An open letter from Dr. Judith Curry on climate science

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

Judith A. Curry

Dr. Judith A. Curry

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

About these ads

241 thoughts on “An open letter from Dr. Judith Curry on climate science

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.)

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. 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?”

  11. 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.

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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

  22. “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.

  23. 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.

  24. Anthony, can you please post another apology for us not refreshing our pages? I’d have seen your dozen earlier apologies but I haven’t refreshed my page yet.

    Heeheehee…

    Anyway, I liked her letter even though she, or actually the grad student, regarded skeptics as flat-earthers instead of maybe people who are skeptical of the claims on late-nate psychic network commercials. (Hint: Both claim they can predict the future).

  25. PS: Our sides’ rebuttals list should be arranged in layers, with a top layer consisting of a short-and-snappy response, beneath which is a more detailed discussion (accessible by clicking), beneath which are yet more detailed discussions, etc.

  26. PPS: I know that all the warmists’ rebuttals have been rebutted, but they haven’t been assembled into an easy-to-grasp, point/counterpoint format that we can cite.

  27. I just want to clarify that I am not trying to be too hard o dr. Curry…I respect her already just for her willingness to debate us from an honest belief using real scientific process. I disagree with her conclusions, but that doesn’t mean I think less of her.

    My point was to encourage her to show us the same respect I would have us show her. Don’t treat us like the enemy…we want the same thing you do.

  28. if 50 % of recent warming is due to ocean currents,
    half of the rest due to land use changes,
    and some part of the remainder based on fabricated data,

    there is hardly anything left attributable to greenhouse gases.

    many climate researchers may then become redundant in coming years,

    and THAT makes an unbiased view may VERY difficult.

  29. I’m sure Dr. Curry had the best intentions in mind in writing this, but she really started off with the wrong mindset of “dealing with skeptics.” The issue here is one of integrity. Richard Feynman dealt with the Climategate central issue decades ago in his “Cargo Cult Science” speech:

    “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

    I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as
    scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.”

    That’s how you deal with skeptics, or anybody else for that matter.

  30. And yesterday…

    “We won the war — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, and climate and energy legislation is near the top of the U.S. agenda,” Dr. Curry said.

  31. How does Dr. Curry ‘deal’ with this quote from a CRU email written by Kenneth Trenberth:

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.

  32. Roger Knights: That’s an interesting list, and I have no doubt that a lot of the assertions are true. However, a long list of rebuttals is not necessary because the justification of global warming depends on a very few ideas.

    There are three things (I think) that must be true for CAGW to be true.

    1. CO2 MUST be the primary driver of temperature on the surface of the earth, either directly or indirectly.
    2. The current warm period is without precedent in the history of the earth, expecially since the last ice age..
    3. Numerical models are predicting terrible things for the future if we don’t stop emitting CO2. There exists a doubly dangerous global threat just waiting for the CO2 concentration to reach an undefined level, then, WHOOSH! The entire earth will reach a TIPPING POINT at which time it will turn upside down, and the Aussies will finally be on top. It is hard to take this leg seriously.

    First of all, we know that CO2 is NOT the primary driver of temperature. Somebody has to produce a study that shows this before we can be expected to believe it. It is true that man-made CO2 does contribute to the temp levels, but, it is not a primary driver.

    Secondly, Steve McIntyre has demolished Mann’s phony hockey stick, and without that supporting leg, all you have is hockey-stool, or something like that. The problem here is that Mann doesn’t realize that his science is essentially dead, and he has become a national joke. As long has he and his buddies are protected in their banditry of climate science, the world will never know that truth. It is, and for some time has been, a political battle and will probably continue that way.

    Thirdly, models have the problem that with all their explanation of historic climate conditions, the predictive power cannot be measured without observing real world data for a substantial length of time. We have already seen a decade’s worth of data in which the models have been shown to be totally inadequate, and I don’t expect their accuracy to improve.

    Good luck on that list.

  33. evanmjones (21:53:46) :
    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.

    Evan, did you use USHCN v2 or the original data set ?
    From what I have seen of the Illinois revision, the v2 is going to have a whole lot more than than +.59°C slope.

    The station temp charting page –

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

    seems to be using v2 for its “raw” charts. I don’t know my way around the data sources well enough to find the original raw numbers.

    I have all the Illinois USHCN stations on one page, blink charts comparing the original data (July) with the most recent downloads (November). The great majority of stations have had their slopes increased, some dramatically.

    http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions.htm

  34. “At the heart of this issue is how climate researchers deal with skeptics.”

    The heart of the problem is that climate researchers aren’t trained
    to be skeptical. Dogma in, dogma out.

  35. First, Dr. Curry, thank you for taking the very courageous step of coming to this website and to Climate Audit and reaching out. I hope you’re able to help move the debate beyond the artificial division into ‘alarmists’ and ‘deniers’.

    You’ll probably be surprised to find that a fair number of people who hang around both here and Climate Audit are moderate to liberal in political orientation, care deeply about the environment and even support the replacement of fossil fuels by less destructive alternatives as soon as that is socially and economically practical, regardless of whether or not global warming is occurring.

    You’ll find a range of beliefs here, ranging from people who feel that the whole global warming thing is a conspiracy to enrich politically connected corporations and politicians, to climate ‘agnostics’–people who have no strong position on whether or not global warming is occurring and are here to learn from the interplay of ideas.

