Talk:Judith Curry

Not a "denialist"

From the lede: "Curry has become known as a contrarian scientist hosting a blog which is part of the climate change denial blogosphere."

First of all, "contrarian" is an unnecessarily perjorative word, and smacks of POV. Scientists routinely take various, frequently opposing positions on scientific matters -- that is not "contrarian", it's how science works.

Secondly, Curry does not deny climate, clamate change, or a human contrubution to climate change, so the implication that she is a "deinalist" is just flat out wrong.

Third, WTF is a "blogosphere"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

We follow the sources. If they call her that, that is how we report it. And you can google that word yourself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

actually .252 is right, it is negative POV to link her to the denial blogosphere. Skepticism should be the word used and only on specific issues she is skeptical about Newacademic90291 (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

We still follow the sources and not your opinion. See WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

Yes, true. You are definitely following the bias sources which are fed by corporate interest and the mainstream media narrative. You negatively label someone because of the popular public opinion by hack journalists vs giving an objective point of view. The article puts zero credibility to clear achievements and thought leadership Curry has demonstrated in her career commitment to science. Only when she has a view that questions the status quo narrative is when she is slapped with a label and her professional point of view is questioned as if she had a track record of being a denier. It’s a shame the world is so close minded and holds on to fabricated ideologies before honoring evidence and different perspectives. You all can do better. Lets avoid Wikipedia from falling into the same media narrative and spinning opinion views vs highlighting facts. 67.197.228.6 (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC) Right. And you are so well-known as an unbiased editor on this topic! </sarcasm> --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Said someone who has a climate change topic ban. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Nice to read something from somebody who knows some thing about climate. I was a meteorology major in college for two years, and I agree with her, Judith Curry, that a of the hysteria about the climate is ginned up to serve political agendas, not science. As for so-called “scientific consensus,” check out Copernicus. 63.155.33.144 (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC) check out Copernicus See Galileo gambit. That logic is used by pretty much every pseudoscience in the world. With the same reasoning, you can also promote a flat Earth or the existence of Santa. Bring reliable sources that change the consensus, then you have something. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The meaning of "uncertainty"

This sentence: She consistently presents her view that climate science has much larger uncertainties than those shown by mainstream studies, though she has not shown any previously unconsidered cause for such uncertainty.

Seems to be saying she is saying there is additional uncertainty to data or the argument that she has not provided.

The plural of "uncertainties", I suspect is referring to statistical uncertainty. Standard deviations of data points and such. She is complaining that conclusions drawn from data are shared with excessive confidence. That the data underlying the conclusions and predictions about outcomes are not borne out with teh data collected.

From interviews she seems to have a special grievance with data collected form teh 1970's. Perhaps that data is a source of the imprecision that she feels are presented as more accurate than they are? Not implausible given technological limitations from 50 years ago.

I would like this sentence struck from the article as it misinterprets her quote and by consequence mischaracterizes her criticism and says, inaccurately, that she claims to know of confounding variables or mistakes made that she is not claiming. The uncertainties (plural) refer to the data collected already, nothing new that she is refusing to share or does not exist.

I have no information as to which data is inaccurate, by how much, or whether the additional uncertainty of the values obtained form that data are sufficiently imprecise to cause predictions that are markedly different from those presented by the "manufactured consensus" as she calls it. Her claims of exaggeration may, themselves, be exaggerated and the consequences society is being warned about may be very close to what may occur. I only object to what I see as a mistake in usage of the word "uncertainties" and the author of teh comment has raised a strawman argument in the absence of more information. 2607:F220:41D:101:B4FE:FED5:3C8C:8560 (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Reliable source says "uncertainties". Reliable source beats reasoning of random person on internet. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

"...certain features of denialism..."

This phrase smacks of bias. Rather than trying to tar her position with a label that apparently doesn't fit well, just describe the position and remove the editorializing. 66.177.216.114 (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Her position is described in that very sentence, and that very sentence explains how far it fits and how it does not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

actually .114 is right, it is biased because describing her position as denial suggests Wikipedia editors know what is objectively true and can assess if subjects deny the truth. Skepticism should be the word used in the case of this subject, although only with citable evidence of when she has been skeptical about a specific aspect of climate (not in general, because she is not skeptical of everything) Newacademic90291 (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

No, it suggests that reliable sources are more reliable than the Wikipedia editor Newacademic90291. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The cited source explains: "Here we apply a Marxist conception of ideology to broaden our understanding of climate denialism (Marx & Engels, 1977)." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

"Broke formating"

[1] "Broke formating" is one good reason to revert that edit, but the more important reason is that the edit introduced a fake sentence into the quote. Hers is an important voice against the rise of climate alarmism is not in the source, but it was written as if it were. The source is talking about her "it is still possible that there won't be any catastrophes, let's gamble the lives of people on that" attitude, but does not mention the denialist term "alarmism".

Faking quotes is one of the tools in the denialist toolkit. We should be very aware of that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I suspected the quote edit was fake, but didn't have time to check, so reverted on simple technical grounds. Thanks for looking into the details. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

You use the left-of-Karl*Marx, media matters for america, as source!?LOLOLOL WUT?! Oh jeeze yeah they won't have a bias at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.75.58.90 (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)