She's pretty much the only one remaining, and loves to play the academic martyr angle. But the truth is -- and I've looked at some of her later work myself -- she got incredibly sloppy and unscientific with the way she was "analyzing" climate data. It's all a lot more sad, in my eyes at least, than it is frustrating. I mean, bless her heart, basically. That's really how I feel about her as a fellow scientist. And hey, I'm not in her field, so you could say I'm not qualified to critique, but the actual critiques of her later work from people in the field.... Oof. It's brutal, and not political at all. Just bare bones "here's what you're doing wrong, A, B, and C" type of stuff that you would send when training a young graduate student or something.
When you start quoting Trump to further your political narrative, you are gleefully reaching for bs. Lol, no kidding.
Some pretty cool architecture coming to Houston. I've been a fan of the Danish firm Bjarke Engels and they are doing some of the most interesting work in both design and sustainablility. Bjarke Ingels Group and Skanska to deliver 1550 on the Green, one of the most sustainable buildings in Texas (bdcnetwork.com) Bjarke Ingels Group and Skanska to deliver 1550 on the Green, one of the most sustainable buildings in Texas The 28-story downtown Houston office tower achieves 60% reduced embodied carbon and provides 30% more fresh air than traditional office buildings. n downtown Houston, Skanska USA’s 1550 on the Green, a 28-story, 375,000-sf office tower, aims to be one of Texas’ most sustainable buildings. The $225 million project has deployed various sustainable building materials, such as less carbon-intensive cement, to achieve 60% reduced embodied carbon. Located next to Discovery Green, a 12-acre public park, 1550 on the Green is the first phase of Discovery West, a mixed-use project that will span three blocks. Designed by Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG), the building’s curved shape, described as a side-core design, allows unobstructed daylight to enter the oversized windows. The curved design provides views of Discovery Green, more efficient floor plates, more natural light than traditional floor plates, and natural light in the elevator lobby and restrooms. The building also uses air-handling technology that provides 30% more fresh air than traditional office buildings. 1550 on the Green offers touchless turnstiles and secure access points, as well as a building app for tenants. In addition to multiple levels of outdoor terraces with native plants, 1550 on the Green includes a bike storage room, a 7,000 sf spa-like fitness center, a 9,400 sf tenant-exclusive rooftop event space and conference center, and 7,000 sf of ground-level retail with over 5,000 sf of patio directly across from Discovery Green. Michael Hsu Office of Architecture designed the fitness center and other tenant amenity spaces. 1550 on the Green has been designed to achieve LEED Platinum certification. Completion is expected by the end of the year. On the Building Team: Owner/developer: Skanska USA Commercial Development Design architect: Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG) Architect of record: Kendall Heaton Landscape architect: SWA Group Interior design architect: Michael Hsu Office of Architecture MEP engineer: Wylie Engineering Structural engineer: Walter P Moore General contractor: Skanska USA Building
on a somewhat related note . . . as it happens we met this woman last night at a memorial service for a mutual friend. She developed the Architect Barbie, among other things. This short talk is pretty powerful. anyway. fwiw
Can't watch it now but will check it out later. I'm a big fan of architect Barbie but I do think she gives a very unrealistic expectation to young women. I mean she's running her own firm but I've yet to hear about her passing her NCARB exams, or learning Autodesk Revit. I'm also pretty sure she's not up on the latest AIA B101 contract language.
