söndag 29 september 2013

Judith Curry: From Sick to Healthy Climate Science

Judith Curry has gone a long way from supporter to opponent of the CO2 global warming science of IPCC, by realizing that the science of IPCC is sick and therefore has to be eliminated to allow healthy climate science to develop:
  • The IPCC needs to get out of the way so that scientists and policy makers can better do their jobs.
  • We need to put down the IPCC as soon as possible – not to protect the patient who seems to be thriving in its own little cocoon, but for the sake of the rest of us whom it is trying to infect with its disease. 
  •  Fortunately much of the population seems to be immune, but some governments seem highly susceptible to the disease. However, the precautionary principle demands that we not take any risks here, and hence the IPCC should be put down.
Since 97% of institutions and people of climate science reportedly have been infected by IPCC, Judith is asking for a revolution with a small group of healthy skeptics leading climate science into the future. Interesting perspectives...

PS1 Judith started her transformation from alarmist to heretic by suddenly realizing that "back radiation" as the basis of greenhouse gas alarmism, is non-physical, which was also my door to skepticism.

PS2 Judith makes the same analysis as Pointman:
  • We’ve just witnessed the embarrassing and public humiliation of climate science as a field of honest scientific endeavour. It has lost all claim to be taken seriously and is now tarred with the same pathological science brush that aberrations like Lysenkoism or Eugenics were. It’s now up to the non-activist scientists in the field, who’ve stayed silent for far too long, to save it from that fate by speaking out and reclaiming their field from fanatics posing as scientists. As Elvis said, it’s now or never.
PS3 Judy's death sentence has now been printed in Financial Post.

2 kommentarer:

  1. Competent scientists knew this long ago. I wrote the following comment on MasterResource back on February 23, 2011:

    I agree, the IPCC must go, if science -- not just climate science -- is to take back its credibility from political corrupton. But that is not enough, because the IPCC could not live and prosper without a general weakening of scientific competence, indeed without a raising of false dogma to the level of proof throughout science. Science must begin to regain its intellectual health by repudiating the incompetent scientists who enabled the IPCC, and who continue even now to ride the wave of false consensus that has ensnared all of our scientific institutions (NOAA, NASA, AAAS, APS, etc.), and the public media (including all of the peer-reviewed scientific publications). James Hansen, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth -- all those who have continued to promulgate AGW in the face of overwhelming evidence against their poor science (including internet bloggers like "Eli Rabett", "ScienceofDoom", skepticalscience.com, realclimate.com, etc.), must be demonstrated to be wrong-headed, and ejected from science. I maintain the proper comparison of the temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth (as I have done, very simply, in "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect") is the key proof, and an amazing demonstration, of the general wrong-headedness of the climate "consensus". The last generation of students has been taught nonsense masqueraded as "settled science", and a whole new generation is being brainwashed with this dogma (the "greenhouse effect", based upon an incompetent "radiation balance theory" of climate) even now. Until the Venus/Earth data is dispassionately confronted, and admitted by all to be definitive against the current consensus, all scientists are incompetent. That is the unpalatable truth that must be faced.

    The Venus/Earth comparison is here. A VERY simple understanding of it, for children and smugly dismissive "experts", is revealed here.

    Bottom line: Judith Curry has been as incompetent, in her dismissal of the Venus/Earth definitive evidence--indeed, in her failure to have uncovered that definitive evidence herself, long ago--as every other climate scientist. Climate science has failed, and it is too late for this generation of climate scientists to save themselves.

  2. Well, even though I'm not an academic scientist I must be doing something right, I managed to reach the correct conclusion about the IPCC process three years before Dr. Curry and not because I a posses a superior knowledge of the science, but because I can call a spade a spade. I reached this conclusion by watching error after error being exposed in the IPCC process and then watching how the IPCC dealt with those errors. In my observation period of 2007-2010, I found enough evidence that the IPCC could not handle the scientific assessment process entrusted to it to warrant its disbandment.

    It has been enormously frustrating to watch people much smarter and better educated than myself, become so distracted by the science itself that they cannot reach the correct conclusion - at least until now.

    I don't know what's going to happen, or how a climate system works; I really don't [but I'm learning!]. Forming my conclusion did not require me to disprove the IPCC's position, or 'prove' mine; it did not even require me to HAVE a position, scientifically speaking. All it required was for me to pay attention to the process as closely as time allows, see who was acting fairly and who was not.

    Being an 'amatureur' scientist it is my most basic epistemological position that much or most of what I presently know and believe to be true, will eventually be shown to be either incorrect or incomplete, in whole or in part - I just don't know what parts yet, and how big the revisions will have to be. Therefore it is a very dangerous practice for me to try and disprove anyone - I just have to be patient, watch what kind of mistakes people make and how they deal with them.

    I did not form my come to my conclusion about the IPCC because I have a rampaging paranoid script pathology, which sees all governmental activity as an attempt by so-called 'progressives' to seize power and imprison us all, but because the IPCC process cannot produce a fair assessment of the science in five tries. It does not take a rocket-scientist to figure this out.

    Why are rocket-scientists having so much trouble with this?

    The IPCC process is broken, it cannot be trusted even with CORRECT science and should be deconstituted all the same.