Do not read climate science - especially if it is not transformative

There's science and then there's real science.  
And there's my kind of science - a transformative science.  
Worthy of another Nobel prize. 

The most important thing is to shape the news and get them to avoid those skeptics - ummm, I mean those deniers. So what if that is a slur?  

Paul Thornton of the LA Times got it right -- don't print news about those nasty facts. 

I just read two of those nasty facts at Climate Etc. That damn scientist Judith Curry just can't keep her mouth shut.

First, she writes:  “The current focus on CO2 emissions reductions risks having a massively expensive global solution that is more damaging to societies than the problem of climate change.”


And then she invites other real scientists to write other ugly facts like the one by Bob Tisdale

“NOAA failed to make the necessary mid-20th Century adjustments to their ERSST.v4 sea surface temperature datasets—corrections that would have been supported by Thompson et al. (2008). Likely reasons: (1) NOAA did not want to decrease the warming rate starting in 1950 that would have resulted if they had made those corrections and (2) NOAA wanted to show a more continuous warming since 1950, which would not have existed if they had made those corrections.

Once again, maybe, in time, Dr. Sullivan of NOAA will produce the emails requested by Representative Smith so that we can confirm my suspicions and the suspicions of many others.”

Way too many questions. Way too much skepticism. That's not what transformative science is about.