BEST study challenged by Koch-sponsored 'crank'

UPDATE: TorontoEmerg at Sister Sage's Musings advises that Curry has clarified her remarks. From Curry herself:

"Hiding the truth” in the title is definitely misleading, I made it pretty clear that there was uncertainty in the data itself, but the bigger issues are to analyze the data and interpret it. 

I made it clear that this was not a straightforward and simple thing to do. 

I told Rose that I was puzzled my Muller’s statements, particularly about “end of skepticism” and also “We see no evidence of global warming slowing down.” 

I did not say that “the affair had to be compared to the notorious Climategate scandal two years ago,” this is indirectly attributed to me. When asked specifically about the graph that apparently uses a 10 year running mean and ends in 2006, we discussed “hide the decline,” but I honestly can’t recall if Rose or I said it first. I agree that the way the data is presented in the graph “hides the decline.” There is NO comparison of this situation to Climategate. Muller et al. have been very transparent in their methods and in making their data publicly available, which is highly commendable. 

My most important statement IMO is this: ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’ My main point was that this is a very good data set, the best we currently have available for land surface temperatures. To me, this should have been the big story: a new comprehensive data set, put together by a team of physicists and statisticians with private funds. Showing preliminary results is of course fine, but overselling them at this point was a mistake IMO. 

[SNIP] 

And finally, this is NOT a new scandal. An important new data set has been released. Some new papers have been posted for comments, which are not surprisingly drawing criticism and controversy. The main issue seems to be Richard Muller’s public statements. All this does not constitute a new scientific scandal in any way. [Emphasis mine]

However I do not take back what I have written about Curry. The fact that she trusted a yellow tabloid like the Daily Mail to correctly attribute her remarks shows a naivete that speaks volumes about Curry's tendency towards to opportunism. Oh and about Small Dead Animals blogger Kate having to eat her words - priceless. (Funny how right wingers only trust scientists when they seemingly support their point of view.)

---------------------

Who knows who to believe in the climate science game? I put my lot in with the majority who believe, especially with the publication of the recent Koch brothers' funded BEST study, which shocked the climate world by bolstering the argument for climate change.

But leave it to one curmudgeon scientist to challenge the study and become the darling ("climate heretic" as she is called by the fundie right) once again of climate skeptics.

Introducing Judith Curry, a skeptic who is part of BEST leader and former skeptic Richard Muller's loosely-based team. Curry, unlike Muller, has not changed her mind about global warming. She still doubts it.

Despite being thoroughly uncovered as a 'crank' with little science on her side, it did not stop UK's climate denying Daily Mail from exploding a story based on an interview with Curry casting doubts on the BEST study, claiming that it is akin the East Anglia scandal dubbed 'Climategate' (Curry was especially wrong on that one), which of course was proven to be nothing of the sort, only a convenient - but wholly wrong - talking point for climate skeptics. Seems like Curry is still in bed with the Kochs and enjoying all the free publicity.

Here's a little of Curry's shaky past:

• Pretty much the entire science blogosphere have written at length about my old friend Curry. 
• Hockey Stick fight at the RC Corral , NASA’s Gavin Schmidt to Curry: “In future I will simply assume you are a conduit for untrue statements rather than their originator” 
• Annan (who runs through various debunkings of her): “(S)He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense“; Here is Eric Steig refuting her absurd claim about the IPCC that “they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC.” 
• Bart Verheggen’s, “Judith Curry goes from builing bridges to burning themd
• Judith Curry abandons science

So while Richard Muller has come to terms with climate change, despite the backing of the Koch brothers, Curry is still hanging in there, grabbing headlines for her curmudgeonly ways. And all that press. And friends in high places.

There is no question Curry has caused a stir; she is frequently cited by some of the harshest skeptics around, including Marc Morano, the former aide to Senator Inhofe and founder of the Climate Depot skeptic blog. It is not just the skeptics: Andrew C. Revkin, the New York Times’s longtime environment reporter has treated her with great respect on his Dot Earth blog more than once. So has Keith Kloor, who runs the militantly evenhanded Collide-a-Scape blog.

So, meet the new hero of the right and climate skeptics everywhere. Judith Curry will soon replace "East Anglia" as the calling card for every crank and right-wing pundit. And like the phony scandal at East Anglia, bets are on Curry will also be proven to be full of hot air.