Talk:Judith Curry

POV

The section on views on climate change is grossly one-sided and amounts to a BLP violation. I don't have time to fix it now William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts I'm right - the section as it stands is a BLP violation, by grossly misrepresenting her views, so I've removed it. Don't put it back until it correctly represents her position: viz: support for basic GW theory; disagreement with some recent IPCC methods William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Made an attempt. Didn't see the need for a separate section for "views on climate change". Thepm (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Reinserted reliably sourced material which was removed. There was no blp violation here at all. Unless you think she did not say what she has said? mark nutley (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, the grossly one-sided representation of Curry's views is a clear BLP iolation, and I've removed the material again. The fact that it is reliably sourced is irrelevant; the point is that it is grossly partisan and unrepresentative William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether it could really be classified as a BLP violation, but it's irrelevant. MN - think about what point you're trying to clarify for the reader. I assume it's that she has taken some climate scientists to task over their approach. That point's made by the sentence; While she supports the scientific opinion on climate change, she has written that Climatologists should be more transparent in their dealings with the public saying, "This whole concept of, ‘We’re the experts, trust us,’ has clearly gone by the wayside". Labouring that point is just piling on (is there a wiki essay about piling on? There ought to be). Thepm (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no blp violation here, wmc self revert as you are in breach of your 1r parole. Thepm, it is highly notable that she has tried to talk to sceptics, and that she has posted on sceptic blogs. I will of course put this back if wmc refuses to self revert and continues to break his paroles mark nutley (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

MN - bearing in mind that the point that she has been critical of climatologists has already been made, the deleted material can be summarised as follows;

1. She's critical of some of her colleagues

2. She's critical of the IPCC

3. She's critical of Climatologists

4. She posted on WUWT (ie directly engaged skeptics)

5. She's critical of scientists

I recommend against you putting it all back because right now, you don't have consensus to do that. On the other hand, I do think it's notable that she's directly engaged skeptics and a single sentence to illustrate that would probably be worthwhile. Thepm (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

WMC had no consensus to remove it, berate him not me. Can you explain why you think it is not a notable event that she posts and discusses issues on sceptic blogs? It is notable. The removal of reliably sourced material without reason is against policy, and it is going back in, it is a notable event and should be properly recorded mark nutley (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is irrelevant for BLP William M. Connolley (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There was no blp violation, self revert mark nutley (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added a sentence that makes the point that she supports engagement of skeptics. I think it's a separate point the the one in the previous sentence. Thepm (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And I've just realised that I didn't put an edit summary. Can I fix that? Thepm (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don`t think you can change edit summaries, your best bet i to self revert and then revert again so you can put one in, what you have added is good, however i believe readers should know whic hblogs she has posted on, is there any reason this can`t also be added? mark nutley (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

readers should know whic hblogs she has posted on - really? Would they also like to know what she has for tea? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently she's a meat and potatoes kind of person, but really WMC, I don't think that's relevant for the article. MN - No, I don't think we need to be specific about the blogs. She's already published on two and I suspect there will be more. We don;t need them itemised. Thepm (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Given she has posted on the three main sceptic sites i really do not see an issue with saying she posted her open letter on Climate Audit and on Watts Up With That, it is were she has posted that is the crux of the issue. I notice no objection to real climate being used in the article, why is that? mark nutley (talk) 10:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Real climate isn't used in the article, is it? Thepm (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, not as a ref sorry should have been clearer, it is an external link in General-interest articles on climate science and climate-change policy by Judith Curry mark nutley (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I can't see it there either, although I can see Climate Audit. In any case, my view remains that there is no need to itemise the various blogs.

By the way, are you ok to take the tag off now? Thepm (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure take the pov tag off, i`ll do an rfc about the blog thing, thanks mark nutley (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Get someone to check it for neutrality before you post it William M. Connolley (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Article additions

As may be obvious, I had an article almost ready to post also. Some seams still show, but it's certainly time Curry had an article. Pete Tillman (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

POV?

MN has tagged this [1] but the discussion that should be on the talk page is missing. MN: please explain why you have tagged this (with the wrong tag too, but we don't expect miracles) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Curry's notability....

Curry's notability with the general public has arisen from her appearance in two MSM articles: the Revkin piece in the NYT in 11-09, and an interview in Discover magazine in 3-10. She has also made some more recent, provocative remarks at various climate-related sites online. While I understand the need for balance, it's a disservice to our readers to omit the main reason the general public would know who she is.

