Originally Posted by
HabuHunter
This is a good example of an ad hominem fallacy. You attack the person rather than address the argument she is making.
Dr Judith Curry has impeccable credentials, and regardless of what you state, she is still publishing.
The fact that other scientists may critique( or indeed support) her work is normal, that’s how science should work.
Your debunking link is an anonymously written rationalwiki article that references another internet blog for support, an article written by some one called “Climate Denier Roundup”.... and you think this debunks a paper written by a credentialed scientist in a peer reviewed journal?
You’re doing a bit of ad hominem fallacy there yourself. There are multiple references on that link to multiple fully peer reviewed studies by scientists debunking Curry’s work. If she has “impeccable credentials” why has she been caught using debunked talking points, admitted she hasn’t even read scientific reports she’s attacked, used very politically charged language calling climate science a “hoax”, admitted to talking money from fossil fuel companies?
Im sure she’s undertaken plenty of peer reviewed study, but it’s her conclusions on the issue of climate change that have been debunked by 97% of other climate scientists. She has openly admitted she will not write peer reviewed articles anymore because she was sick of being “attacked” (in reality having her work critiqued and being told she was wrong) by almost every other climate scientist.
Judith Curry - Source Watch