I asked Dr. Judith Curry if I could repost her letter which she originally sent to Climate Progress, here at WUWT. Here was her response:
From: Curry, Judith A
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 2:10 PM
To: Anthony Watts – mobile
Subject: Re: request
Hi Anthony, by all means post it. I am trying to reach out to everyone, pls help in this effort. Judy
Dr. Curry gets props from the skeptical community because she had the courage to invite Steve McIntyre to give a presentation at Georgia Tech, for which she took criticism. Her letter is insightful and addresses troubling issues. We can all learn something from it. – Anthony
An open letter to graduate students and young scientists in fields related to climate research – By Dr. Judith A. Curry, Georgia Tech
Based upon feedback that I’ve received from graduate students at Georgia Tech, I suspect that you are confused, troubled, or worried by what you have been reading about ClimateGate and the contents of the hacked CRU emails. After spending considerable time reading the hacked emails and other posts in the blogosphere, I wrote an essay that calls for greater transparency in climate data and other methods used in climate research. The essay is posted over at climateaudit.org (you can read it at http://camirror.wordpress.com/ 2009/ 11/ 22/ curry-on-the-credibility-of-climate-research/ ).
What has been noticeably absent so far in the ClimateGate discussion is a public reaffirmation by climate researchers of our basic research values: the rigors of the scientific method (including reproducibility), research integrity and ethics, open minds, and critical thinking. Under no circumstances should we ever sacrifice any of these values; the CRU emails, however, appear to violate them.
My motivation for communicating on this issue in the blogosphere comes from emails that I received from Georgia Tech graduate students and alums. As a result of my post on climateaudit, I started receiving emails from graduate students from other universities. I post the content of one of the emails here, without reference to the student’s name or institution:
Hi Dr. Curry,
I am a young climate researcher (just received my master’s degree from xxx University) and have been very troubled by the emails that were released from CRU. I just want to applaud and support your response on climateaudit.org [95% of it 🙂 ]. Your statement represents exactly how I have felt as I slowly enter this community. The content of some of the emails literally made me stop and wonder if I should continue with my PhD applications for fall 2010, in this science. I was so troubled by how our fellow scientists within the climate community have been dealing with opposing voices (on both sides). I hope we can all learn from this and truly feel that we are going to need voices like yours to fix these problems in the coming months and years.
At the heart of this issue is how climate researchers deal with skeptics. I have served my time in the “trenches of the climate war” in the context of the debate on hurricanes and global warming. There is no question that there is a political noise machine in existence that feeds on research and statements from climate change skeptics. In grappling with this issue, I would argue that there are three strategies for dealing with skeptics:
1. Retreat into the ivory tower
2. Circle the wagons/point guns outward: ad hominem/appeal to motive attacks; appeal to authority; isolate the enemy through lack of access to data; peer review process
3. Take the “high ground:” engage the skeptics on our own terms (conferences, blogosphere); make data/methods available/transparent; clarify the uncertainties; openly declare our values
Most scientists retreat into the ivory tower. The CRU emails reflect elements of the circling of wagons strategy. For the past 3 years, I have been trying to figure out how to engage skeptics effectively in the context of #3, which I think is a method that can be effective in countering the arguments of skeptics, while at the same time being consistent with our core research values. Some of the things that I’ve tried in my quest to understand skeptics and more effectively counter misinformation include posting at skeptical blogs, such as climateaudit, and inviting prominent skeptics to give seminars at Georgia Tech. I have received significant heat from some colleagues for doing this (I’ve been told that I am legitimizing the skeptics and misleading my students), but I think we need to try things like this if we are to develop effective strategies for dealing with skeptics and if we are to teach students to think critically.
If climate science is to uphold core research values and be credible to public, we need to respond to any critique of data or methodology that emerges from analysis by other scientists. Ignoring skeptics coming from outside the field is inappropriate; Einstein did not start his research career at Princeton, but rather at a post office. I’m not implying that climate researchers need to keep defending against the same arguments over and over again. Scientists claim that they would never get any research done if they had to continuously respond to skeptics. The counter to that argument is to make all of your data, metadata, and code openly available. Doing this will minimize the time spent responding to skeptics; try it! If anyone identifies an actual error in your data or methodology, acknowledge it and fix the problem. Doing this would keep molehills from growing into mountains that involve congressional hearings, lawyers, etc.
