Let's make scientific debate about climate change great again.

Dr. Judith Curry, addressing the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Up until 2010 Dr. Curry supported the “consensus. After the leak of the ClimateGate emails, when she saw the bullying that went into making that consensus, she began her own assessment and concluded the IPCC’s high confidence was not justified.

After her independent analysis, she has been called names
  • serial climate disinformer
  • Anti-science
  • denier
Dr. Curry continued:

A scientist’ job is to continually challenge their own biases. 
Scientist who demonise their opponents are behaving in a way that is antithetical to the scientific process. These are the tactics of enforcing a premature theory formpolitical purposes.

Dr. Curry then talked of the pressure of conforming to the “consensus.”

Dr. Curry concluded:
There are much better ways to assess science for policymakers than a consensus-seeking process  that serves to stifle disagreement and debate. Expert panels with diverse perspectives  should handle controversities and uncertainties  by assessing what we know, what we don’t know and where the major areas of disagreements and uncertainties lie. 
Let's make scientific debate about climate change great again.
(See also Dr. Curry's post on Climate Etc - Deniers, lies and Politics) 


  1. Since it isn't about the science but about 'controlling the conversation' climate science is only one area of dysfunction. Going by the logic that namecalling is institutional and repetitive, it is really illuminating to assess what is demonized under the rubric of 'denier' and the basis for catcalling.

  2. Michael Mann Just Jumped the Climate Change Shark


Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!