http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/judith-curry-climate-change_b_6000636.html

“I guess if you don’t have any real arguments against my article, you can always criticize me for the company I keep.”

You will find it well worth your time to learn about Wayback, WebCite and Archive Today.

If you find a file that might get edited or disappear, or tha you wish not to send traffic to:
a) Check Wayback, WebCite and Archive Today and it may already be archived.

b) If not, use WebCite or Archive Today to archive a copy. I find the former a bit more convenient for most files, but the latter sometimes can archive pages the former doesn’t.

c) In this case, the “quash” URL was not already archived, but if you put that URL into the Search box at Archive Today, is is there now.

d) These tools are indispensable for Internet forensic and it is easy to create “bookmarklets” for WebCite and archive Today that will archive you current page with one click, wait for results page, then return to the original page. WebCite sends you an email, conveniently recording what you’ve gotten.

“She [Curry] ties her argument to a new study she has co-authored, as well as the global warming speed bump (or faux pause).”

If it hadn’t been the new study, it probably would have been something else. Curry’s WSJ op-ed is worth reading. It’s behind a pay wall, but is reproduced in full on Curry’s blog.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/09/my-op-ed-in-the-wall-street-journal-is-now-online/

To appreciate the extent of her transformation, I suggest comparing it to the Washington Post op-ed from 2007 in which she criticized Bjørn Lomborg, and reflected on the need to focus on climate risks.

“Lomborg’s attitude toward risk is also troubling. He focuses only on the middle range of the panel’s projections, dismissing the risk from the higher end of the range. But if the risk is great, then it may be worth acting against even if its probability is small…

The rationale for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide is to reduce the risk of the possibility of catastrophic outcomes. Making the transition to cleaner fuels has the added benefit of reducing the impact on public health and ecosystems and improving energy security — providing benefits even if the risk is eventually reduced…

There is no easy solution to this problem; the challenge is how best to develop options that are feasible, efficient, viable and scalable. Lomborg is correct to be concerned about the possibility of bad policy choices. But I have yet to see any option that is worse than ignoring the risk of global warming and doing nothing.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002157_pf.html

As one of factors behind Curry’s current insouciance is her claim that climate sensitivity is lower than generally claimed, I thought I might add this: The paper “Challenges to Providing Quantitative Estimates of the Environmental and Societal Impacts of Global Climate Change” deals primarily with the difficulty of establishing a social cost of carbon that accounts for the consequences of climate change. However, it also questions basing evaluations of future climate impacts on sensitivity, because sensitivity tends to average things out, whereas the real impacts of climate change will hit different places at different times to different degrees.
http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/maccracken-richardson-challenges-quantitative-estimates.pdf
See section 2.1 Characteristics of the climate system

Using sensitivity as one of two deciding parameters tends to downplay that the most vulnerable and least resilient parts of the globe will be slammed before the developed mid-latitude areas, and they’ll be less able to cope. Averages – global temperatures as well – can enable one to overlook or explain away an unfolding catastrophe.

“On that last matter [Mann’s suit against Steyn], he [Mann] might yet win, and I will be over and out. Such is the crapshoot of US justice, especially in a choked toilet of a system like the District of Columbia’s.”

Steyn is now preparing his supporters for a possible loss, exculpating himself and blaming an inconsistent and unreliable judicial system for that possibility. The tones that issued from him before were decidedly more triumphant:

“I want to get to court as soon as possible, and put Michael E Mann, PhD (Doctor of Phraudology) on the stand under oath. I haven’t wasted two years on this guy to be denied my moment in court. That’s one reason I’ve countersued Mann. He thinks the DC Superior Court is competent to litigate his fraudulent ‘hockey stick’. Fine, let’s get it to a jury – before the sclerotic DC “justice” system’s procedural delays go on as long as the global-warming ‘pause’.”
http://www.steynonline.com/6403/im-gonna-quash-that-mann-right-out-of-my-hair

If you want to verify the quote, but don’t wish to click on Steyn’s website, the same quote can be found in a horrendous piece from the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/09/mann-v-steyn-steyn-goes-his-own-way/