Donald Prothero Calls Judith Curry a Notorious Climate Denier

This thread follows an episode where I point out where Donald Prothero has called Judith Curry a notorious climate denier here.

Anyone who cites a notorious climate denier without the relevant credentials like Judith Curry does not deserve a detailed rebuttal to this pile of drivel.

Apparently, a bunch of Dr. Curry's readers decided to check out Skepticblog (archived here) and commented on another of  Prothero's posts here. Prothero soon deleted all these comments, but I had made a copy and posted them in the previously mentioned thread. You can follow the links and read the whole thing. There were 16 multi-paragraph comments with lots of links and I had to resort to posting 4 at a time. I appreciate Dr. Curry's letting me do this and she even let the single long list out of moderation. I started this blog so I wouldn't have to send other deleted comments to her blog to crash on her sofa.


This comment of mine did not make it out of moderation at Prothero's later Skepticblog post:

2. Canman says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 27, 2014 at 3:17 pm

I don’t trust scientists on environmental issues. They’re too emotionally invested and overly left wing.

This is especially true with climate science. I rarely see any error owned up to or alarming warning dialed back.

And Climategate was a scandal! If someone makes a claim that a quote was taken out of context, they ought to provide an actual context. The word “trick can mean either “a clever trick” or “tricking someone”. “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline”, where discordant data is deleted and replaced falls into the latter category, although smoothing at the connecting point might arguably fall in the former. Is there a good context for “deleting all emails”? They claim they were under attack. Why did these emails have to be defended from an attack? From my reading on the subject, they involved surrepticious editing of reviewer comments related to getting papers by Wahl and Ammann into the IPCC AR4. Here’s a post about one of those papers:

http://climateaudit.org/2008/08/08/caspar-ammann-texas-sharpshooter/

Were the inquirys whitewashes? From this article:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/28/michael-mann-and-the-climategate-whitewash-part-one/

When Phil Jones asked Mann to delete email records being sought under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act and get a colleague, Eugene Wahl, to do the same, he replied “I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP”. And while PSU investigators never chose to interview Wahl, he later testified to a federal inspector general that he did receive Mann’s message and complied.

If scientists want to be trusted, they can’t just sweep stuff like this under the rug.

Reply

List of Links

http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/29/partisanship-and-silencing-science/#comment-622901
http://www.skepticblog.org/2014/04/22/global-warming-has-paused-not/#comment-116109
http://www.skepticblog.org/2014/08/27/the-pot-calling-the-kettle-black/
http://judithcurry.com/
http://www.skepticblog.org/