My own contribution to this, which vanished overnight, was:

Since the Climategate controversy developed in 2009, Curry has been critical of some of her colleagues in climate science, in particular of what she sees as their scientific "sloppiness" and ill-advised stonewalling on releasing data. She has been especially critical of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change : "The corruptions of the IPCC process, and the question of corruption (or at least inappropriate torquing) of the actual science by the IPCC process, is the key issue,"

To answer one possible objection, "Climategate" is what Curry herself calls the controversy: she defines it more broadly than our Climatic Research Unit email controversy article, to include the IPCC controversy, which she calls "corruption". --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, because Wikipedia isn't about the news of the day. If she's notable, it's for her scientific work, not for this stuff. Guettarda (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz and I had a discussion nearly a year ago Talk:Effects of global warming#Judith Curry and came to the conclusion that Judith Curry past the WP:PROF test. Atmoz said he would start an article up again properly some time but hadn't got around to it. I agree this recent tittle tattle is not something that has suddenly made her notable and should only form a very minor part of this article. Polargeo (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It is also a very notable moment in her life, and for her to be critical of the ipcc is very notable mark nutley (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Curry's notability with the general public - ah, can you see the mistake you're making? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that Prof. Curry would be notable on the basis of her academic achievements, she has described herself as a "middle-size fish" in the climate-science pond. If she were "just" an average academic, there wouldn't be any controversy over (or any great interest in) her wiki-biography. However, she has chosen to enter the discussion of public policy related to climate change. Her statements and comments have attracted national interest. While we're not a newspaper, her actions are unquestionably (and permanently) WP:Notable.

We are a resource for the general reader, who (ideally) will find here an encyclopedic summary of the notable and significant parts of the subject's life and career. As Mark Nutley notes, this is something of a watershed moment in her career. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, not obviously, and not yet. You have no interest in her science, and that is regrettable, but that doesn't mean her biog should reflect that William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

WMC: first, Curry's venture into public-policy has already been written up in the NY Times and Discovery:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed" to be WP:Notable.

Second, your venture into mind-reading is presumptuous, offensive and borders on a WP:Personal attack. This is the second time you've tried this particular line of rhetoric on me. I didn't call you on it last time, but I am now. Please desist. Pete Tillman (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not reading your mind. I'm reading your edits. We are a resource for the general reader - yes, but not all articles are written from that point of view. Nor should Curry's biog be drowned by the excitement-of-the-moment, just because that excites some people William M. Connolley (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• I support Tillman's proposed addition to the article, it is reliably sourced, neutrally written, and succinct. That makes it 3 to 2 for inclusion, Mark, Tillman, and Cla68 for, WMC and Guettarda against. In addition, I hear that someone may have broken a 1RR edit restriction in this article. Is this true? Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, in response to some actions in this article, I've filed an enforcement request. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Reliably sourced"? A blog comment wouldn't be a reliable source in any article, let alone a BLP. Let alone when it's being used to attribute controversial opinions to a living person. Guettarda (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Cla68, am I correct in saying you support adding content to a biography of a living person that is sourced to a now deleted comment in a no-login comments section in a highly partisan blog, and that you believe such a source is "reliable?" Just checking! Hipocrite (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, if her statement on Pielke's blog has been deleted, it can't be used. The other two sources look good though. Cla68 (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And if the comments weren't deleted, then they would be "reliable?" Just trying to figure out if someone posting in an unmoderated no-login comments section saying they are Judith Curry are reliable sources. If they are, man, have I got some Albert Einstein blog comments for you. Oh, and are you saying that www.qando.net is a reliable source? Just checking! Hipocrite (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"The other two sources look good"? Did you read any of the sources before proclaiming them "good"? Per my analysis below, the two reliable sources are misrepresented. How the heck is any of it "it is reliably sourced, neutrally written, and succinct"? Guettarda (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

So we agree that the third sentence of Tillman's proposal is worthless fails WP:V, right? Now the second sentence is also problematic. She has been especially critical of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is sourced to this interview in Discover.

• "Especially" is not supported by the source. She criticises certain aspects of the process, but to say that she has been "especially" critical just isn't in there. Nowhere in the interview is her critique compared with any of her colleagues. "Especially" is an editorial opinion and cannot stand.
• Saying "she has been critical of the IPCC" is misleading - she criticised certain aspects of the process. I don't recall her criticising the results of the report, not in that interview, and even if she did, her primary criticism was of the process. So that statement is misleading.
• Even saying "she has been critical of the IPCC process" is problematic, since her criticisms are of specifics. It's also utterly trivial. A 6000-person committee? I can imagine that there are more criticisms that members. That's the nature of committees. If we're going to say anything about that, we need to be specific. To say someone criticised something without specifying what it was they were criticising is to paint with so broad a brush that the statement is meaningless and misleading. Guettarda (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence, sourced to the Revkin article, has similar problems. Since the Climategate controversy developed in 2009, Curry has been critical of some of her colleagues in climate science, in particular of what she sees as their scientific "sloppiness" and ill-advised stonewalling on releasing data.