    I personally think that a lot of the reaction against the global warming message is actually stimulated by it’s more ‘ardent’ defenders. That’s certainly true in my case. Up until a couple of years ago I just accepted what I read in the press about global warming. Then two things happened (1) I started reading things about global warming that seemed wildly alarmist, and (2) I read several articles from supported of the global warming hypothesis that were full of propaganda tricks, primarily ad hominem attacks and use of nasty labels for opponents like ‘deniers’. Both of those things, and especially the propaganda tricks set off alarm bells in my head and I started stopping by a variety of websites, such as RealClimate, CA, and this one. I also read through substantial portions of the latest IPCC final report and several of the working papers.

    I was usually very unimpressed with RealClimate, primarily because of the obvious and heavy-handed censoring of any effective opposing opinions and what appeared to be encouragement of ad hominem attacks on skeptics. I’m not always thrilled by everything that goes on here or at CA, but opposing opinions do get through. There are ways of checking that, and yeah it happens.

    I was favorably impressed with the working papers of the IPCC, less so by the parts of the Final Report I read, and even less so by the ‘dumbed down for politicians and media’ version. The main problem is that uncertainties were played down more at each level. The main thing that stood out though, was how much the actual IPCC report differed from the media reports of it that I had read earlier. It is very clear that, no, the science on a lot of key aspects of global warming are not settled, that a lot uncertainty remains on the causes and extent of current warming and the extent and impact of future global warming.

    It’s late and I may be rambling a bit, but based on my experience, the way to reach the people you probably want to reach is (a) Yes, transparency as you indicated. That’s especially important in the programming end of it. All computer code should be publicly available. No exceptions.
    (b) Try to discourage ad hominem attacks on website where you have any influence, especially RealClimate. Those attacks may get the choir revved up, but they are a major turnoff to people like me who come in from the outside. Especially, try to get rid of the ‘denier’ label. That is a major red flag. When I started see it, I had an immediate reaction against the positions of the people using it. I didn’t know whether their position was correct overall, but I immediately started hoping that the evidence proved them wrong. Not exactly the reaction you want, but a rather widespread one from what I’ve seen.
    (c) Get the science down to a level people can understand and that they can easily see is devoid of manipulation. For example: for somebody who doesn’t understand a lot of statistics simply looking at a large series of weather stations chosen at random (ones that haven’t moved and hopefully haven’t gone from rural to urban) and seeing that yes, there is an increase in temperatures is far more convincing than some huge data set that goes through all kinds of manipulations and then spits out a result. Here’s what I would like to see: something similar to Google Earth where you could zero in on a location and bring up the nearest climate station with info like the high, low, and average temperatures for as long as that station has been at current location, any known changes in the area that might have influenced the temperatures, and maybe a trend graph. It would be nice to have links to any nearby stations that might cover gaps in that particular station, maybe a picture of the station, and maybe even Anthony’s evaluation of how well sited the station is.
    (d) Get people involved in resolving uncertainties and issues in climate science. That’s one of the things that attracted me to WUWT. The survey of weather stations may or may not prove anything, but it put additional useful information out there. There are undoubtedly issues where having the kind of mass participation that sites like this can generate can solve problems that are very difficult to solve any other way. Here is a late night brainstorming idea off the top of my head: Encouraging people to record dates of first and last frost locally, or recording cloud cover. Open sourcing the programming and encouraging people to make it better would also be a good idea.

  36. “There is no question that there is a political noise machine in existence that feeds on research and statements from climate change skeptics.”

    Dr Curry should I’m sure be aware of Newtons Laws of Motion.

    “To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

    The ‘political noise machine’ feeding on research and statements from climate change skeptics is an equal and opposite reaction to the ‘political noise machine’ feeding on research and statements from climate change believers, including IPCC lead authors and CRU members.

  37. I tried to post this at climate progress where the original from this letter can be found.

    It is informative to realize that hardcore ‘alarmist’ still haven’t learn anything from Dr Curry or ‘climategate’

    Censored post:

    Dr Curry writes:

    “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!”

    The refusal to give access to all that is needed to reproduce ones research is the main reason that I’m skeptic of climate research. If researchers are confident that there work is solid, then why obstruct other from being able to reproduce their work.

    “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.”

    I think it is great that you invited Steve McIntyre at Georgia Tech. But in the case of McIntyre, I’m not sure that skeptic is the right word since he is undecided. Even though he found flaws like the Y2K problem, he also pointed out when Hansen was correct (ex: dispute with Michaels about scenario A,B,C) a few years back. If some of his complaints don’t change much then why be afraid of him. McIntyre like science that is done correctly what ever the result is. Maybe instead of libeling people maybe just agree that there can be difference of opinion on this subject.

  38. While I thank Dr. Curry for her reaffirmation of true scientific values, I have the following advice: Stay out of politics! Scientists should only speak when spoken to about the policy implications of the current climate situation, whatever that may be (and I believe it is nowhere near as bad as some people make it out to be). And yes, have a LOT of humility when speaking to the layman about the subject of climate science. There is a lot yet to be learned about our climate, contrary to what you warmists want us to believe. As a lawyer, I know a lot about evidence and its uses and misuses. Quality of evidence is always more important than quantity.

