Hi Eddie -
Welcome to the club, Eddie. We have a lot of fun making up fictions from our imaginations. However, we need a little more zest and a little less rancor in our meetings. Would you like to run for president of the "Zero Qualifications in Climate Science Club"? We have an opening.
This is rich, Eddie. You say you have spent enormous amounts of time researching the opinions and situations of climate science skeptics like Curry. But you have neither the time nor the inclination to look at the other side's perspective.
Secondly, you have implicitly conceded that you have no basis for disputing my point: those who disagree with the consensus judgment in their field often complain, without merit, of "stifling orthodoxy." I will bear that in mind.
Finally, you continue to ignore the testimony of Andreas Muenchow, who dissented from the consensus in 2010 yet managed to retain his academic appointment, to continue publishing, and to secure more funding for research. You want me to be convinced by your anecdotes, but you dismiss my anecdotes. Fair enough....
Of course that's true. Your reliance on the testimony of a tiny minority of participants doesn't sound like an improvement, though.
Here's my bottom line:
(1) I agree with Curry that the climate science community needs to do a better job of acknowledging modeling uncertainties.
(2) At the same time, there are no walls around the data on which the consensus models are built. They are freely available to the general public. If you wished, Eddie, you yourself could build your own mathematical model, run it on a computing cluster, and report your results. As long as this is true, there is room for dissenting climate scientists like Muenchow (or Curry, if she wishes) to do the scientific work necessary to challenging the consensus. That's how the scientific process is supposed to work. And that's where I hang my hat.