about the IPCC that "they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC." Her eventual response (which had to be dragged out of her through repeated challenges that she kept on ducking) was merely to dismiss it as an "anecdote", even though one single case serves to refutes her claim. Well, I don't think I got quite such a rapturous response as Eric did, with my attempts to improve the AR4 drafts, but I certainly didn't get trampled and discredited either - merely made to feel mildly unwelcome, which I find tends to happen when I criticise people outside the IPCC too. But they did change the report in various ways. While I'm not an unalloyed fan of the IPCC process, my experience is not what she describes it as. So make that two anecdotes. Maybe I'm an "insider" too, in her book :-) If she ever deigns to address the substantive point on probability, maybe she can let me know, but I'm not holding my breath. Her main tactic seems to be throwing up layers upon layers of an increasing shaky edifice as quickly as possible hoping that no-one will notice that the foundations are collapsing as quickly as people can read.”
  9. ↑ Jiping Liu1 and Judith A. Curry (2010-08-16). Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice. PNAS. Retrieved on 2010-11-12. “...observed sea surface temperature in the Southern Ocean shows a substantial warming trend for the second half of the 20th century. Associated with the warming, there has been an enhanced atmospheric hydrological cycle in the Southern Ocean that results in an increase of the Antarctic sea ice for the past three decades”
  10. ↑ William Connolley (2010-08-23). Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice?. Stoat. Retrieved on 2010-11-12. “The main problem with the paper is the uncritical use of invalid data.”
  11. ↑ Eli Rabett(pseudonym) (2010-08-29). Judy and the INTERTUBES. Rabett Run. Retrieved on 2010-11-12. “Hank Roberts has been. . . . annoyed by Liu and Currys' not mentioning... Manabe, Spellman and Stouffer, published in 1992 as well as Zwally, Comiso and Parkinson from a decade later on which appear to have. . . .anticipated the Liu and Curry paper (see comments at Stoat and elsewhere). IHRHO the claims of"newness" in the Ga. Tech press release accompanying Liu and Curry, were... a bit over the top”
  12. ↑ Jump up to: 12.0 12.1 Coby Beck (2010-11-05). Judith Curry plants her flag. A Few Things Ill Considered. Retrieved on 2010-11-05. “inflammatory language and over-the-top accusations, complete with the predictable absense of any concrete evidence and errors in matters of simple fact”
  13. ↑ Steve Bloom (2010-08-23). comment on Currying confusion. Not Spaghetti. Retrieved on 2010-11-03. “She...specifically asserts that a Charney sensitivity well below 2C is plausible...her response was to point me to a recent review paper (Hegerl co-auth) she said agreed with her. I looked and... no, it didn't.”
  14. ↑ Tim Lambert (2010-07-29). Judith Curry and the hockey stick. Deltoid. Retrieved on 2010-10-29. “Tamino has written a detailed review of the [Montford] book with particular emphasis on two of the three main critiques that Curry identified. The response from Curry was perplexing. Instead of thanking Tamino for addressing the main critiques that she had identified, Curry wrote that the cons for Tamino's review were: "numerous factual errors and misrepresentations, failure to address many of the main points of the book..." Pressed to identify these errors, Curry instead moved the goalposts, coming up with nine different "key points" of the book. When Gavin Schmidt demolished these, rather than concede that some, at least, were wrong, Curry asserted that Schmidt's rebuttal was full of logical fallacies (though once again without identifying any of them at all)”
  15. ↑ William M. Connolley (2010-04-23). Curry. Stoat. Retrieved on 2010-10-29.
  16. ↑ Joe Romm (2010-04-26). Beef with Curry. Climate Progress. Retrieved on 2010-10-29.
  17. ↑ Things Break (pseudonymous blogger) (2010-09-12). Welcome to the blogosphere, Dr. Curry!. The Way Things Break. Retrieved on 2010-10-29.
  18. ↑ Michael Tobis (2010-10-29). Judith Curry: Born Beyond the Shark?. Only In It For The Gold. Retrieved on 2010-10-29. “It's one thing to tolerate cranks. ... It's another thing entirely to encourage them and agree with them. Crank: 'There are many forcings and some are known to be underrepresented in the modeling such as aerosols / clouds and black soot.' curryja: 'very true, same goes for solar also.' ... [I]f you buckle down and try to understand what she is saying (instead of just nodding in enthusiastic agreement with the "not the IPCC" position) it is incomprehensible.”
  19. ↑ James Annan (2010-10-29). More Curried leftovers. James' Empty Blog. Retrieved on 2010-10-29. “...she apparently conflates the concept of evidence for and against the proposition "most of the observed warming was very likely due to the GHG increase" with an estimate of the proportion of warming that was due to anthropogenic vs natural factors. This seems like a rather elementary point to get confused over ... Note that in the very first premise of her argument, she only assigns 70% probability to the fact that surface temperatures actually show a warming at all! This is the warming that the IPCC famously called "unequivocal" in their 2007 report. As far as I can tell, at this point she is simply so far out of touch with mainstream climate science that her analyses aren't worth the time it takes to read them. End of story.”
  20. ↑ Arthur Smith (2010-08-18). Currying confusion. Not Spaghetti. Retrieved on 2010-11-05. “Where all the uncertainties in climate science lie is in the feedbacks, and the complex land and ocean processes Curry refers to play a critical role in those uncertainties. But on the "without feedbacks" number, as far as I can tell, she was just plain wrong.”
  21. ↑ Judith Curry (2010-04-25). comment on An Inconvenient Provocateur. Collide-a-scape. Retrieved on 2010-11-05.
  22. ↑ Judith Curry (2010-07-24). comment on The Montford Delusion. RealClimate. Retrieved on 2010-11-03.
  23. ↑ Gavin Schmidt (2010-08-08). comment on The Curry Agonistes. Collide-a-scape. Retrieved on 2010-11-03.
  24. ↑ Gavin Schmidt (2010-11-03). Science, narrative and heresy. RealClimate. Retrieved on 2010-11-03.
  25. ↑ "[1]"
  26. ↑ (Curry, pers. comm.; and confirmed with another source)
  27. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named notspouse
  28. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named spouse
  29. ↑ Press release (2001-08). Tiny, unmanned planes in Florida helping Colorado researchers assess storms, hurricanes. University of Colorado at Boulder. Retrieved on 2011-04-02. “Although the aerospace engineering department owns three of the $35,000 planes, they are used only for research and development on campus. The four planes now flying in Florida are leased from Aerosonde Robotic Aircraft, Inc. ... Curry, one of two CU-Boulder principal investigators on the project. The second is Professor Peter Webster of CU’s Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences.”
  30. ↑ Jump up to: 30.0 30.1 Email sent 2011-03-23 to Dr. Curry asking about CFAN clients & Aerosonde; Curry's Apr 3 response; ahaynes Apr 4 response
  31. ↑ "[2]"
  32. ↑ About CFAN. CFAN. Retrieved on 2010-10-28.
  33. ↑ Michael D. Lemonick (2010-10-25). Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues. Scientific American. Retrieved on 2010-10-28.

Related SourceWatch Articles

External resources

External articles

Wikipedia also has an article on Judith Curry. This article may use content from the Wikipedia article under the terms of the GFDL.

Retrieved from "https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Judith_Curry&oldid=531524"