Curry’s story is a classic one and is very similar to my own in many ways. She says that when she reviewed the parts of the IPCC’s third report that were related to her expertise:
I told them that their perspective was far too simplistic and that they didn’t even mention the issue of aerosol impacts on the nucleation of ice clouds. So it’s not so much as finding things that were wrong, but rather ignorance that was unrecognized and confidence that was overstated.
In other words, she had doubts about the IPCC’s report when it came to the areas in which she had serious expertise. However, when push came to shove, she says:
I had decided that the responsible thing to do in making public statements on the subject of global warming was to adopt the position of the IPCC. My decision was based on two reasons: 1) the subject was very complex and I had personally investigated a relatively small subset of the topic; 2) I bought into the meme of “don’t trust what one scientists says, trust what thousands of IPCC scientists say.”
As time went on, however, she began to question her supposedly “responsible” position.
As she says in the same article:
During 2008 and 2009, I became increasingly concerned by the lack of “policy neutrality” by people involved in the IPCC and policies that didn’t make sense to me. But after all, “don’t trust what one scientist says,” and I continued to substitute the IPCC assessment for my own personal judgment [in my public statements].
So even though she had concerns, she accepted the dogma as presented by the high priests of climate science (at least in her public statements), because she was still convinced by the argument from majority – you have to believe what the majority of scientists believe on an issue. After all, how could most of the experts be wrong?
Well, she found out how. When the E-MAILS from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) were leaked, it really affected her. The content of those E-MAILs and the swift way most in the climate community tried to rally around the scientists involved seemed to confirm her view that many of the IPCC scientists were not policy-neutral and, as a result, the IPCC reports were probably not the best way to evaluate the climate change issue.
As a result, Dr. Curry decided to investigate the broad claims of the IPCC reports, not just the claims that related to her specific areas of expertise. She didn’t like what she found and is now a harsh critic of the IPCC. Please understand that she does not think the majority of the science in the IPCC reports is wrong. She is mostly concerned that the reports (a) do not adequately address the uncertainties that are inherent in studying the long-term changes in global climate, (b) oversimplify the incredibly complex processes that govern global climate, and (c) are not properly peer reviewed. Because of these weaknesses, she does not think that policy makers should take the IPCC reports seriously.
So now that she is actively thinking for herself, she is considered to be a heretic. As is often the case, however, this heretic has some very interesting perspectives on climate science. If you are interested in the whole “global warming” debate, you might want to follow her blog, called “Climate Etc.”