• "since the...controversy developed" - not supported by the source. There's nothing in the source that says that she wasn't critical before. So that part cannot be attributed to the cited source. Looks like pure OR.
• "Curry has been critical of some of her colleagues in climate science" - looks OK
• "in particular of what she sees as their scientific "sloppiness"" - the word "sloppiness" is in quotes, but I can't find it anywhere in the article. Nor, for that matter, do I see the sentiment expressed. Quotes not present in source, sentiments not present in source.
• "ill-advised stonewalling on releasing data" - this, on the other hand, is a direct quote from Revkin, but it's presented without quotes, it's passed of as your own words. That's plagiarism.
• "in particular of what she sees as their scientific "sloppiness" and ill-advised stonewalling on releasing data" - this is not a fair representation of the letter/article. The main thrust is "engage the skeptics, don't retreat to the ivory tower or circle the wagons". Part of it is made up, the other part is something she doesn't even mention in the letter (which is the main thrust of Revkin's article). Guettarda (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Guettarda's response reminds me of why I don't do much of this sort of thing anymore. I'll write a more specific response later, when whatever bug I'm trying to fight off lets up. In essence, it's smoke & mirrors, and/or intimidation. Sigh.

In the meanwhile, those actually interested in what Curry has to say may wish to follow Keith Kloor's ongoing Curryfest. Might be as well to wait for MSM to pick up on this -- or for Kloor to write his article.

The "dead" link to Curry's remarks at Pielke Jr's site worked just a moment ago. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• How is it "intimidation" to ask that you fairly represent sources, don't invent quotes, don't pass off other people's words as your own, and don't use unverifed blog comments as reliable sources? What is your vision of Wikipedia where these sorts of things are allowed? Oh, wait, I think I know... Guettarda (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Guettarda, if you're going to continually personalize this discussion, perhaps you should step off for awhile. I don't think it's helpful to reaching a compromise agreement on what we're going to include in the article on Curry's position on this topic. Cla68 (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've filed a Wikiquette alert about some of the discussion I've observed on this page. In the meantime we can get back to work on it. Cla68 (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Worthless" is a poorly chosen word. I was thinking "useless" as in "is no use to us". As for the rest - no, he personalised the issue, calling my dissection of his proposed changed "intimidation". It's not intimidation to carefully examine proposed text. Guettarda (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• I propose leaving Tillman's second sentence as is and rephrasing the first, using the same source, as "In reponse to the 2009-2010 Climatic Research Unit email controversy, Curry wrote an essay urging, 'greater transparency in climate data and other methods used in climate research.'" Cla68 (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, Curry's blog post is directly referenced in the NY Times article, so it's ok to link to it in a footnote in the article. Cla68 (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Not that I don't believe you, but where in the NY Times article does Curry's purported post dated April 16, 2010 on rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com appear in the NY Times article dated November 27, 2009? Use quotes. Or, if I got the article wrong, plese provide both a link to the correct article and quotes. Hipocrite (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• I could be wrong on that. The Times article mentions her remarks on that blog, but if it's not referencing that specific post, then it can't be used. By the way, if you don't agree with Tillman's wording, could you propose your own text using the Times and the Discover sources? Cla68 (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• No. I'm sorry, I'm going to ask you this again. You state "Curry's blog post is directly referenced in the NY Times article." This is apparently totally false. Why would you say something that is totally and completely 180 degrees removed from the truth - and that would require a violation of all of the laws of physics to be truthful. Where did you get your information from? Hipocrite (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
• Further, you now state "The Times article mentions her remarks on that blog" Please provide a quote from the times article that references "rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com." Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• I got the blog wrong, her essays are apparently published on Climate Audit, Climateprogess, and her own blog. Thank you for kindly correcting me. So, links to those blogs, in this case, would be ok. Again, would you please post your own proposal for how to word a synopsis of what she's saying in the NY Times article, Discover interview, and in her essay posted on those blogs? Cla68 (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see how it needs substantial expansion beyond "She supports engagement with those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change and the benefits of blog-led debate. She published an open letter on various blogs called "On the Credibility of Climate Change, Towards Rebuilding Trustm" you could, perhaps also add "She has critiziced some other researches for what she perceives as a lack of transparency and an unwillingess to engage skeptics," but if you added that you'd have to remove the meaningless quote farms of "she has written that climatologists should be more transparent in their dealings with the public saying, "This whole concept of, ‘We’re the experts, trust us,’ has clearly gone by the wayside".[7] She also stated "We won the war — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, and climate and energy legislation is near the top of the U.S. agenda, ... Why keep fighting all these silly battles and putting ourselves in this position?"" Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Although I often disagree with arguments of exclusion of material under WP:UNDUE, in this case I think they may have merit. This article is so short that it would be unbalanced if it contained mostly Curry's opinion on one or two topics like AGW skepticism and Climategate. I think the article needs to be expanded and then we can discuss adding her opinions on these two areas. Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Cla68, WP:UNDUE (a/k/a WP:WEIGHT) is something to consider. The idea, elsewhere on this page, that we should somehow discount Curry's contributions to the public debating over the CRU emails controversy is baseless -- her notability is heavily dependent on it. Because of WP:WEIGHT, I'd expand the passage a bit from what's there now, because this aspect of her notability is more important than the article reflects. When the CRU emails first became public, Curry was one of the very first climate scientists from the mainstream AGW perspective to criticize the emailers (and perhaps the very first to do so in an extended way), and her comments were some of the most prominent criticisms from a climate scientist at that early stage. Our talk page and article had links to them (I put them there). Because she criticized the emailers' conduct from within the mainstream view, she appears to have been regarded with a lot more credibility by science journalists such as Andrew Revkin. Hipocrite, I wouldn't be too shy about quotes when we're talking about a controversy she's involved in. Quotes have a lot more credibility with readers, and they tend to be more accurate than our attempts at paraphrasing or describing a position (although they can be taken out of context and misused). Quotes can also preserve nuances and tone of voice, which may be critical in a BLP of someone involved in a controversy. We should be much more tolerant of quotes touching on controversies. Unlike traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia publishes articles on recent controversies in which traditional encyclopedia "tone" isn't always appropriate (in good part because it tends to leave out quotes). What we're doing in covering recent controversies is more like journalism, where quotes are used more often. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So, your argument is we need to use blogs as sources for quotes because it's VERY IMPORTANT RECENT INFORMATION, and for VERY IMPORTANT RECENT INFORMATION, we don't use an encyclopedic tone? No. Hipocrite (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, exaggerating the opinions of people who disagree with you and using the "caps lock" key. Interesting ways to make your points. Thanks for making it such a joy to try to have a calm, reasonable discussion with you about article content. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have calm, reasonable discussions with people that want to use blogs to libel living persons, so sorry. Hipocrite (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Please point out the libel. Please point out where I wanted "to use blogs to libel living persons." -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Some refs

