Thread: GW Water further muddied - new study shows medievel warming

Really? Your source is the Daily Mail? Does that mean I can use the National Enquirer to support my views now? Look, if you want to talk about specific issues you have with ACC, bring them up in a scientific manner. Do not go to tabloid rags and expect to be taken seriously and then complain that no one takes you seriously. I know you are very intelligent and you should know that. Here is the release from Syracuse about this paper:
Scientists use rare mineral to correlate past climate events in Europe, Antarctica

Notice that it says nothing about refuting ACC? Just because you feel some ACC supports are alarmist is not a valid reason to discount it. That has nothing to do with the validity of ACC. And how come I don't see you complaining about deniers basically acting like creationists? You know, distorting data, being funded by interest groups like Big Oil, and straight up lying?

Data has been distorted on both sides of the argument.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues: Scientific American

Judith Curry? Who had an article written about her by one of the leading lay-science publications in the world? Who's research is still being published by journals? Curry Papers - Online and downloadable

She's being ridiculed, ostracized and dismissed? It doesn't look like it. On the other hand, she's making some serious claims, and some of them are spurious, such as her unsupported claim that her fellow scientists were hiding data:


Here's a nice science blog article that tears her claims apart. Judith Curry Opens Mouth, Inserts Foot | Open Mind

So no, nobody's silencing her, in fact, she's being published in both scientific and lay journals, but that doesn't mean that her statements won't be cross-examined.

This, by her own hand, is what I was referring to. It details her treatment and "fall from grace" once she no longer toed the line.
Heresy and the creation of monsters | Climate Etc.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Really? Your source is the Daily Mail? Does that mean I can use the National Enquirer to support my views now?

Wait just a second here. Weren't you the guy using Rolling Stone? Hmm nevermind must have gotten you confused with someone else.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Look, if you want to talk about specific issues you have with ACC, bring them up in a scientific manner.

I do, and I have. This just happened to be the first instance of the story I saw today during a pretty hectic scheduled. I've not been able to do much web/source perusing since then.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Do not go to tabloid rags and expect to be taken seriously and then complain that no one takes you seriously.

LOL - I'm not complaining. Nor do I think that the Mail is a purely "rag" publication. There are some pieces with merit from time to time. The trick is in knowing when, or rather what, pieces those are. You see, I don't summarily dismiss things out of hand. Bears to much resemblance to straw man attacks and other things of that nature. I'll consume and evaluate, per my standards.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

I know you are very intelligent and you should know that.

Thank you. I endeavor to be more so, each day.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Here is the release from Syracuse about this paper:
Scientists use rare mineral to correlate past climate events in Europe, Antarctica

Thank you again.

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Notice that it says nothing about refuting ACC? Just because you feel some ACC supports are alarmist is not a valid reason to discount it. That has nothing to do with the validity of ACC.

I'll ask you same the question I asked Wicked. Where did I claim that this refutes GW? Or ACC? AGW? CC? I haven't do so. I merely said that this might "muddy the water" and I think that the more data that arises furthering the research into causes and cycles that we don't understand well at this point, the better and the less "monolithic" the discussion gets. That is for the better. I think I said that above as well (or something very near to that).

Originally Posted by Fovezer

And how come I don't see you complaining about deniers basically acting like creationists? You know, distorting data, being funded by interest groups like Big Oil, and straight up lying?

Could it be because they don't get widespread press for very long and, by that perhaps aren't really all that important? Should I drag them out of their obscurity and irrelevancy simply to highlight said irrelevancy and inadequacy? I value your time, not too mention my own, far to much to spend a lot of time on it.

Additionally, those arguments that you refer to are very much the "David and Goliath" (my apologies for a biblical reference but in this analogy I think it apropos due to size and gravity) in scientific opinion and circles when considering weight of their importance. I hardly think I'd make a meaningful voice among the plethora of better scientifically versed people to decry the vagaries of their poorly sourced or biased research. In fact, I think that there are a great many people that already do that better than I.

However, if I see something that I think looks to be an interesting topic/concept in this vein I'll bring it up for discussion. It's better that way don't you think?

Originally Posted by Alundil

Wait just a second here. Weren't you the guy using Rolling Stone? Hmm nevermind must have gotten you confused with someone else.

But that was about alleged voter fraud. One thing you will (hopefully ) not catch me doing is using opinionated popular news sources to support a scientific position.

Originally Posted by Alundil

I do, and I have. This just happened to be the first instance of the story I saw today during a pretty hectic scheduled. I've not been able to do much web/source perusing since then.

Fair enough, but I still don't consider it valid for these types of discussions.

Originally Posted by Alundil

LOL - I'm not complaining. Nor do I think that the Mail is a purely "rag" publication. There are some pieces with merit from time to time. The trick is in knowing when, or rather what, pieces those are. You see, I don't summarily dismiss things out of hand. Bears to much resemblance to straw man attacks and other things of that nature. I'll consume and evaluate, per my standards.

Thank you. I endeavor to be more so, each day.

When discussing certain things, such as a scientific theory like ACC, it is ok to dismiss nonscientific popular tabloid rags out of hand. Now had you posted the actual paper or from scientific source, even a science blog, I'd take more time to consider it.

Originally Posted by Alundil

Thank you again.

I'll ask you same the question I asked Wicked. Where did I claim that this refutes GW? Or ACC? AGW? CC? I haven't do so. I merely said that this might "muddy the water" and I think that the more data that arises furthering the research into causes and cycles that we don't understand well at this point, the better and the less "monolithic" the discussion gets. That is for the better. I think I said that above as well (or something very near to that).

The headline of the article you linked to clearly tries to make this appear that this is a problem for ACC. I still don't see how this would "muddy" any water, though? In fact, it makes no reference to ACC. All the paper says, from what I can tell, is that the Medieval Warm Period may have extended beyond Europe. So what? How does that change anything we see today?

Originally Posted by Alundil

Could it be because they don't get widespread press for very long and, by that perhaps aren't really all that important? Should I drag them out of their obscurity and irrelevancy simply to highlight said irrelevancy and inadequacy? I value your time, not too mention my own, far to much to spend a lot of time on it.

Additionally, those arguments that you refer to are very much the "David and Goliath" (my apologies for a biblical reference but in this analogy I think it apropos due to size and gravity) in scientific opinion and circles when considering weight of their importance. I hardly think I'd make a meaningful voice among the plethora of better scientifically versed people to decry the vagaries of their poorly sourced or biased research. In fact, I think that there are a great many people that already do that better than I.

However, if I see something that I think looks to be an interesting topic/concept in this vein I'll bring it up for discussion. It's better that way don't you think?

Actually, the deniers are always out in force. Look in our government, for example. There is a lot of denying going on in there. Big Oil funds fake citizen's groups and fake "science" organizations. All these deniers, just like loud-mouth creationists, have the mainly gullible and ignorant American public denying evolution and ACC. I think that is a big problem, myself.

I'm all up for discussing the actual facts, but I have little desire to debate an article from a tabloid with a sensationalized headline.

Originally Posted by Alundil

This, by her own hand, is what I was referring to. It details her treatment and "fall from grace" once she no longer toed the line.
Heresy and the creation of monsters | Climate Etc.

This reads like someone who's trying to play the victim. One one hand, she claims that people are treating her statements like a non-story:

“What I found out is that when [Curry] does raise valid points, they’re often points the climate-science community already agrees with — and many climate scientists are scratching their heads at the implication that she’s uncovered some dark secret.”

And then on another, she seems to complain about how she doesn't know why such a big story was made out of it :

A colleague of mine at Georgia Tech, a Chair from a different department, said something like this: “I’ve been reading the media stories on the Georgia Tech Daily News Buzz that mention your statements. Your statements seem really sensible. But what I don’t understand is why such statements are regarded as news?”

Well that is a question that deserves an answer. I lack the hubris to think that my statements should have any public importance. The fact that they seem to be of some importance says a lot more about the culture of climate science and its perception by the public, than it says about me.

So which is it? Is it no news, or is it being blown out of proportion? And if it's in the news, maybe that's because she did an interview, spouting some unsupported claims, in a tabloid.

She's an attention whore, and has been called out for it, but she's still being published, and she's still being interviewed. She's hardly being ostracized, and her science isn't beings censored in any way.

I'm not ignoring this. Just haven't had a lot of "reply" time the last day or so.

Sent via highly charged bolt of electricity.