So with this reaffirmation of core climate research values, I encourage you to discuss the ideas and issues raised here with your fellow students and professors. Your professors may disagree with me; there are likely to be many perspectives on this. I hope that others will share their wisdom and provide ideas and guidance for dealing with these issues. Spend some time perusing the blogosphere (both skeptical and pro AGW blogs) to get a sense of the political issues surrounding our field. A better understanding of the enormous policy implications of our field should imbue in all of us a greater responsibility for upholding the highest standards of research ethics. Hone your communications skills; we all need to communicate more effectively. Publish your data as supplementary material or post on a public website. And keep your mind open and sharpen your critical thinking skills. My very best wishes to you in your studies, research, and professional development. I look forward to engaging with you in a dialogue on this topic.
Judith Curry
Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
References:
My past public statements on climate change can be found at my website http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/policy.htm
My paper on “Mixing politics and science in testing the hypothesis that greenhouse warming is a causing an increase in global hurricane intensity” can be found at
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_BAMS87.pdf
My presentation on the integrity of climate research can be found at
http://www.pacinst.org/ topics/ integrity_of_science/ AGU_IntegrityofScience_Curry.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think that a demand for openness is going to be the clarion call over the next few weeks. I don’t see how either camp can possibly object.
As for what emerges once the books are opened, time alone will tell.
Openness not only includes the DATA, but also the METHODS.
We all know that the USHCN station average (equally weighted) for raw data yields a +0.14C for the 20th century and with the FILNET adjustment it’s +0.59. (I made the averages personally.)
I would like to know how that number is arrived at.
I have just one problem with what is otherwise an outstanding commentary by Dr. Curry.
She is still thinking in terms of “deal with” the skeptics. As though we’re just politically motivated thugs out to obstruct the good science in the AGW camp. I don’t know where this impression comes from as I’m not an insider and all I see are the facts…the AGW people get billions of dollars in grant money and skeptics get NOTHING. I bristle at the notion that we’re the obstructionists and the politically motivated folks to be “dealt with” and not Dr. Curry’s intellectual equals.
Here’a s tip…if want to “deal with” the skeptics…maybe you ought to treat us with the respect of any scientist, assuming we have research worthy of commentary. Bottom line…we’re not ALL here with a political ax to grind…but the AGW camp *IS* grinding an ax…whether or not its always intentional…you’re asking us to spend billions and billions of dollars to address a problem you haven’t proven is real. The burden of proof is on YOU. Perhaps rather than seeing the skeptics as adversaries…you should see us as turth seekers just like you. Then and only then can progress be made in the open debate. If you’re right and I’m wrong and you PROVE it…then I’ll be the first to admit my mistakes and I’ll respect all of your efforts all the more.
O/T … is this video a good easy to ready summary of the Urban/Rural TEmp Issue?
Is the first paragraph the student’s letter and the rest Dr Curry’s response?
The way I see it, if temps continue to increase at the 20th century rate (even the “adjusted” rate–which I doubt is valid), there is no emergency, whatever.
That is a “normal” assertion.
But the IPCC says there will be a 21st century warming increase of FIVE TIMES (or more) than that of the 20th century.
That is an “extraordinary” assertion.
Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proof. And so far as I can dope it out, we don’t even have anything approaching ordinary proof. (And the emails appear to reveal that Chicken Little is moonlighting as Foxy Loxy.)
Dr. Curry,
Thank you for posting your comments and opinions on both CA and WUWT. Here in Georgia we are proud of Georgia Tech, what the institution represents, its research, and graduates. Thank you for doing your job.
I would like to see the science which has induced your graduate students to advocate catastrophic global warming, if that was indeed her/his position. Don’t hesitate to encourage your graduate students to post, argue, and harangue us on blogs to get their message across. Who knows, they might even find some intelligent people here.
Congratulations to you and the graduate student whose email you posted. I appreciate the gesture.
FOIA.ZIP has knocked down options 1 & 2. The skeptics will get a long overdue fair hearing. This is both an opportunity and a danger.
There is a range of opinions in the skeptics community and not all are reasonable. We could end up embarrassed if some of this precious opportunity is used up by people on the fringes of the skeptical community.
A well known trick is to interview the looniest person you can find to represent a group you wish to make look bad. Count on this happening over the next few months.
Keith Minto (22:01:08) :
Yeah, I’m confused as to where the student’s letter ends and Dr Curry’s takes up again.
REPLY: This is my fault, her formatting got lost in cut and paste. I have re-formatted the post, making certain that clear delineations exist. Please refresh the page to see it. – Anthony
Keith Minto (22:01:08) :
Is the first paragraph the student’s letter and the rest Dr Curry’s response?