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002157.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"By Judith Curry Wednesday, October 10, 2007; 6:55 PM" Bit old don`t you think? Perhaps her mind has changed since then. There are newer refs showing her support for AGW is`nt there? mark nutley (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/27/curry-the-backstory/comment-page-1/#comment-3538 is a good summary of her current position William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ya but that can`t be used can it. It is in a comment section on a blog mark nutley (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That's correct - it can't be used. However, since it's almost certainly true, we shouldn't make statements in this article that misrepresent Dr. Curry's views unless we are certain those statements are accurate - better to just leave them out, per WP:BLP - "We must get the article right." Hipocrite (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all but your first sentence. I'm not sure that is true William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the Q an A on the collide a scape website useable? It is an interview with her, so is it reliable to use as a source? mark nutley (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me try this for the millionth time. STOP USING BLOGS AS SOURCES Hipocrite (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hold on. This isn't a blog by some unknown *abot* Curry - this is a blog interview *with* Curry. It is her words. It is, I think, as reliable source for her opinions. And it contains a lot of very interesting material William M. Connolley (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Actually i was just asking as Kloor is a professional journalist and it is an interview with Dr Curry. I am not talking about the comments, just the interview. I have also been advised to ask if a source can be used if i am unsure :-) mark nutley (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That we can possibly use a blog as a source does not mean that we should. Our best articles would not use a blog as a source. However, if you're going to again argue that we include some blog as a source because it's got very very important information, then at the very least have the dignity to propose the specific change on the talk page and seek consensus from people who typically disagree with you before adding it to the article. Hipocrite (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think what she says there is markedly different from the Discover interview: (a) she has some concerns about the use of uncertainty in the IPCC report (mostly a comment on process, not "she has been especially critical of the IPCC", not "corruption!eleventyone!"), and (b) she hasn't gone over to the "it's all a hoax" side.

