"The corruptions of the IPCC process, and the question of corruption (or at least inappropriate torquing) of the actual science by the IPCC process, is the key issue." - Judith Curry, http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/16/actons-eleven-the-response.html
Your link has nothing about Judith Curry.
That link is interesting because it tries to argue that the Royal Society acted inappropriately, but it ignores, IMO, the wording of the RS's response to the author.
People tend to get wound too tight on this very challenging topic, especially when it's beneficial to do so.
But, to your point, I have no doubt she said what you claim somewhere. Climategate, in case you've missed this story, gave climate scientists, including with the IPCC, a black eye for pushing a narrative that favors many political efforts.
I like the equation: Science + politics = Politics
So, given her general support of the science done the IPCC -- just read her book -- it's likely you should look at the context in which she meant it.
I know we will never agree, but my hope is that you will stand behind the critical benefit science brings for all humanity -- constant scrutiny. In construction, you aren't allowed to build a concrete structure (e.g. bridge) without taking core samples of the readymix. This gets tested at the lab to determine whether it has strong enough. Sometimes claims of "concrete evidence" is found to lack the scrutiny it should have gotten.
It's my opinion that scientists, on the whole, are making honest efforts to be honest, but we aren't there yet, are we?
Just 10 days ago came this regarding fires....
Patrick T. Brown, climate team co-director at the nonprofit Breakthrough Institute in Berkeley and a visiting research professor at San Jose State University, said his Aug. 30 paper in the prestigious British journal Nature is scientifically sound and "advances our understanding of climate change's role in day-to-day wildfire behavior."
But Brown this week dropped a bomb on the journal—as well as his study's co-authors who are staunchly defending the team's work. In an online article, blog post and social media posts, Brown said he "left out the full truth to get my climate change paper published," causing almost as much of a stir as the alarming findings themselves.
From Physics.org
"“I’m not happy with the IPCC,” she told Fox News. “I think it has torqued the science in an unfortunate direction.”
That torquing, she suggests, is because the money in climate science (the funding, that is) is tied to embellishing the IPCC narrative, especially the impacts of global warming."
Taken directly from her talk at Fox (I wonder why it's Fox news, of all places)
https://www.foxnews.com/science/uns...-adds-little-explanation-for-pause-in-warming
Good for her! Read the article. It is about the failure of climate models to produce short term temperature results. She understands that, but she is opposed to any hyperbolic behavior of scientists to push a narrative that is not scientifically supported adequately.
She is also funded by fossil fuel companies.
"I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company...does hurricane forecasting...for an oil company, since 2007.” - Judith Curry,
https://www.sasktoday.ca/north/opin...s-keep-trying-to-switch-the-narrative-4139337
Yep, her expertise is also helping countries and communities plan their futures for dealing with the coming consequences of warming and sea level rise. She is needed because some others are in the door pushing for far more extreme measures that come at great cost to the public.
This is why her book is important because it is about acting prudently with global warming, assessing the risk properly. This, of course, requires some understanding of the uncertainty intrinsic to the current models, which don't taken in all the variables, including the AMO (Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation). Volcanic activity consequence are only just now being included in the modeling. But think how hard that must be given our strong lack of prediction for new eruptions.
Climate modeling is extremely difficult, though great minds are working on it.
The "activists" won't debate her because her science has already been debated, by actual scientists:
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry#Criticisms_from_climate_scientists
Well, that's debatable.
Show me a video of a debate where they won their arguments.
Of course there are those who will counter her viewpoints because she questions abuses of the science that is tailored for political gains. But look at the scientists who support her. Try her blog.
But this is, again, a story of "how much?" It's not a question of kind, we know temperatures have increased since the beginning of the Ind. age, but the question is to "what degree" of increase. IPCC offers several to chose from. How much more increase will we see and what can we do to mitigate it.... prudently! Eliminating fossil fuels won't work.
Let's also not forget that no one has declared what the proper temperature must be for our planet. Do you know? What is our target? But, to be fair, this isn't the key question we must ask, but rather "how much" more will we suffer given we are on an upward trend. CO2 is definitely a key factor, but by "how much"? The models don't say exactly, else they would be far better at short term predictions.
These are my final words on this matter. You do not have to force the belief in a world that does not exist. Again, I am not a scientist, I'm a university drop-out with too much time on his hands, and it's not difficult for me to find credible sources to back up what I say, because I believe the consensus to begin with. I don't have to dance around whether the IPCC should be trusted or not, or at what level their message is being corrupted or distorted or suppressed, I don't have to place faith that one of my favourite contrarian "scientists" or journalists will come up with an answer as to how the latest addition to the narrative is actually wrong and everyone's being lied to and that the truth will come out.
But my faith is not in any scientist or group of scientists (including the competent IPCC). We should direct our trust in the SM, which welcomes honest scrutiny.
The IPCC isn't the only source for climate science. The merits of any honest science should be placed accordingly. This has not been the case from day one, when a young PhD from Canada stuck data together to give us the famous hockey stick.
I feel like were finally playing Tik-Tak-Toe in
War Games (no winner)
, so let's talk astronomy.
judithcurry.com
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram