I took a step back and tried to understand all this craziness and learn from it. I even wrote a journal article on this, “Mixing Politics and Science in Testing the Hypothesis that Greenhouse Warming is Causing a Global Increase in Hurricane Intensity.” This paper got quite a bit of play in the blogosphere upon its publication in Aug 2006, and at this time I made my first major foray into the blogosphere, checking in at all the blogs where the paper was being discussed. See esp realclimate and climateaudit (but I can no longer find the original thread on climateaudit).

At climateaudit, the posters had some questions about statistics and wanted to see the raw data. I was pretty impressed by the level of discussion, and wondered why I had not come across this blog before over at the realclimate blogroll. Then I realized that I was on Steve McIntyre’s blog (I had sort of heard of his tiff with Mann, but wasn’t really up on all this at the time). I was actually having much more fun over at climateaudit than at realclimate, and I thought it made much more sense to spend time at climateaudit rather than to preach to the converted at realclimate. Back in 2006 spending time at climateaudit was pretty rough sport (it wasn’t really moderated at the time). When I first started spending time over there, the warmist blogs thought it was really funny, and encouraged me to give ‘em hell.

When the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report was published in 2007, I joined the consensus in supporting this document as authoritative; I was convinced by the rigors of the process, etc etc.

During 2008 and 2009, I became increasingly concerned by the lack of “policy neutrality” by people involved in the IPCC and policies that didn’t make sense to me.

November 19, 2009: bucket of cold water #2. When I first saw the climategate emails, I knew these were real, they confirmed concerns and suspicions that I already had.

So the Judith Curry ca 2010 is the same scientist as she was in 2003, but sadder and wiser as a result of the hurricane wars, a public spokesperson on the global warming issue owing to the media attention from the hurricane wars, more broadly knowledgeable about the global warming issue, much more concerned about the integrity of climate science, listening to skeptics, and a blogger (for better or for worse). . . People really find it hard to believe that I don’t have a policy agenda about climate change/energy (believe me, Roger Pielke Jr has tried very hard to smoke me out as a “stealth advocate”). Yes, I want clean green energy, economic development and “world peace”. I have no idea how much climate change should be weighted in these kinds of policy decisions. I lack the knowledge, wisdom and hubris to think that anything I say or do should be of any consequence to climate/carbon/energy policy.”

Judith Curry

Re # 127 this is a really interesting blog, relatively free of b.s. and full of real content. i will definitely be checking in on a regular basis (and will also try to digest more of the statistical content of some of the posts after i get back from ECMWF)

Steve McIntyre

#130. Judy, thanks for visiting and look forward to future visits. I was in the audience for your presentation at the House Government Reform Committee (I’d had my turn at the House Energy & Commerce Committee the day before.)

Peter Pond | October 25, 2010 at 7:19 pm | Reply

Hi Judith,

Thank you for your courage and integrity. Like you, I had accepted the “concensus” at face value, until I started looking in detail behind the IPCC pronouncements (a few years ago).

However, so far as I can see, the “man (woman) in the street” in Australia (where I am) is still accepting of that “concensus” – primarily because our media is solidly backing that point of view. The average citizen is totally unaware of the vigorous debate that has been going on since November 2009.

In the meantime, other critical issues (global hunger, poverty, disease, and “real” pollution, etc) are deprived of the political attention, funding and research that could really make a difference to the lives (and deaths) of millions.

And yes, Science has been the loser.

hunter | October 26, 2010 at 8:29 am | Reply

Tom,
In reading about the actions of AGW promoters, and in reading the defenses of the AGW community, it is striking that time and time again religious concepts are invoked by those supporting AGW.
Many observers of the AGW phenomenon have noticed the striking similarities in behavior between the AGW opinion leaders and defenders and religious movements.
‘Heretic’ was the best word available for Lemonick because that is the way he and his intended supportive audience view the situation.

#

#
Peter D. Tillman | October 25, 2010 at 9:13 pm | Reply

Here’s Freeman Dyson on scientific heresy:

“I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies. Since I am a heretic, I am accustomed to being in the minority …” –Dyson, HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY, http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html
...
“Among Dyson’s gifts is interpretive clarity, a penetrating ability to grasp the method and significance of what many kinds of scientists do. His thoughts about how science works appear in a series of lucid, elegant books for nonspecialists that have made him a trusted arbiter of ideas ranging far beyond physics.” — “The Civil Heretic ,” NY Times profile of Dyson, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html
...
“My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have.” — “Freeman Dyson Takes on the Climate Establishment”, http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151,

Anastassia Makarieva | October 26, 2010 at 12:57 am

When we obtained our results on condensation-induced dynamics, which did appear to us significant, we hurried to share them with people who, in our opinion, would be most excited — the meteorologists, the atmospheric scientists. At that time I did not know anybody in the field, such that the words Trenberth, Pielke, Curry, Holland, Emanuel etc. were just English words to me (my apologies to the real people). I contacted several people, but invariably the discussion faded soon with advice to contact someone else or with a phrase “I share X’s concerns and have nothing to add”. Sometimes people responded enthusiastically first, then there was silence.

From the uniform reactions I was receiving and uniform behaviour I was observing, I got an surrealistic feeling that I am contacting one and the same person all the time. I called him the-very-well-respected-meteorologist. He disliked us and our results and was bothered by our existence. Sometimes he was very rude (it pertained anonymous reviews). But the key point that there was no lively interest from his side. No interest in science.

There was one remarkable exception. Dr. Judy Curry. She was not afraid of discussing things and saying that she is not sure of one thing or another. She did not say that we already know everything in models, go away. She showed persistent interest in our work, true scientific interest.

Scientists do science. When a result is obtained, it is in human nature to share it with others, it is a sincere move of human soul. Like a child when finds a flower shows it to his mum with affection and looking for emphathy. In the same way scientists need to share their results with their brethren. It is like breathing, it is an inherent component of scientific productivity. My colleagues and I are owing Dr. Curry the fact that we are now having an opportunity to breathe, after all.

Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee.[1]

Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.