  39. The AGW Virus

    The AGW Anthropogenic Global Warming virus was first isolated in a lab at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.

    Virus Signature:
    The AGW virus can be recognized by the following signature
    ——
    valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
    yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
    densall=densall+yearlyadj
    ——
    Detection:
    The external effect of the virus is visible as a tendency of graphed data to ‘dip’ in the middle and then rise sharply at then end for no other apparent reason.

    Pathology:
    The AGW virus and been found to infect both IPL computer programs and research papers. All attempts to mitigate the spread of the virus using the current procedures of peer review and analysis have been unable to contain the spread of the infection. In sever cases the virus has been seen to affect the central nervous system in humans although no direct link to the rabies virus has been demonstrated

    Patient Zero:
    It currently appears that patient zero was an IPL program known to as “FOI2009/FOIA/documents/harris/tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro”. It is not known at this time what other artifacts may have been contaminated by the virus.

    Preventing the spread if AGW:
    If you detect that the virus has infected one of papers you should place the paper in a suitable quarantined environment. The peat bogs of northern England and Scotland will provide sufficient protection to the environment if the hole is at least 1.47 meters deep.

    If you know of any software that is infected with the AGW virus the proper procedure for disposal is to maintain an alternating 100 Gauss field in the immediate vicinity of the infection for not less then 2 hours, 4 hours is recommended.

    Please help prevent the spread of the AGW virus, please model responsibly.

  40. I agree with Dr. Curry that simply opening up the data and methods will put an end to a lot of the pestering of the scientists. I also believe it is going to take a lot of work in getting the stuff in a state where they can do that. Since CRUT has apparently “lost” all of the original data, a new database may have to be constructed from scratch.

    And I doubt that they will ever put the entire database out into the open for public use, though they may make it available on an as-needed basis for researchers. The reason I say this is have you ever looked at the price for some of that raw data? Getting station data going back that far is not cheap and the people who provide it are not going to give all of it to someone who is simply going to make it publicly accessible.

    But even so, giving a researcher who has a question about a particular grid square at a particular time the raw data for that region and surrounding grid cells with the code used to create the value for the cell in question is simply good practice. They can say “here’s the data and the code, you figure it out”. It is only when they keep things hidden that they cause extra work for themselves.

    The data is what it is. If the ACTUAL adjustment process can be looked it by outside parties, if at least the meta data for the raw data can be published, and if the code can be published, the result will stand or not on its own merit. The notion of simply taking someone’s word for it is the main issue here.

    And this is why I don’t consider myself really a “skeptic”. Because I don’t know if I can be skeptical or not. I don’t have any confidence in the GISS or the CRUT output. I also see a lot of evidence of natural variability. There simply isn’t enough data of believable quality to know if we are seeing something beyond what might be expected from natural variability. But at the same time there is evidence that natural variability can be quite dramatic in extent and quite abrubt in timing.

    Put me in the camp of:

    Could human emissions influence climate today ? Maybe.

    ARE human emissions influencing climate today? I don’t know with certainty but it appears most likely not.

    Could human emissions have an impact in the future if they continue to increase at the current rate? I believe they could have an impact.

    Would this impact overall be harmful? Overall probably not. Warming from human CO2 emissions would probably be overall beneficial to humans in particular and the majority of life forms except the most cold-adapted.”

    But that is really beside the point at this time. We need first to have a global database of temperature data that is maintained by someone who doesn’t produce a “global warming” model. There needs to be an entity that simply keeps track of “what is and what has been” and let someone else or lots of someone elses research “what might come to pass”. Having that database “owned” by people who have a fairly clear idea creates a lot of “validation pressure”. This validation pressure becomes greater the more outspoken they are on their conviction that their hypothesis is correct.

    It is sort of like Exxon owning all the oil on the planet, refusing to let anyone look at their data, and then claiming that there is going to be a shortage starting right now and oil prices will have to double. Would you trust that kind of announcement under those conditions? I don’t think so. So here we have climate “scientists” who “own” the data telling us that things are going straight down the tubes if we don’t fork over trillions — a good bit of which will go to climate research and straight into the pockets and prestige of the people owning the database.

    Bottom line: It just doesn’t pass the most basic smell test.

  41. SABR Matt,

    I do not believe that Ms. Curry wants the same thing we do. We want good, rational science. We want people to discuss the science and consider all the evidence, not just the data that supports their beliefs.

    When the Webster et al, paper was published, supposedly connecting increasing hurricane counts to man-made global warming, Judith Curry was contributing to a few blogs that I regularly enjoyed. The paper used the hurricane record as it exists and did not consider the constant increase in observational technologies over the last 150 years, resulting in a general increase in the number and intensity of storms reported. The assumption was that the hurricane record was indeed the reality throughout time. If you carry this assumption back even further, you can draw the conclusion that Atlantic Hurricanes did not exist at all before 1492, since there were no observations of them. The assumption was horrible, and the paper was useless, yet Curry refused to acknowledge the scientific fallacy at the root of the paper they created and foisted on the eager mainstream media.

