The more I listen to climate scientists talk among themselves, the more I realise how climatology is a belief system. There is far less science going on and far more political ideology being promoted. It's actually quite shocking to see, but it adds weight to the "reformer" term.
In the discussion I've been following, there have been quite a few "threats" made to Judith by ardent activist climate scientists, not even thinly veiled, that she is at risk of being ostracised and her standing being diminished in the community, simply because she's willing to engage with the sceptical community and consider their concerns. Where I come from, this is the activity of a religion and it's termed "ex-communication". Judith has also been broadly labelled "denier" by many prominent climatologists, and this has direct parallels with the cry of "heretic".
I think, since Climategate, Judith has come to realise that much of the data she's worked with historically may not have the solid foundation she'd believed it had. Many climatologists work in very focused and specific fields of expertise, and don't have much awareness of the bigger picture. It was definitely news to Judith Curry, when Climategate hit, that there might be any foundation to the accusations that the sceptics had been making.
She visited Climate Audit but, she says, was out-faced by the volume of information - Steve McIntyre is meticulous but verbose at times, and there is a hell of a lot to know. So she bought and read "The Hockey Stick Illusion" and, I think, became a sceptic convert. She's definitely only recently discovered the extent that post-normalism has infected climate sciences, and she's definitely a traditional "hard science" thinker. She values scientific integrity and she supports rigour in the scientific method. This is very specifically what separates her from the rest of the climatological community.