Agreed! It is difficult to tell where the student’s e-mail ends and Dr. Curry’s letter begins again. I would like to make a couple of points but do not wish to misquote Dr. Curry.
REPLY: This is my fault, her formatting got lost in cut and paste. I have re-formatted the post, making certain that clear delineations exist. Please refresh the page to see it. – Anthony
Judith needs to re-write this e-mail, it’s completely unclear where the grad students text ends and hers restarts.
Talk is cheap Judith. How about taking a courageous step and setup an FTP server somewhere containing all of your own data and methods in an organized structure? How about directly challenging those holding the keys to instrumental networks to make all their data organized and public? If you have never been funded by public dollars, I would say you can keep it to yourself. But if any taxpayer money has helped pay your bills for ideas/research you did, I feel you are honor-bound to let the taxpayers see what they paid for.
I’ve said it elsewhere, it bears repeating.
If Astronomers detected an incoming asteroid and called on the worlds governments to create a Starship Enterprise to go blow it up, they wouldn’t be hiding their observational data from the world. They would immediately share it so other astronomers can confirm their findings. The same thing should go for climate scientists telling us we’re all doomed.
REPLY: Fixed, formatting was lost, my fault now restored and improved, please refresh – Anthony
At the heart of this issue is how climate researchers deal with skeptics.
At the heart of the issue is how climate researchers deal with science.
I can imagine how certain climate researchers deal with grad students who disagree.
My advice to grad students: study with a real scientist. In a different field if necessary.
I found this in a US Senate Report re: 400 scientists who are sceptical about Anthopogenic Global Warming. This guy must have a crystal ball.
*******************
Atmospheric Physicist Dr. Garth W. Paltridge, an Emeritus Professor from University of Tasmania, is another prominent skeptic. Paltridge who was a Chief Research Scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research before taking up positions in 1990 as Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies at the University of Tasmania and as CEO of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Center. Paltridge questioned the motives of scientists hyping climate fears.
“They have been so successful with their message of greenhouse doom that, should one of them prove tomorrow that it is nonsense, the discovery would have to be suppressed for the sake of the overall reputation of science,”
Paltridge wrote in an April 6, 2007 op-ed entitled “Global Warming – Not Really a Done Deal?”
Still condescending as far as I am concerned. What about her opinion on the science comming out of the CRU? Not much in here about that.
Keith Minto (22:01:08) :
“Is the first paragraph [under Dear Dr.Curry] the student’s letter and the rest Dr Curry’s response?”
Yes. Maybe the letter should be italicized or indented. (Mod?)
Incidentally, this letter was posted on dot earth this morning. Some of the warmist comments are really jerkish–they have completely bought into the notion that our only motivations are financial or political, and that we have been discredited ten times over by their sides’ rebuttals.
REPLY: This is my fault, her formatting got lost in cut and paste. I have re-formatted the post, making certain that clear delineations exist. Please refresh the page to see it. – Anthony
Spenc BC (22:20:19) :
“Still condescending as far as I am concerned. What about her opinion on the science coming out of the CRU? Not much in here about that.”
Put yourself in her shoes. If she didn’t signal that she was on the warmists’ side, and that they have nothing to lose from engaging with our sides’ silliness, she wouldn’t get any traction with them.
Matt SABR has a point that deserves attention.
“She is still thinking in terms of “deal with” the skeptics. As though we’re just politically motivated thugs out to obstruct the good science in the AGW camp. I don’t know where this impression comes from as I’m not an insider and all I see are the facts…the AGW people get billions of dollars in grant money and skeptics get NOTHING. I bristle at the notion that we’re the obstructionists and the politically motivated folks to be “dealt with” and not Dr. Curry’s intellectual equals.
Here’a s tip…if want to “deal with” the skeptics…maybe you ought to treat us with the respect of any scientist, assuming we have research worthy of commentary. Bottom line…we’re not ALL here with a political ax to grind…but the AGW camp *IS* grinding an ax…whether or not its always intentional…you’re asking us to spend billions and billions of dollars to address a problem you haven’t proven is real. The burden of proof is on YOU. Perhaps rather than seeing the skeptics as adversaries…you should see us as turth seekers just like you. Then and only then can progress be made in the open debate. If you’re right and I’m wrong and you PROVE it…then I’ll be the first to admit my mistakes and I’ll respect all of your efforts all the more.”
With all due respect to Dr. Curry, it would help if she would recognize that “skeptic” is the definition of “scientist” and stop portraying this issue as a multi level dispute, with “climate scientists” on the unassailable top rung and “skeptics” somewhere below.