Hipocrite, would you please read WP:BLPSPS? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean the policy that says "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person." Yeah, right on it. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone trying to use blog comments. Hipocrite (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, missed that. Thanks so much for reminding me. Have you seen the passage next to the check mark at the top of the BLP page? The one where it says as a policy, BLP is something that editors should "normally follow"? And did you catch the link to "common sense" at that word "normally"? Did you happen to look at the blog's "About" page, where it says the author is an editor at Audubon Magazine. During the 2008-2009 academic year, I was a Fellow at the University of Colorado’s Center for Environmental Journalism, in Boulder. Would using a blog by an ex-Audobon editor and current journalism professor and past environmental journalism fellow who's interviewing and quoting the subject be a dangerous thing for Wikipedia to do here? If Curry took exception to what he reported, do you think she'd say so somewhere? Try to answer without exaggerating what I say and try to get that Caps Lock key fixed on your keyboard. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So, in summary, you directed me to read a policy which said exactly what I was doing - IE, not including terrible sources. After I quoted the policy you asked me to read to you, you realized you never actually knew what the policy you were quoting at me said (since I quoted the very first words of the policy, and all), so you decided that, even though you were the one who said we should follow the policy, we should actually not follow the policy, because apparently somewhere in your brain you believe BLP is something that editors should only "normally" follow - IE, you think this is important enough to disregard policy. Beyond that, you decided that this was the moment to become incivil. If you were me and I were you, would you, at this point, disregard everything you said? Wait, don't answer that, I'm just disregarding everything you say. Hipocrite (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Please let me take this opportunity to apologize to you for saying, I don't have calm, reasonable discussions with people that want to use blogs to libel living persons, so sorry. It was a terrible personal attack to say that about another Wikipedia editor without any reason to have said it. Oh, wait. That was you. You're really confusing me with this if-you-were-me-and-I-were-you concept. somewhere in your brain you believe BLP is something that editors should only "normally" follow -- is that only in my brain or is it also on the WP:BLP page? At the top, next to the check mark? Help me out here, my poor brain is just too addled to read properly. Yes, I had read WP:BLPSE too quickly, focusing on the fact that a blog on a newspaper website is generally fine and this one wasn't on a newspaper website. (Similar language in WP:RS was changed late last November, and that might have been what confused me. This blog would be fine for non-BLP material.) Your response is the only appropriate one: comment on my brain, make snide comments, say I'm being uncivil and announce that I'm just disregarding everything you say. Because, naturally, any time anyone gets something wrong in a discussion with you, they have shown themselves unworthy of you. There are at least two other editors in this discussion who also think the material is worth using. Perhaps this should be brought up at the BLP noticeboard. WP:BLPSPS violates common sense here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, bring this to any noticeboard you want. When you're soundly smacked down, will you drop it? Hipocrite (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiLinks inside of quotes?

Regarding this edit,[2] I thought there were was some rule against having WikiLinks inside of quotations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is, please feel free to fix it. Minor4th 19:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) Minor4th 21:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Scientific American

Interesting new article in Scientific American Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues [3]. Might be a useful source? Worth a look anyway. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, JAJ. Interesting reading. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• This profile is starting to draw 3rd-party RS attention. I'll list same here, pending an add to the article:

• Reprint at Nature: [4], seems to be a straight copy of the SA profile.
• Mother Jones (blog?): Who's Afraid of the Climate Community? by Kevin Drum
• National Review: Judith Curry’s Heresy by Jonah Goldberg
• Grist: Judith Curry: On the quest to keep politics out of climate science, by David Roberts
• Georgia Tech Alumni Magazine: Handling the Heat, October 27, 2010

Collide-a-Scape on The Judith Curry Phenomenon

I've added this as an external link. For interested readers, there are some great exchanges between Curry & Gavin Schmidt, and a wonderful soundbite from Curry that (alas) we can't use here:

Unlike other people that I can think of, I don’t whine when I am getting attacked criticized or claim that they are in the pay of big oil or the enviro advocacy groups or whatever. I flat out don’t care; my feelings aren’t hurt, I don’t feel like my professional status is being jeopardized or challenged or whatever. I flat out don’t care at this point.

[Comment #41]

Heh. Gavin chimes in again just below this. Very entertaining reading. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Entertaining indeed. But not terribly suitable for this article (or, indeed, any article). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you unpack that a bit, please? See WP:EL, Links to be considered #4: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I would start with the first three paragraphs of WP:EL and points 11 and 13 of Links normally to be avoided. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Use of this is becoming moot, as Curry is now writing directly about this at her own blog. Some of this should definitely be added to her bio. Interesting stuff. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Beyond Climategate"

Politics of climate science fuel talk, November 4, 2010, Journal and Courier, Lafayette, IN

"A panel of climate change experts attracted hundreds of people at Purdue University Thursday for a discussion about the complicated relationship among scientists, politicians and the media. It was standing room only..."

