Summary of Judith Curry Part 2: Q/A: What she really thinks | Tom Nelson Podcast #77

00:00:00 - 00:25:00

In this video, Judith Curry discusses her experiences with cancel culture and being labeled a "denier" for her skepticism on climate change during the climate-gate scandal. She talks about difficulties in finding employment due to this reputation and ultimately deciding to retire and focus on her company. Curry also shares her experience preparing for and doing interviews, including with Jordan Peterson and giving congressional testimony. She discusses issues of source credibility in climate science and recommends books by various authors on climate change. She argues that the single author's framing and approach outweigh assessment reports in providing meaningful perspectives on the issue.

• 00:00:00 In this section, Judith Curry discussed the attempts to cancel her, specifically because of her part in climate-gate. Curry started making statements about transparency and drawing attention to skepticism during the climate-gate scandal, which did not go over well in the scientific community, and led to her being referred to as a denier. This resulted in discomfort for her at Georgia Tech, which pushed her to seek a different work environment.
• 00:05:00 In this section, Judith Curry discusses how she faced difficulties in finding employment after leaving Georgia Tech due to her being regarded as "unhireable" for her association with the so-called climate "denier" community. Thus, at the age of 63, she chose to retire and focus on her company, which aimed to solve real and imaginary problems with weather and climate information. Curry also shares her experience preparing for and doing interviews, including with Jordan Peterson, and how the Jordan Peterson interview involved a crew of six people and makeup artist, which was a new experience for her.
• 00:10:00 In this section, Judith Curry discusses her appearance on Jordan Peterson's podcast and her experience with giving congressional testimony. Curry admits to being taken aback by Peterson's interviewing style and his tendency to go off on tangents. Despite this, the podcast has been successful with almost 700,000 views. Curry also mentions that she didn't have a chance to talk about her book, but managed to mention it during a 30-minute add-on for subscribers to a TV station. Curry then goes on to discuss her preparation for congressional testimony, which involves dropping everything to write a written testimony due 48 hours in advance. She views it as a great opportunity to distill and communicate important policy-relevant information.
• 00:15:00 In this section of the video, Judith Curry shares her experiences giving testimony in front of Congress. She prefers giving testimony in the House over the Senate because Senators tend to grandstand instead of asking meaningful questions, and Representatives ask real questions even if they are not from their own party. She recalls a particularly memorable exchange between herself, Mark Stein, and Senator Markey during a hearing of Ted Cruz's committee on a topic related to the scientific method. Regarding her Wikipedia page, Curry notes that she cannot participate in editing it herself, but anyone with a public presence can add or remove information, resulting in endless discussions and edits.
• 00:20:00 In this section, Judith Curry discusses the issues surrounding source credibility in climate science. She argues that many people choose to cite sources like Source Watch and other small organizations that have credibility issues. Curry recounts some of her experiences with criticism from prominent figures in the climate community for holding skeptical viewpoints. She also talks about her involvement in the IPCC third assessment report and her reason for not contributing any further. Finally, she briefly discusses some of the sources she finds compelling and not compelling in the climate debate.
• 00:25:00 In this section, Judith Curry discusses several books on climate change that she considers worthwhile reads, although she doesn't agree with all of them 100%. She mentions books by Bjorn Lomborg, Michael Shellenberger, Steve Coonan, Vaclav Smil, Alex Epstein, Tim Palmer, Erica Thompson, Javier Venos, and Marcia Wyatt. She emphasizes that she appreciates individual authors' perspectives and argues that the single author's framing and approach far outweigh assessment reports, which she considers intellectual mishmashes.