This is an ivory tower, elietist point of view that exists only because the “climate scientists” are being paid billions in research grants.
Anthony, thanks for providing Dr. Curry with a platform to reach out to a much broader audience with an objective suggestion, and thank you for providing us with an opportunity to provide some feedback on the subtle attitude that seems to continue to pervade the ranks of “climate scientists” who seem to have forgotten that skepticism is what makes a scientist a scientist.
7.14 NINETEENTH CENTURY WEATHER OBSERVERS: A WHODUNIT
Glen Conner*
Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky
5.3 California’s Observers 1859
California had ten Smithsonian Observers in
1859. Of those ten, there were seven professionals;
four doctors, one professor, and two attorneys. W. O.
Ayres was a 42 year old San Francisco physician
born in Connecticut. In Marysville, the observer was
an attorney, W. C. Belcher. Wesley K. Boucher was a
lawyer in a gold mining area of Calaveras County. In
Monterey, Dr. Colbert A. Canfield was a physician
and surgeon. Oliver S. Frambes was a professor in
Santa Clara. Robert Gordon, from Ireland, was a
grocer in Auburn. S. A. Gould was the observer in
Santa Clara but his occupation is unknown. The
observer in Downieville was Dr. T. R. Kibbe. Another
physician, Dr. Thomas M. Logan from Sacramento
was the observer there. In Crescent City, Robert B.
Randall was a painter by trade.
______________________________
As regards to the surface temperature from historical records, I am finding I live in an “edited” area according to CRU. When I check for the expected historical records, I am getting 30-50 years trimmed off the back end.
I can personally attest to seeing Monthy Weather Records in the Sac Bee that listed temperature records dating back well before the current “Official Records”. I find the same situation with Red Bluff, where AMS records give a monthly average high & low temp back to 1872, but the current “Official Records” are over 20 years shy of that date.
I am getting the message that Climate Research Scientists want to bury the missing data and go forward with the politically correct one that supports thier hypothesis.
I do not buy these “high ground” reasonings.
Our weather has been stolen, and I want it back.
Public money was used to gather, edit, erase, hide etc. publicly funded weather observations critical to where the Earth now sits as regards Climate.
Unhand our Weather.
If you cannot account that which was taken, then I must conclude that the models are fed cherry-picked data and cannot be credible.
Great post, SABR Matt!
You identified exactly the same problem that I felt when reading Dr Curry’s letter (and her post at ClimateAudit too for that matter).
I say let truth prevail, is that not ultimately what science is all about?
I hope that ClimateGate will bring us closer to full disclosure of the methods and data behind the IPCC-report.
I know I am being hard-nosed about this, but the day that I see serious efforts to restore the Historical Surface Temperature Record is the day I see sincerity out of the Climate Science Institutions.
Fool me once.
I am a skeptic and can easily let myself get frustrated by Dr. Curry’s tone. However, I can also try to put myself in her shoes and try to see all this from her point of view. From her point of view it seems to me that she has suffered what she sees as unfair attacks by people who are holding untenable positions. I have been in such situations before and it can be very difficult to rise above that sort of thing and try to seek some balance. I think she is to be commended for seeking to reach out and we should find ways to reach out as well. The huge politicization of this issue has led to huge polarization with many on both sides taking absolutist positions (in general). I think we can all agree on the scientific method – seems like it would be good to focus on that.
Ok, so we’ve got a courageous academic, smart, and thoughtful. As already said, though, the tone is a bit off insofar as all good scientists ought to be skeptical.
Having said that, if one needs to deal with “skeptics” one ought to know the issues. I great start is to go to ‘JoNova’ and download copies of ‘The Skeptic’s Handbook” — left side of the page just below the short bio:
http://joannenova.com.au/
One could also download Anthony’s surface station report, found here:
http://www.heartland.org/books/SurfaceStations.html
The individual postings of “How not to measure temperature” are more entertaining so graduate students being used to reading “dryer” material can download the report. The lay-reader might better search for the “how not to” blog posts. Just search.
She seems to be more of a ‘polite’ true believer. Her mind seems to be made up that global warming is happening and that is all has to be human caused. The fact that she is polite to us does not seem to have any value. In fact it might just be propaganda meant to peel off gullible fence sitters.
I wrote above, “Some of the warmist comments are really jerkish–they have completely bought into the notion that our only motivations are financial or political, and that we have been discredited ten times over by their sides’ rebuttals.”
