Judith Curry is part of the 1% or less, now, of bona-fide relevant scientists that have some argument with the science. I've considered her arguments - and those of the handful of others who have reservations, and their arguments are narrow or clearly influenced by their ideological or personal perspectives. Curry would be the one I watch most closely but she's not convinced me her arguments weigh against the thousands of pieces of scientific work that she disagree with. In a very real, practical sense every scientist is testing the science. She is an outlier.
And in a risk management sense, I think she is irresponsible in what she argues.
If Curry is right, then our economic cost to re-engineer to a non carbon energy system is just a hundred or two years early, ahead of running out of carbon fuels. And multiple studies show decarbonising and economic growth are both, together, achievable.
But if she's wrong, we're in deep trouble.
That risk analysis is aside from her arguments being at best debatable. At best she argues there is uncertainty. On the face of it that's not an unreasonable comment. But that uncertainty is not all one way.
Now, if you want to consider this without prejudice, as you suggest, then you need to recognise that I spoke about peer review AND the further testing of science by other studies and research that confirms or refutes or supports or questions any individual piece of work. Peer review is useful, but it isn't the b all and end all. I agree. It is just about a single paper publication and the editing and arguments of that paper. I didn't suggest peer review is any more than that. I did, though, also talk about a hundred years of science that has withstood longstanding research, critique and scrutiny. Not just a paper peer review.
Curry has a lot to argue against and I've not seen her do it well.
Now if you have an aspect of Judith Curry's work that you believe is right, put it forward, together with why you believe it. I'll examine it and give you a view on it. You are speaking in generalities, but if you are going to believe Curry against the views of thousands of other scientists, and over a hundred years of scientific testing, then you must know that science well, and you must have a rationale for seeing her work validly contradicting all the others.
i'm open minded, so shoot. But you might want to read this first. https://andthentheresphysics.wordpr...urry-confuses-laypeople-about-climate-models/