    When other scientists on the blogs pointed out the problem with the paper, Curry failed to address the science and portrayed herself as a victim, as if she was being personally attacked by Exxon. She even took the time to produce a lengthy list of logical fallacies that were allegedly being used against her. I just wanted her to explain their rationale for treating the hurricane record of 1900 as if it was just as accurate and robust as the record from 2000, but she would not talk about the actual science.

    Even now, she avoids the obvious weakness in the AGW science that is revealed by Climategate, focusing solely on the ‘inappropriate behavior’ of a few colleagues. It is obvious that she does not question the AGW mantra and believes those that do question it “need to be dealt with”.

    She is not debating the science, and I don’t think she ever will. If she does, then I will believe she is seeking scientific truth and I will show her respect.

    Until then, praising Judith Curry is like praising a ‘kind’ slave owner. In comparison, she may look pretty good, but she still views the AGW crisis skeptic as ‘inferior’ and less worthy than her more esteemed crisis colleagues. Judith Curry does not want to treat climate crisis skeptics as equals…she wants them to go away! Don’t be lulled in by her sugar coated insults.

  42. bob (23:36:15) :

    “Roger Knights: That’s an interesting list, and I have no doubt that a lot of the assertions are true. However, a long list of rebuttals is not necessary because the justification of global warming depends on a very few ideas.”

    A full point/counter-point list is not logically necessary, but it is rhetorically necessary. I.e., all the enemy’s seeming “hits” must be undone in order to win over the audience as completely as possible.

  43. PS: I should add that our side doesn’t have a refutation of every alarmist bit of data or argument, and we should concede that all we can do in some portions of the dispute is cast doubt, or say we have no answer for that yet. But, since they have an extraordinary claim to prove, our making those concessions still leaves them far short of their goal of proof.

  44. I’d like to thank this young lady for being open minded and advocating open science.

    I am offended by being labeled. Most certainly I am a skeptic, but changing my mind is as simple as showing verifiable conclusions via the scientific method, devoid of bias and lies. Labeling me and generalizing only makes me angry,for like the racism that shares the same model, it offers nothing to the discussion other than lowering the standard of discourse.

    Most certainly there are environmental issues to deal with. It isn’t like when we crush the CO2 bogey man for once and for all, the world will sparkle blue and life will be all puppies and rainbows. Graceful exit from the AGW collective may be a challenge, but there is certainly plenty for the climate science professional to discover and research.

    We pay you guys hundreds of billions of dollars. All we want is the scientifically verifiable truth. If that is too much to ask, maybe we have hired the wrong guys. There are a lot of good men and women in the field deserving of those grants.

  45. I e-mailed her directly.
    She ought to start by practicing science. That is she ought to be demanding :
    1. CRU abide by the FOIA,
    2. that authors of other papers make their data and methods open.
    At school before the, pre-progressive times, it was:
    SHOW YOUR WORK, OR YOU GET A BIG ZERO!

    How tough is that to understand?

  46. And that doesn’t mean showing your work only to your friends.
    Unless, she engages in points 1 and 2 above, then she ‘s FULL OF IT.
    I don’t care how decorated her resume is.

  47. BarryR: “Try to discourage ad hominem attacks on website where you have any influence…”

    Good call. Better still, perhaps the major climate blogs could agree to a protocol where they agree to censor such terms as denier, alarmist, ecofacist etc, and require posters to refrain from accusations of fraud, lies and corruption, from whichever quarter.

    The posters could then concentrate on the science, and the enforced civility could in time enable both sides to understand that they share a common goal of fostering good science.

  48. Roger Knights: I agree with Bob.

    Don’t get into ever decreasing circles of rebuttal on individual points. Point out the crux of their argument, and don’t be distracted from it.

    If someone was to answer each of your points, they would be best to say something along the lines of:
    “Quite a few scientists believe that sun-spots are a primary cause of the current global warming. The science on this is still uncertain, although some of the evidence does point in its favour. It should be realised though that this mechanism for warming, if shown to be wrong, does not prove CO2 warming correct.” Then list some citations for further investigation.

  49. I wrote the following letter to Dr. Curry. I am reproducing it here so that a) others may feel free to critique my critique, b) perhaps find it beneficial. The Zen of climategate would be to not so concentrate on the finger that they forget to look where it’s pointing to. Unless that “heavenly glory” is appreciated and put right on the public discussion table both at Copenhagen and at all discussion events of ‘carbon credit’ by the rightly-credentialed peoples, this opportunity to resist the real agenda is lost to fait accompli. I can already see it… Thank you. Zahir

    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    From: Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
    Date: Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 2:06 AM
    Subject: Re: An open letter…By Dr. Judith A. Curry
    To: curryja@eas.gatech.edu

    Dear Dr. Curry,

    Hello,

    I read your letter here: …

    Upon reading it, and with my own children studying very high-tech stuff in prominent universities in the US requiring continual sanity-checking to rein in their at times blind pursuits for their respective science without regard to the political container within which all science is situated, I feel that both your goodself, and your students, might find my article to be of some pertinent value. I hope more than zero.