I should have added that on one of the dot earth threads I looked at (either today or yesterday) a commenter posted a link to, and a table of contents from, the skeptical science site that contains a long list of rebuttal talking points contra criticisms of CAWG. That reminded me of something I’ve nattered on about in the past (in company with several others): It would be nice if our side had a rebuttal of the rebuttals list with a matching table of contents, because I believe /suspect that that list of rebuttals (and a couple of other ones their side has put together) has been very effective in keeping fence-sitters and journalists on the reservation.
Here, FWIW, is the table of contents (of rebutted skeptical assertions):
http://www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=20
1 It’s the sun
2 Climate’s changed before
3 There is no consensus
4 It’s cooling
5 Models are unreliable
6 Surface temp is unreliable
7 Ice age predicted in the 70s
8 It hasn’t warmed since 1998
9 We’re heading into an ice age
10 Antarctica is cooling/gaining ice
11 CO2 lags temperature
12 Al Gore got it wrong
13 Global warming is good
14 Hurricanes aren’t linked to global warming
15 It’s freaking cold!
16 Mars is warming
17 1934 – hottest year on record
18 It’s cosmic rays
19 It’s just a natural cycle
20 Urban Heat Island effect exaggerates warming
21 Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle
22 Sea level rise is exaggerated
23 Hockey stick was debunked
24 Other planets are warming
25 Greenland was green
26 Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
27 Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
28 We’re coming out of an ice age
29 It cooled mid-century
30 Oceans are cooling
31 It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low
32 Mt. Kilimanjaro’s ice loss is due to land use
33 Polar bears are increasing
34 There’s no empirical evidence
35 Glaciers are growing
36 Extreme weather isn’t caused by global warming
37 Climate sensitivity is low
38 Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
39 The IPCC does not represent a scientific consensus
40 CO2 is not a pollutant
41 If scientists can’t predict weather, how can they predict long term climate?
42 CO2 effect is weak
43 CO2 has been higher in the past
44 Greenland is cooler/gaining ice
45 There’s no correlation between CO2 and temperature
46 Neptune is warming
47 Jupiter is warming
48 Pluto is warming
49 There’s no tropospheric hot spot
50 Greenland ice sheet is stable
51 It’s Pacific Decadal Oscillation
52 It’s the ocean
53 It’s volcanoes (or lack thereof)
54 Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming
55 CO2 measurements are suspect
56 It’s aerosols
57 Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
58 It’s El Niño
59 It’s microsite influences
60 Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate
61 It’s land use
62 It’s methane
63 It’s Solar Cycle Length
64 Naomi Oreskes’ study on consensus was flawed
65 Water levels correlate with sunspots
66 Solar cycles cause global warming
67 The sun is getting hotter
68 It’s the ozone layer
69 Global temperatures dropped sharply in 2007
70 It’s satellite microwave transmissions
“Mixing politics and science in testing the hypothesis that greenhouse warming is a causing an increase in global hurricane intensity”
I (accidentally?) read this as:
“Mixing politics and science in testing the hypothesis of greenhouse warming is causing an increase in global hurricane intensity”
On a more serious note:
For legitimate reasons, releasing code is not always going to be feasible.
However, capable people should be able to reproduce calculations on their own. At times, it may be appropriate &/or necessary for authors/presenters to help auditors by providing a brief outline of calculations.
SABR Matt,
Thanks for voicing my concerns about this seemingly noble response from Judith Curry. Climate realists have been calling for openness for more than a decade. For their efforts they have been crucified as idiots and pawns of big ‘whatever’. Climate realists have been pointing out the evidence of corruption in the climate science community. For these observations they have been labeled delusional and their careers have been impeded.
Now we have proof that the Climate realists have been correct about the broken scientific process all along and that the AGW elitists have been the delusional ones. Still, Judith Curry does not want to acknowledge their superior position on this issue. Instead, she still views them as a problem to be dealt with, and then calls for openness and transparency, as if it was her MO all along.
I believe that Ms. Curry, while sounding a little more reasonable than the likes of Mann and Jones, is still a climate elitist, believing that her viewpoint is correct for ‘social’ and ‘political’ reasons, not scientific ones. Her work supposedly linking increasing hurricanes to man-made global warming had a very serious and obvious scientific flaw, but she refused to address it, preferring to cast herself as a victim of abuse from the dark side.
The bottom line is that the science of man-made global warming has been fabricated, at least to some extent. Does Curry acknowledge this? No way! For her, the science is unquestionable and climate gate is simply an ethical problem that needs to be cleared up for reasons of integrity.
Climate realists are calling real science. Judith Curry is calling for AGW scientists to make a better impression. There is a huge difference and we can’t afford to be sucked in by this obfuscating olive branch.