The event was titled "Beyond Climategate: What Role for Science and the Media in the Making of Climate Policy?" Panel: Judith Curry, Andrew Revkin, Roger Pielke Jr. and Elizabeth McNie.

It's been a year since the most recent citations relevant to the Judy Curry entry. Permit me to call attention to an article in the Daily Mail at... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html ...and add my comment that the DM article seems bent on trivializing a solemn subject of global importance with a she-said/he-said report. Perhaps Wikipedia should collect examples of how uncritical publications give individuals opportunities to grind axes, demeaning the labors of IPCC scientists and investigators. Just a suggestion. Paul Niquette (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Position statement by Curry in OpEd at The Australian

Posting a link to open copy, as the original is paywalled: Consensus distorts the climate picture, published in The Australian, September 21, 2013. Paywall at The Australian. Curry's blog post re the op-ed

Curry has become more outspoken in her contrarian views, in particular her increasingly sharp criticism of the IPCC. So this might be a good source to update her bio, as using SPS is often contentious.

Sample: She remarks critically of what she sees as "explicit advocacy and activism by IPCC leaders related to carbon dioxide mitigation policies." And "IPCC’s estimates of the sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gas forcing are too high, raising serious questions about the confidence we can place in the IPCC’s attribution of warming in the last quarter of the 20th century primarily to greenhouse gases, and also its projections of future warming."

Interesting reading. Has lots of her opponents knickers in twists.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Wyatt & Curry 2013

A significant new publication: M.G. Wyatt and J.A. Curry, “Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century”: Climate Dynamics, 2013. Full text; Curry's discussion at her blog

From the Ga. Tech press release:

A new paper published in the journal Climate Dynamics suggests that this ‘unpredictable climate variability’ behaves in a more predictable way than previously assumed. The paper’s authors, Marcia Wyatt and Judith Curry, point to the so-called ‘stadium-wave’ signal that propagates like the cheer at sporting events whereby sections of sports fans seated in a stadium stand and sit as a ‘wave’ propagates through the audience. In like manner, the ‘stadium wave’ climate signal propagates across the Northern Hemisphere through a network of ocean, ice, and atmospheric circulation regimes that self-organize into a collective tempo.

“The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,” Wyatt, the paper’s lead author, said. Interesting paper. Pete Tillman (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Section title: Climate Change Controversy

This section title is vague and misleading. The section is about Curry's relationship with and attitude towards climate skeptics. The section is not about the climate change controversy which is not discussed. It is not even about controversial remarks that Curry has made regarding climate change and the scientific criticism she has received for her public statements and the her testimony before Congress. I've renamed the article twice and it has been reverted with one individual uncertain about the meaning of the word relationship. This word is appropriate and accurately describes the section. It is certainly much better than "climate change controversy" which falsely implies a) there is meaningful scientific controversy on the existence of climate change and b) that the section is about Curry's opinions on climate change which is just not true. I'm open to other alternatives if other people would like to suggest them but the status quo is unacceptable. Greg Comlish (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not keen on either title. You're right that this section is not about "climate change controversy", but it's about more than just relationships with skeptics. Indeed I find your statement that "[i]t is not even about controversial remarks that Curry has made regarding climate change and the scientific criticism she has received for her public statements and the her testimony before Congress" slightly odd given the first and last paragraphs which are pretty much about the remarks (though not the conseqeuent criticism).

How about just calling this section "Climate change"? That is the common factor of all the topics addressed in this section, whether her essay, her blog, or her congressional testimony. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks, JAJ. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm the editor who reverted the renaming of the section because it didn't sound good and felt somewhat convoluted. I wouldn't have an issue with simply calling it Climate Change as Jonathan A Jones proposed though. Cheers. Gaba ^(talk) 02:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Does Curry actually support the standard scientific opinion?