    Letter to a ‘co-conspiracy theorist’: Reflections on Modernity, Climategate, Peer Review, and Science in the Service of Empire

    http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/let-co-conspiracy-theorist-climategate.html

    Best wishes,

    Zahir Ebrahim
    Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

    http://humanbeingsfirst.org

    California, United States

    This letter is also submitted to climateprogress.org

  50. Cromagnum (21:59:49) : O/T … is this video a good easy to ready summary of the Urban/Rural TEmp Issue?

    This is the simplest piece of evidence I’ve seen, that might enable folk like Judith Curry and George Monbiot to turn 180 degrees not just 90 degrees, to see that ClimateGate is not just about bad behaviour, it’s also about bad science, and to see that some ordinary folk have seen this before the professionals have been able to realize or admit it.

    I think this deserves a post of its own but I also want to explore how to enable busy scientists and MSM like Judith Curry and George Monbiot to actually take time off to view it. Perhaps that will just happen.

  51. ha! meant to say, also,

    Thank you Dr Curry for posting both here, at Climate Audit, and at Climate Progress. I know you will get a lot of flak and attack from all sides for opening the doors to discussion both ways, and for holding up for integrity in Science. Despite the fact that I don’t agree with your classification of “deniers” I warmly applaud your action.

  52. Cromagnum (21:59:49) :

    O/T … is this video a good easy to ready summary of the Urban/Rural TEmp Issue?

    Great Job!

  53. “It is sort of like Exxon owning all the oil on the planet, refusing to let anyone look at their data, and then claiming that there is going to be a shortage starting right now and oil prices will have to double. Would you trust that kind of announcement under those conditions?”

    De Beers does that with diamonds!!

  54. Meanwhile, another snowball has started rolling down the mountainside:

    “[T]he Competitive Enterprise Institute filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies’ refusal–for nearly three years–to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574557583017194444.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

    Avalanche warning signs will be posted outside the local ivory towers…

  55. I think it is easy to forget how hard it is to speak counter to one’s peer group, even more so when the group’s core function is to provide expert opinion. You simply can’t go counter to the group’s principles unless you’re willing to leave the group. I think this is true of any group. You can’t go out with your drinking buddies if you think alcohol is a dangerous drug to be avoided.

    This is why it is so important to have multiple groups with transparent access to information. That puts groups on the same open playing field.

    Of course, we can then worry that the public might be influenced by the “wrong” ideas and opinions. However, this is not your problem. If you live in a country where people are racists, then they will carry on being racists regardless of whatever enlightened opinions are available. Likewise, if people lack rationality and objectivity, then they will not be influenced by rational arguments, however right they may be.

    Climate scientists may seem condescending because they seem to worry too much about the public not being able to tell the difference between genuine experts and quacks. They worry the bad skeptics who just make up sprious arguments might influence the public. Well the fact is, if the public really is stupid, then the enlightened opinions will never gain influence anyway. sure there is a percentage of the peopulation who would rather go to a “healer” than a doctor because they believe in magic. And sure there are people who would rather worship Gaia than learn to understand complex systems of systems of systems. But if the irrational people are the majority, then we’re all sunk anyway.

    You actully have to trust that the public is SMART, if you’re ever expecting them to do the right thing, so you should be giving people all the transparent and detailed information all the time anyway.

    And you know what, if the rational public ends up ignoring your wise expert advice, perhaps they have noticed something that you haven’t. After all, being an expert gives you a very detailed but narrow focus. The general public has multille competting life issues to deal with, and who are you to judge them?

  56. I do not know if anyone else has brought this to your attention. There is now an on line petition for Uk citizens and those living in the UK at :

    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UEACRU/

    We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to suspend the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia from preparation of any Government Climate Statistics until the various allegations have been fully investigated by an independent body. More details

    Submitted by Mike Haseler – Deadline to sign up by: 24 February 2010 – Signatures: 1,937

  57. Certainly it is good that somebody in the scientific academia from the AGW side wants openness of data and methods.

    I take exception in the Manichean view of the world presented as “scientists” on one side and “skeptics” on the other. As a retired particle physicist with many publications in the field, I certainly consider myself a scientist, and having spent two years wading through what is purported to be “climate science” I have become a strong skeptic; I am skeptical of even if climate studies can be considered as science, even if scientists are working on them. I had never before seen such cavalier treatment of data, errors, model outputs and inferences as exist in the AR4 IPCC report. While reading the “physics justification” part of the report I would stop reading and walk around pulling my hair at the sheer enormity of the gross misshandling of data and model outputs ; mind you I have been fitting data to theory with computer models for over 40 years.

    So maybe this response is good advice to graduate students in “climate studies”, but it certainly is not addressing the basic credibility problem these studies have for the rest of us “scientists” once we decide to look into the matter.

  58. Again, I’m not sure why you think this message is insightful enough to post. She says,

    There is no question that there is a political noise machine in existence that feeds on research and statements from climate change skeptics

    There is no acknowledgement of the reverse actually being the case and of “post-normal” scientists actually being a part of it.

  59. Her call for scrutiny is admirable and as person sceptical of the AGW hypothesis, all I really ask for…. I would like people like Steve McIntyre to have access to CRU’s data and methodology, GISS’s data and methodology, etc. I would like for my politicians to be able to stand up in Parliament and question bad science where it is found and to support good science based policy when it is needed.

    … It can’t be done when scientists like the CRU mob operate like they have.

  60. SABR Matt I agree, and stress that I think Dr. Curry obviously seperates herself from the ‘sceptics’. A precarious position for doing real science.

  61. Einstein worked for a _patent_ office (Swiss patent office), not the post office as suggested by Ms. Curry.

    How ignorant.

