re: #187 LudwigVanQuixote

I missed out on that. If I recall, shes been a bit political about her stances (which is to say, not wanting to piss of Republicans) What did she say?

Check out her blog - it’s a pretty interesting dust up. Lots of technically oriented folks going at it big time.

Here’s what she said that really has the deniers jumping up and down with joy:

It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest (I agree with Muller on this one). The authors defend themselves by stating that there has been no attempt to hide the divergence problem in the literature, and that the relevant paper was referenced. I infer then that there is something in the IPCC process or the authors’ interpretation of the IPCC process (i.e. don’t dilute the message) that corrupted the scientists into deleting the adverse data in these diagrams….

[…]

I don’t want to throw the baby away with the bath water here. But this whole issue is a big problem for the science and has been an enormous black eye for the credibility of the IPCC and climate science. I suspect that many denizens will be on board with my assessment and are very familiar with McIntyre’s analysis. I would be particularly interested in hearing from any defenders of these global paleotemperature analyses by Mann et al.

She still, supposedly, falls under the category of “lukewarmist,” but the gist of what she says is that the IPCC is not credible. She’s been talking about Mann, Schmidt, et al. as being “tribalists” in the past - but she’s gone considerably beyond that recently to pretty much buying into the whole conspiratorial mindset.