I'm not 100% sure I agree with the current wording of the article. It currently says: "While Judith Curry supports the scientific opinion on climate change", with this reference: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/a-climate-scientist-on-climate-skeptics/?_php=true&_type=blogs&pagemode=print&_r=0
This presumably relies on the sentence from that nytimes blog which says: "She has no skepticism about a growing human influence on climate."
I've read quite a lot of Curry's blogs etc., and as far as I can tell she is normally extremely careful about what she says and what she allows journalists to write about what she thinks, so I imagine that is her wording. However believing in "a growing human influence on climate" is not actually quite the same thing as believing the current scientific opinion. In particular, in this, more recent interview: http://oilprice.com/Interviews/The-IPCC-May-Have-Outlived-its-Usefulness-An-Interview-with-Judith-Curry.html she says: "The most recent IPCC assessment report states: "Most [50%] of the warming in the latter half of the 20th century is very likely [>90%] due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations." There is certainly some contribution from the greenhouse gases, but whether it is currently a dominant factor or will be a dominant factor in the next century, is a topic under active debate, and I don’t think the high confidence level [>90%] is warranted given the uncertainties.'" Personally I would say that means she questions the IPCC's confidence that greenhouse gases are the dominant factor in global warming. That is quite a big deal, because if greenhouse gases are not the dominant factor, then presumably warming will not be as great and efforts to control greenhouse gases are less important.
Note this does not actually contradict the statement in the nytimes article; if you believe that greenhouse gases have some contribution, then logically you believe there is a "growing human influence on climate".
In fact I've just found an even better source, which she cites as representative of her views on climate change on her website, i.e. her 2013 statement "STATEMENT TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES": http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/curry-testimony-2013-il.pdf In that testimony she summarises evidence for and against the IPCC AR4; in evidence against she says: "Evidence against: • No significant increase in globally averaged temperature for the past 15 years. • Lack of a consistent and convincing attribution argument for the warming from 1910-1940 and the plateau from the 1940s to the 1970s. • Growing realization that multidecadal natural internal variability is of higher amplitude than previously accounted for in IPCC attribution analyses." This surely puts her in opposition with the standard analysis given in AR4 and AR5. She places much more emphasis on natural variability, and questions the standard explanations for the plateaus in the 40s to 70s and the last 15 years.
Is the current wording correct, therefore?
Disclaimer: this arises from a discussion here: Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming --Merlinme (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that didn't get a whole lot of response. Ok, let's try this a different way; would people be happy with the following text? Curry believes that greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming, but has questioned the IPCC's high confidence that they are the dominant factor. [5] In her 2013 testimony to the US Congress she questioned the IPCC's certainty that greenhouse gases have been the dominant factor in global warming, highlighting as evidence against the IPCC position the recent 15 year temperature plateau, doubts over whether aerosol cooling can fully account for the temperature plateau in the 1940s to 1970s, and greater multi decade natural variability than the IPCC has previously used, and contrasts the IPCC's "best estimate" of about 3° C temperature rises with other research which supports warming of around 2°C.[6]

That's a more helpful question. Personally I think this article should be extremely cautious about attempting to assess whether or not Curry's position is consistent with the mainstream, as it is very hard to answer that questions without engaging in OR and SYNTH. It is, of course, possible to report what reliable sources have said on this question, which is broadly speaking the current approach: we report what is in essence Prof. Curry's self assessment of her own position as reported in a reliable source. However in many ways your proposed approach, which concentrates on what she has actually said while avoiding editorialising on what it "means", ois preferable. So in essence I'm broadly supportive of the approach, but I would like a little more information on precisely which text you are suggesting be replaced. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that is better, but how about "Curry may believe..." JD Lambert^(T|C) 10:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I think "Curry believes" is correct, she seems pretty clear in that interview: "There is certainly some contribution from the greenhouse gases..." Re: what text to replace, probably simplest just to give the whole section. How about:

Judith Curry believes that greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming, but has questioned the IPCC's high confidence that they are the dominant factor. [7] She has also argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change, stating that she is troubled by what she calls the "tribal nature" of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review.[12]

In February 2010 Curry published an essay called "On the Credibility of Climate Change, Towards Rebuilding Trust" on Watts Up With That? and other blogs.[13] Writing in The New York Times, Andrew Revkin calls the essay a message to young scientists who may have been disheartened by the November 2009 climate change controversy known as "Climategate".[12]

In September 2010, Curry created Climate Etc. to provide "a forum for climate researchers, academics and technical experts from other fields, citizen scientists, and the interested public to engage in a discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface."[3]

Curry testified before the US House Subcommittee on Environment in 2013,[14] remarking on the many large uncertainties in forecasting future climate. In particular she questioned the IPCC's certainty that greenhouse gases have been the dominant factor in global warming, highlighting the recent 15 year temperature plateau, doubts over whether aerosol cooling can fully account for the temperature plateau in the 1940s to 1970s, and greater multi decade natural variability than the IPCC has previously used.[15] --Merlinme (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

While "Curry believes" may be correct, why not simply state "Curry says" to leave out speculation about her beliefs. As for the last paragraph, it looks like she's setting up strawmen which could soon prove embarrassing for her. Thus "the IPCC's certainty" should be "the IPCC's statement that it was extremely likely", and I don't think anyone has proposed that "aerosol cooling can fully account" for the 15 year global warming hiatus: see that articles for various factors. . . dave souza, talk 13:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not completely happy yet with the last sentence in my text, it's quite difficult to summarise her position in a sentence or two. She is an impressive master of fence-sitting! Basically she chooses to highlight things which would question the IPCC's position that greenhouse gas warming is dominant, but without ever explicitly stating that she herself questions whether greenhouse gas warming is dominant. If anyone else wants a go the relevant bit is page 7 of her testimony to the committee, "Summary evaluation".