  62. Dr.Curry,

    When you refrain from phrases like “dealing with skeptics” than I’ll take your message a bit more than a PR excersise.

  63. On the plus side, she is against cap and trade too, like most rational individuals. Extremists on both side think the extremists on the other side are evil, deluded or misinformed. Therefore we need to ignore extremism. And that includes those who say that this is a left-wing takeover. Like it or not, this type of self-feeding consensus is normal for science and it has impeded scientific progress in many spheres. Eventually the science is corrected but quite often there are muddy compromises made to align the data with the theory. In most fields of course that doesn’t matter but sometimes it matters a lot because people can be sent to jail and enormous sums of money can be wasted based on the dubious science of a few deluded individuals who thought being dishonest was ok if it was for the greater good.

    What is quite clear is that science cannot police itself. However we don’t want to impede science to the extent that form-filling and reviews take all the money. Maybe the only way out is to look beyond the science and see if we can make some headway with win-win energy scenarios.

    The left need to stop talking about mythical “action” as if a carbon tax would make any difference whatsoever: It won’t unless the technology to replace coal and oil is here. And the right need to stop assuming that the best solution always arrives by a magical free market invisible hand: In fact we usually end up with well-marketed mediocrity that arrived at the head of the pack by lucky fluke, criminal cunning or shady vested interests.

    My own feeling from reading both the information and (lots of) disinformation out there is that there is a future for the following:
    - Some nuclear but not the current pieces of crap that were developed to support nuclear weapons and hence rely on uranium enrichment.
    - Solar power where there is sun and space and a smart grid system.
    - Gas-powered combined heat and power plants that can heat nearby houses and so render 80% efficiency.
    - Electric cars that charge up on night-time base load.
    - Wind energy to supply a lot of night-time base load.
    - Base load backup which makes total sense even for coal fired plants.
    - A gradual switch from coal-mining to in-situ coal gasification.

    A capitalist system but with a sensibly considered road map might continue to bring worldwide prosperity. The alternative is follow the short-sighted optimism of the wingnuts or the blinkered fatalism of the moonbats.

  64. P Gosselin (02:12:40) :

    Yep, and failing to address the data shortcomings and model shortcomings is irresponsible, and that’s above and beyond the failure to admit that there is a big problem with “Warming Science”.
    When these people start acting responsibly, then they can be taken as sincere.
    Start over.
    Show the data.
    All of it. Until such time I will continue to urge my Congressman to cut off funding for “scientific” institutions that practice hiding data. In these days of dwindling budgets, there is little justification for supporting elitist programs.

  65. Anthony,
    I think is was a a great idea to post this letter from Dr. Curry. Her approch is pursuasive and possibly geared to her audience as all good presentations should be. While I understand some of the posts that criticise the tone of her letter, some thought should be given to the possibility that she might be a clever communicator. If one wants to win someone over to think objectively, the last thing you want to do is to hit them hard with a ton of bricks by taking an adamant position that could immediately turn them off to even consider your points. Keep in mind that the audience probably have been “brainewashed” for some time.

    One possible strategy of an effective communicator (that I often forget):
    Gear your presentation to the audience, Don’t Pi## them off, respect their positions, give them some facts, convince them to consider all sides of an issue, let the facts change their mind rather than trying to pushing it down their throats. Don’t let your personal beliefs affect the tone of your argument.

    Give the good Dr. the benefit of the doubt.

  66. Thanks to all of you for your thoughtful posts. Of course all scientists are skeptics. Skepticism is alive and well in climate research as scientists continue to question models, theories, and improve datasets. in the public debate on climate, “skeptic” has come to mean someone who is skeptical that increasing greenhouse gases are producing (and will produce) a significant warming of the planet. So I will differentiate between skeptic and “skeptic” here.

    Trying to keep “skeptical” papers out of the scientific literature is flat out wrong. There are all sorts of papers in the published literature that haven’t stood the test of time and have proven to be incorrect. Some are actively rebutted, others just fade away and are ignored. The justification over at RC as that they need to keep “wrong” papers out of the published literature is just wrong.

    I have to say that the blogosphere has been a real eye opener for me in terms of airing serious “skeptical” arguments. There is of course alot of “skeptical” garbage out there, and I wish the skeptical technical blogs had taken on the papers presented at the Heartland Conference. Peter Webster engaged extensively with one of the authors of a paper at Heartland Conference, and pointed out in detail the flaws in the analysis. The scientist pretty much agreed with Peter, but then continues to present the same arguments. Peter Webster asked Steve McIntyre to do this, but Steve declined saying he wanted to focus on the higher impact papers in the peer reviewed literature. Fair enough, but the stuff at the Heartland Conference feeds the political noise machine.

    But the “skeptical” arguments by scientists that are qualified by virtue of the training, hard work in doing analyses, and engagiement in the dialogue by joining the relevant professional societies, deserve to be heard.

    The public needs some help in differentiating some of the garbage that is out there from serious skepticism. Some serious critiqing of “skeptical” papers (published or unpublished) by the technical skeptic blogs such as CA, WUWT, Lucia would be very valuable.

