Originally Posted by
jungle
Now perhaps you could tell us what you think of the poll in the November edition of the Scientific American.
The results are unexpected but irrelavant. I don't care what a magazine poll says - I care a lot what the peer reviewed science says.
Curry has a problem with how scientific uncertainties are translated for public consumption and in her view, the IPCC assumptions always seem to be tilted toward a worst case senario. She's talking about more precisely converting complex scientific language of confidence intervals and probabilities into something the public can use to make good climate policy.
But make no mistake, she not a climate skeptic and when Pat Michaels implys that she is a climate scientist turned denier, that's the oil money he's pocketing doing the talking:
Climate skeptics have seized on Curry’s statements to cast doubt on the basic science of climate change. So it is important to emphasize that nothing she encountered led her to question the science; she still has no doubt that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are in large part to blame, or that the plausible worst-case scenario could be catastrophic. She does not believe that the Climategate e-mails are evidence of fraud or that the IPCC is some kind of grand international conspiracy...
Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues: Scientific American