"How to waste time" by Judith and Roger

One thing her blog is certainly indicating is that Judith Curry likes the sound of her own voice.

A couple of weeks ago, elsewhere on the internet, I expressed the view that Curry may well end up just being just another, policy delaying, time waster. After all, as I noted here a couple of months ago, Roger Pielke Snr, a climate scientist widely appreciated by do-nothing climate skeptics for his continual complaint that other climate scientists weren't looking at land use and uncertainty in local effects of climate change in enough detail, came out and said at Skeptical Science:

“In terms of CO2, we do not even need to discuss global warming to be concerned by uncontrolled increases in its atmospheric concentration. We see directly from observations of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 that humans are increasing its levels. If global warming were not occurring at all, we should still be concerned.”

Yes, well, thanks then Roger, for your ongoing contribution to policy paralysis by letting your complaints be used as implicit support for those who want nothing done about CO2 and successfully agitate politically for same.

Today, Judith Curry gives a strong indication that she may be heading down the same path. In her post about why it is worth engaging skeptics, she says she thinks the AGU (American Geophysical Union) is dealing with the climate change as a scientific/policy issue in a good way. (As opposed to other science groups who says are getting too politically involved.)

So, a reader points her to the AGU's 2007 position statement on climate change, which starts with "The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and warming" and near the end says:

"If this 2 degrees of warming is to be avoided then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50% this century. With such projections there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. "

It goes on to note that there could be "surprises" that cause more disruptions than predicted by models.

So what does Judith say about this statement which sounds about as supportive of the IPCC position as you can get?:

This is a good and appropriate statement, I don’t have any problem with it.

What on earth is she on about, then? Is she making sense to anyone?

Judith, if you're going to finally come to a position, argued with facts and logic, that there is inadequate certainty in climate science for firm policy to be decided now, spit it out. (I'm sure earlier on in one of your blog comments you indicated this is where you would be heading.)

But if the blog is just a reason to bloviate about how you feel climate scientists have hurt their own case by becoming too political and need to talk nicer to skeptics, yet at the end of the day you agree that there is a need for quite urgent action to reduce CO2 emissions, then just say that now.

Otherwise, you're just a time waster encouraging social and political inaction.