  67. Ms Judith Curry, I have much more respect for the Scientists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons who published their Cold Fusion experiments on March 23, 1989, than I do for you or any of your so called scientific colleagues. Yes Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons’ research was ripped apart, but that is how it should be. They represent how science is supposed to be conducted. Even now your bias and poor understanding of the scientific method is evident. The fact you have the gall to write:

    ”At the heart of this issue is how climate researchers deal with skeptics…. 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

    The above statement shows you still do not understand what true scientific research is actually about. ”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????? That is not the “high ground:” that is the core principle of science!

    “how climate researchers deal with skeptics”??? Again this show you have nothing but the most shallow understanding of science. It is not up to you and your colleagues to deal with skeptics it is up to all of you to put ALL your cards on the table and allow your work to be picked apart by anyone and everyone just as Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons did. THAT is your job anything else is politics and has not business being a part of true science.

    You state ”There is no question that there is a political noise machine in existence that feeds on research and statements from climate change skeptics.” Where are your facts to support such a statement? Most of the work by so call skeptics has been done by self-financed people who question the information placed in front of them because the so called debate has been one sided and cloaked in secrecy. Work that has been done in spite of a tremendous amount of pressure to ridicule and kill it.

    As far as I am concerned your statement is too little and too late. Trying to play “Good Cop” are we Ms Judith Curry? Worried young scientists will actually wake up and realize you and your “scientific colleagues” are not scientists by political hacks???

  68. “deal with skeptics”? Climate researchers should be sceptical and use the scientific method. Trying to preserve a ‘consensus’ view of how climate behaves without sufficient empirical evidence is what got them into this mess in the first place.

  69. Re: Roger Knights’ suggestion:

    Just saw some intrvw with Mann from earlier this year. He’s still claiming NAS support for the HS. Please add that to list of AGW myths to bust. It’s driving me nuts.

  70. What Bird Stewart Lightfoot (04:47:20) said. Plus Einstein didn’t soak-up millions of dollars in grant money that might otherwise have gone to legitimate science. Cancer research, say.

    “At the heart of this issue is how climate researchers deal with skeptics.” No, the heart of it is a conspiracy to commit massive fraud. Most press and public officials are ex-liberal arts majors who wouldn’t know science from seance. They’ve been the target of this sting, whereas the ordinary public remains comparatively unconvinced.

    I’m older than Judy Curry and I’m not a stakeholder in this. My advice to grad students would be ‘you’re still young — find another major.’

  71. Here is a piece we wrote in 2002. Like the scientific article that accompanies it, it remains valid and relevant today.

    Climate science has not changed. But it has been utterly corrupted by dishonest, self-serving groups such as Mann’s “hockey team’, the IPCC, and their supporters.

    For more than a decade, climate science has been hijacked by scoundrels. It is time to get rid of these crooks, and to put climate science back on its proper course.

    Full disclosure of raw data, computer code and computed results, a very easy task to accomplish if people acted in good faith, would be a good start.

    Previous”research” that fails to meet these objectives should simply be deleted and ignored. This would probably result in the trashing of much IPCC work – TAR and AR4 would go into the dumpster, especially the SPM’s.

    Climate science needs to “go back” to where the field became so corrupted, and start again from there.

    In the meantime, all talk of climate change legislation and treaties should be suspended – given the lack of a scientific basis, it is little more than the prattling of scoundrels and imbeciles.

    Regards to all, and Happy USA Thanksgiving.

    _________________________

    http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm

    REBUTTAL OF POINT

    (BY COUNTERPOINT AUTHORS)

    The Pembina Institute’s authors have chosen to avoid the science topic, perhaps because there is no credible scientific basis for the Kyoto Protocol.

    Advocates of Kyoto mistakenly cite the United Nations IPCC 2001 report and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences 2001 report as authoritative scientific sources. Dr. Richard Lindzen, Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT and a co-author of both reports, wrote in 2001:

    “We are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future…

    “Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty – far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge…”

    Kyoto has many fatal flaws, any one of which should cause this treaty to be scrapped.

    Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.

    Kyoto focuses primarily on reducing CO2, a relatively harmless gas, and does nothing to control real air pollution like NOx, SO2, and particulates, or serious pollutants in water and soil.

    Kyoto wastes enormous resources that are urgently needed to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today. For example, the money spent on Kyoto in one year would provide clean drinking water and sanitation for all the people of the developing world in perpetuity.

    Kyoto will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and damage the Canadian economy – the U.S., Canada’s biggest trading partner, will not ratify Kyoto, and developing countries are exempt.

    Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment – it will cause energy-intensive industries to move to exempted developing countries that do not control even the worst forms of pollution.

    Kyoto’s CO2 credit trading scheme punishes the most energy efficient countries and rewards the most wasteful. Due to the strange rules of Kyoto, Canada will pay the former Soviet Union billions of dollars per year for CO2 credits.

    Kyoto will be ineffective – even assuming the overstated pro-Kyoto science is correct, Kyoto will reduce projected warming insignificantly, and it would take as many as 40 such treaties to stop alleged global warming.

    The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.

  72. “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: …”

    This statement to graduate students clearly demonstrates she is fully politicized on the matter of climate change. I’m not convinced from her postings, that Judy Curry understands the difference between being convinced of the science, and being politicized by the issues of it.