Ah, @Os Trigonum favorite principle of UNCERTAINTY In 2007, Hegerl and others published a study estimating the climate's sensitivity to increased CO2. Their best estimate was 3C warming, with a 2-4.5C range. In 2011, Curry (and Webster) contended these climate sensitivity estimates underestimated uncertainty. They claimed the uncertainty was greater than commonly thought. Hegerl responded by identifying four errors in their critique. Curry and Webster disagreed with Hegerl’s responses. Looking to 2023, newer studies offer similar estimates. The likely range is now 2-5C warming from doubled CO2, with a best estimate of 3C (identical to a decade prior). While Curry promoted wider uncertainty ranges, her assertions did not alter mainstream estimates over the past decade. Scientists have incorporated more evidence and improved techniques, yet the core uncertainty has not dramatically declined. Climate sensitivity projections remain similar to a decade ago. Debates like these have increased transparency around communicating uncertainties in climate science. However, challenges persist in conveying uncertainty accurately to non-experts while representing the complexity of the science. Curry is a favorite of the political right, ranging from not doing much to outright denial of human-caused climate change, something she does not dispute, although she seems to have tilted even more toward skeptics today than a decade ago. The political right (based on the poll I mentioned recently) is however seem to be doing a real impactful number of uncertainty among the right on climate change.
@B-Bob isn't biased especially when it comes to science - he calls out anyone. Here's the thing with Judith Curry, I've seen a lot of her articles and such posted by @Os Trigonum - and when you dive into it and look for the fundamental evidence backing up her claims, it falls apart badly - as in she is at times grossly misinterpreting something, or out right fabricating things out of thin air that have no evidence behind it at all. I'd suggest that before you tweet quote her, make sure you dig in for your own search for truth and find out if you might not be the one with bias.
this is how bias can work though. Rather than critique Curry on specific points--on a specific example of being wrong about x, about y, or about z--one instead makes global claims that because she is "at times" misinterprets something, or "fabricates" things out of thin air, we can safely dismiss everything she says. In doing so one runs the risk of missing so-called Gettier cases--where someone can have correct knowledge for the wrong reasons. Scientists are human; and all scientists (like all humans) get things wrong. If your standard of "science" is 100% perfection and certainty, then you have a pretty distorted view of science. The last thing to point out is that Curry often speaks to policy, so it would be important to distinguish where (a) she is mistaken on the science, but also where (b) she is speaking on policy, where being "mistaken" might signify error within a different order of understanding. on edit, there's a third area where Curry could be in error: where (c) she is talking about science itself, i.e., when discussing science as an institution or climate science as a sociological issue. I think the Stossel video is mostly an example of (c).
In prior posts, I've already gone through the articles you posted and found where she was criticized on specific points. That's a time consuming process. So I've already done the work, and don't feel the need to repeat it every time. But for you, here's a link that would have saved me lots of time had I found it first: https://skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm If we want to talk bias....here is hers: https://www.desmog.com/judith-curry/
I don't trust ANYTHING from desmog blog . . . I am on their shitlist for what it's worth. Those folks are criminally ignorant
also I should add I completely agree--I've done it on other topics (not climate). That's one of the reasons so much bad or faulty scholarship slips through the cracks and gets published.
Except we see this very tactic frequently used by those criticizing climate science and scientists. Usually find the most extreme end of climate predictions from an individual like there wont be snow by 2020 and then use that to tar all of climate science. Yes and again frequently those who argue against climate change do that. This thread is chock full of tweets and posts doing that very thing. Yes policy is why most people even care about climate science and they aren’t the same things. As I’ve said before science is almost never about certainties but is always about likelihood and for a science dealing with so many factors as climate that is very true. Can certainly understand Judith Curry and others have different opinions and express them in the sphere of public opinion to influence policy. With something like climate change it should be a matter of risk assessment. It would be prudent to address potential risks from climate change in policy. Rather than just cherry pick science that supports your own bias. As I’ve said before it is possible that the theory of climate change is wrong but given there is a strong likelihood it isn’t. Is it worth it to take that risk? Also consider that there are many other benefits besides just climate change (better energy efficiency, more distributed local power generation) to addressing climate change.
That’s dismissive and a strawman. Receiving funds from the fissile fuel industry is inherently a conflict of interest. She should come out and state how much she received to clear that up. If it’s reasonable payment for her modeling business, it helps. But she hasn’t been willing to clarify that, leading one to reasonably assume she has a clear conflict of interest. Besides that, there have been many criticisms of her scientific works.
