Your previous post re Curry, you didn't understand it. Read it again.<quoted text>
Yes, she is. And she's gotten onto the denier gravy train. She admits that she's been paid by 'an oil company' since 2007. Here's on scientist's reaction to Curry:
"She's really building up quite a history of throwing up vague or demonstrably wrong claims, then running away when shown to be wrong. Here on the no-feedback climate sensitivity, for example. Gryposaurus took her to task here on aerosols and D&A (based partly on comments from Gavin) and found her response lacking. 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." Her eventual response (which had to be dragged out of her through repeated challenges that she kept on ducking) was merely to dismiss it as an "anecdote"..."
She cherry picks supposed issues, and then runs away from them when challenged, the usual skeptics game.
Don't you find it telling that I present you with an accredited climate scientist and her work yet all you do is find someone who disagrees with some of her work rather than reading it yourself and coming to your own conclusions?