Over at CA, much hay is being made over the comments of Judith Curry about the Oxburgh Report. Curry has become the denialiati and contrarian favorite because she plays right into their hand.
It’s sad, really.
The majority of the climate science “community” appear to be so desperate for affection that they’ve proclaimed wind utility chairman Oxburgh’s love to the rooftops merely because of a few sweet nothings whispered in their ears. (Words of love so soft and tender.) Their gratitude is so great that they are willing to overlook the embarrassing brevity of Oxburgh’s report, Oxburgh’s negligible due diligence and failure to address any of the questions that were actually at issue.
Judy Curry has not compromised her standards.
Here’s Curry in an interview over at Collide a Scape:
So in summary, Jones, Briffa et al. can be relieved that they have been vindicated of charges of scientific misconduct. Even with the deficiencies of the Oxburgh report, I don’t disagree with their conclusion about finding no evidence of scientific misconduct: I haven’t seen any evidence of plagiarism or fabrication/falsification of data by the CRU scientists. Sloppy record keeping, cherry picking of data, and inadequate statistical methods do not constitute scientific misconduct, but neither do they inspire confidence in the research product. Further, the “bad apple” issue is still out there, but this is something that is impossible to assess objectively. And the behavior of these scientists (sloppy record keeping, dismissal of skeptical critiques, and lack of transparency) has slowed down scientific progress in assessing and improving these very important data sets. Therefore I have been proposing that we move away from the focus on individual behavior, and shifting focus to issues related to the IPCC assessment process, addressing issues related the availability of data and transparency of the methods, and to improving the temperature data and proxies. Once these issues are addressed, the “bad apple” issue becomes mostly moot.
What McIntyre and Curry fail to realize or refuse to, is that no one feels a need to respond fully to the so-called ‘critics’ of the CRU because it’s clear they are for the most part just a bunch of contrarians and denialist lackeys who don’t really deserve the time of day let alone a substantive response.
Seriously, looking at what the ‘critics’ have done since the start of their disinformation campaign, one comes up with a big fat ZERO. A few boo-boos that everyone makes from time to time. NO evidence of fraud or deliberate deception or manipulation of the data and thus the temperature record.
So why should the reports respond in detail to these self-styled critics? I don’t believe their project is genuine.
I’m sad to say Curry has become just a pawn of the denialist and contrarians. She is either politically naive or worse. No amount of inquiry is going to satisfy them for they are no out for the truth or facts — they want to deny and delay. Period.
I say, investigate the critics.
Then we might get at something useful.