Judy Curry has taken us up on our offer to respond to my crticism of her comments reported in an online interview. I appreciate the response and accept her apology. Here is what she sent by email:

Roger,

Thanks for pointing this out to me, I’ve been so busy i hadn’t even read the Thacker article (or most of the others). The words in the article attributed to me are not inaccurate, although excerpted and taken out of context. In my interview, on the contrary, I did not have negative things to say about you, I said you did good policy work in atmospheric science (the “prolific writer was intended to be a compliment), although I said that I didn’t like your BAMS article. I apologize if it comes across as a personal attack, that was not my intent.

The issue I was trying to make in the interview with Thacker was that there are three different sub groups here: the hurricane forecasters, the climate researchers, and policy scientists. The hurricane-climate change issue is very complex and needs the perspectives of all three. Each has a different perspective, and has the deep understanding of their own area, while having some knowledge of the other areas relevant to this issue. In this whole debate, there has been too much discounting by individuals of the other areas of expertise. To state that you do not have a degree in atmospheric science is not an ad hominem attack. I have stated that I am not an expert on hurricane dynamics. These are facts. Of course, if you put this in a certain context, it can look like an ad hominem attack.

We all have more important things to do than quarrel about the media, like doing more research, publishing papers, and educating the public.

Thanks for the opportunity to reply to this.

Judy

p.s. please feel free to post this wherever