I guess a second attempt might be: "In her testimony she lists six pieces of evidence for the IPCC's position that greenhouse gases are dominant in warming, including the long term surface temperature trend and decline in Arctic sea ice, and three pieces of evidence against, including the 15 year plateau in global temperature and higher amplitude multi decade natural variability than the IPCC has previously used." --Merlinme (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That's really a primary source for her views, is a secondary source available? Suggest anyway linking "the 15 year plateau in global surface temperature". Note that these are surface temps rising slowly, while deep ocean temps have been rising more rapidly. . . dave souza, talk 14:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

For a secondary source there's this: [8] Is www.skepticalscience.com a reliable source? According to skepticalscience.com, Curry argues "that the 2014 IPCC report actually weakens scientists' confidence in human-caused global warming. Curry's evidence to support that assertion boiled down to arguing of a supposed 'lack of warming since 1998', discrepancies between models and observations during that time, a lower climate sensitivity range in the 2014 than the 2007 IPCC report, and the fact that Antarctic sea ice extent has increased." If skeptical science is not allowed, I still personally think it would be interesting to report that in her most recent testimony she asserted that the case for anthropogenic warming in the most recent IPCC report is weaker than in 2007, and that there is growing evidence that climate models are too sensitive to CO2. In fact her summary in that testimony is rather easier to describe briefly than her previous testimony, and seems much more explicitly "sceptical". The exact text is:

"Multiple lines of evidence presented in the IPCC AR5 WG1 report suggest that the case for anthropogenic warming is weaker than the previous assessment AR4 in 2007. Anthropogenic global warming is a proposed theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. The growing evidence that climate models are too sensitive to CO2 has implications for the attribution of late 20th century warming and projections of 21st century climate. If the recent warming hiatus is caused by natural variability, then this raises the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural climate variability." [9] --Merlinme (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

www.skepticalscience.com is not a reliable source; see WP:BLPSPS. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"State of the Climate Debate" presentation

"State of the Climate Debate", Judith Curry presentation at the National Press Club, Sept. 2014, includes slideshow (pdf) and video

Interesting presentation --this would be a good source for updating Prof. Curry's current views on the debate. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Judith Curry thinks climate scientists view her as their "biggest threat."

A woman in the eye of the political storm over climate change, Climate Wire, September 26, 2014

Good article. Some good stuff here for the bio. RS, too. --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

From User:HalMorris -- sorry, I'm quite a novice and don't get how "HalMorris (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)" works. Made some additions that were very quickly removed; wrote to a wikipedian I know:

I may be in a little bit of an editing battle, as an addition I made to an article was removed (by Peter Gulutzan, not one of the writers of the article) because it "Sounded like advertising". What sounded like advertising were quotes from a marketing web site that on close examination suggests a conflict of interest which I feel should be pointed out when discussing Prof. Curry.

As I wrote before, I added this text to the article on Judith Curry, a well published Climatologist whose work supports AGW, but who is virtually at war with her collegues, and runs a web site which is extremely deprecating to the Climate Science community.

From the talk page for the article "Judith Curry thinks climate scientists view her as their "biggest threat."

So I ran across this information by way of her twitter page (it is difficult to find just googling {"Judith Curry" company} and variations of that), and wrote, quoting from the marketing material:

She is also president of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN) whose "innovative OmniCast suite of weather and climate forecast products for the energy sector incorporates the latest research in weather and climate dynamics...". OmniCast was "developed .. in response to the needs of a major client in the petroleum industry for extended range, better-than-market weather forecasts to support energy trading, sales and marketing."

Estimation of size of company from http://www.zoominfo.com/c/Climate-Forecast-Applications-Network-LLC/346602014 $1 mil. - $5 mil.in Revenue / 10 - 20Employees

The key point: OmniCast was "developed .. in response to the needs of a

       major client in the petroleum industry

I reinserted a modified version:

She is also president, since 2006, of "Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN)[2] whose major commercial software product. OmniCast was "developed .. in response to the needs of a major client in the petroleum industry."[3]

I would prefer to include more context to let CFAN speak for itself rather than making it so baldly accusatory through the absence of context.

I don't know how to correspond through Wikipedia so I can be contacted at hal@panix.com.