**UPDATE:
In the comment thread, Judith Curry elaborates that the "main point of my post was to provoke a switch in the dialogue (away from the witch hunt) to the problems with IPCC process and how this might be improved..."
**UPDATE:
In numerous comments below, Judith Curry expounds on many of the controversial issues that she has raised in recent months. Specifically, see here, here, here, and here.
How fascinating: a weekend banner headline over at Climate Depot had linked to Roger Pielke Jr.'s post on the Oxburgh report, which, as he quotes from an LA Times story, found the CRU climate scientists "squeaky clean." Yet Marc Morano, who rarely misses a spin-worthy soundbite, must have not read the comments at Roger's post. For if he did, he would have come across this:
Given their selection of CRU research publications to investigate (see Bishop Hill), the Oxbourgh investigation has little credibility in my opinion.
That would be from none other than Judith Curry, the respected Georgia Institute of Technology climate scientist, whose outspoken commentary on Climategate has put her at odds with many of her colleagues. (See here, here, and here, for Curry's most recent and widely circulated essays on the issue of climate science credibility.) Then again, maybe Morano read her comment and saw this was the next sentence:
However, I still think it unlikely that actual scientific malfeasance is present in any of these papers: there is no malfeasance associated with sloppy record keeping, making shaky assumptions, and using inappropriate statistical methods in a published scientific journal article.
Even still, that's quite a backhanded compliment thrown in, for good measure. But I'm nearly certain Morano must have missed Curry's comment altogether (which is oddly cross-posted at Bishop Hill), because it includes this explosively worded charge against the IPCC:
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. The assessment process should filter out erroneous papers and provide a broader assessment of uncertainty; instead, we have seen evidence of IPCC lead authors pushing their own research results and writing papers to support an established narrative. I don't see much hope for improving the IPCC process under its current leadership.
That's such Morano chum! And from a leading climate scientist! I can tell you that the gaggle at Real Climate have already figured this out, if Morano hasn't. Curry's comment may be flying under his (and the media's) radar, but it's just starting to light up the comment thread over at RC. Even Gavin Schmidt has responded:
Anyone making accusations of corruption - especially in the light of the tsunami of baseless accusations against scientists that have been hitting the internet in the last few months - needs to be sure that they adequately document the evidence for their allegations. Absent that documentation, I see no reason to take them seriously. Casually throwing around such statements in comments on blog posts is not an appropriate course of action if they are meant to be credible.
It might well be that the media narrative on the Oxburgh report is already established and that Curry's contrary assessment will gain no traction. (Climategate fatigue may be setting in, too.) Then again, if Andy Revkin or other journalists pick up on it, who will bear the wrath of the climate furies: the media or Curry? Stay tuned. UPDATE:
Judith Curry has gamely engaged her critics at RC over her recent IPCC and Oxburgh comments. After taking stock, Roger Pielke Jr. observes that Curry is getting "the Real Climate treatment for her troubles."