    A rather disturbing pattern is emerging both here and at Climate Audit: when one of the “climate science” community deigns to participate in the blogs, there is an obsequious, almost groveling welcome. I find this offensive. It demeans the learned participants who are already here, and it inappropriately elevates the status and position of the guest in the discussion.

    I expect Dr. Curry and others on the “alarmist” side, as scientists, to debate and defend their science no less differently than the “skeptic” side. Both sides have to be open to rational discussion. Any scientist taking a stated position as Dr. Curry has done, has fallen into the same trap that infests CRU. Her use of the term “skeptics” is an ad hominem against an entire segment of the scientific community. The response from both sides to a contrary viewpoint should only be: “convince me with facts”.

    The consequence of ClimateGate will be that climate scientists will now be called on explicitly to validate their science. There will be no more free pass on a wink and a nod that good science is assumed. What is missing from many scientists practising in the climate arena is any indication of an understanding of the concept of “objectivity”. For too many, their science begins from a position of advocacy rather than enquiry, and this is, in part, due to the universities that teach them failing them in the core disciplines of science. PhD’s are not immune to the concept that “for every man with only a hammer, every issue looks like a nail”, but their training and experience should be allow them to, and in fact, requires, that they null this variable in their work.

    If Dr. Curry and any other scientists in climate research wishes to discuss their science, then they should of course, be welcome and encouraged. Even discussions about the import to society of the science, once validated, should be welcome, as should discussions about ethical perspectives in scientific research. On the latter point, I suspect a good many young PhDs could benefit from that discussion, since it is apparently a topic foreign to too many in the community already.

  73. I am heartened that Dr Curry has called for more honesty and openness in the AGW debate in the form of released data. However, I am dismayed at her patronising “us and them inferences”. She assumes that she is right and the skeptics are wrong and need to be lead to enlightenment. Hardly an open approach is it?

    Far from being “brainwashed”, I hold two degrees and am quite capable of discerning a patronising tone when I read one.

  74. Dear Dr. Curry:

    How much grant money will you lose when the AGW ship sinks? I see you continue to flog the big oil business, but fail to mention the big government which funds you and the other climate researchers, directly and indirectly. And it is my taxes, and the oil companies’ taxes which provide that money, by the way.

  75. As mentioned by others above, I stopped reading this “letter” as soon as she began talking about “skeptics”

    Dr. Curry begins amiably enough, but quickly falls into the category of those that they “know” the answer and the “skeptics” are a bunch of whiny complainers that don’t like the “real” answers. This is truly a pity, and immediately relegates her entire letter as unworthy.

    I routinely publish in high-end chemistry journals (such as those of the American Chemical Society). There is often controversy in chemistry about reaction mechanisms, and there are many examples of important (Nobel-prize winning) chemists skirmishing on how a particular reaction takes place. Never is one assumed to be correct and the others “deniers”. This is ludicrous.

    Science can only benefit from questioning. To try to shut those up that would question is a serious breach of scientific protocol. One which ANY good scientist should be ashamed to admit being party to.

  76. I read one of her posts on Climate Progress #41

    She is asking EVERYONE to take the highground.

    Asking to take the high ground after fraud is different than asking for the high ground after a steamy argument.

    She is giving an “appeal to authority”

    The high ground is to deal with the issue instead. Admit the cranking out of false numbers and manipulation of equations.

    Judy, we have no option than to tell Mann et all to forget about it. When you cheat, even correcting the numbers don’t make you restored to credibility. You can’t unrob a bank.

    My psychology summary of Judith is her appeal to save face. Saving face is a wasted endeavor after fraud.

    Who wants to be the next Martha Stewart?

  77. I look at this site every day-often multiple times daily. So first of all thanks to Anthony and all who help keep it up and running and for working overtime during the past week (Thanksgiving and all). Also thanks to the regular posters and others who take the time to compose insightful comments– I’m still waiting to dig into that chili-pot that is on the backburner of the stove : )(re: a posting from about a week ago).

    Anyway, I am layman in all of this and have never studied anything to do with climatology etc. I don’t have the time (nor the inclination–sorry) to dig into and digest all of the tables, charts, graphs and statistics that are provided.

    As someone with a very limited, but growing, knowledge of these issues, I have to say that I really enjoyed the video post by Cromagnum (21:56:49). It was right up my alley and it is something everyone can easily understand. It is great that it can be viewed by the tens of thousands (millions?) of fans here on this site, but we’re already “skeptics”. Hopefully Cromagnum will find others willing to host it on their sites–sites where people who are not so climate oriented tend to visit. Of course the experts who comment here know if it is based on good science (though it seems logical and solid to me). I don’t know if it would pass the test of our warmist friends, however, since the recorded temperatures don’t seem to have been manipulated.

  78. Forgot to say that it is good to see Dr. Curry’s message. It always takes time for people on different sides of the divide to come together. The only way to make headway is to begin communicating, let trust gradually develop, and share ideas on how to move forward. Then the real dialogue can begin.

  79. I think it is important to recognize the audience that Dr. Curry is addressing. She is writing to a group that she understands to be true believers and members in good standing in her church. Skeptics are a completely different animal. She doesn’t have any skeptics as students and likely doesn’t have any on the faculty with her. This is an effort to talk to priests in training.

    Read her post again. Skeptics are people she can’t understand, but she is trying. And she wants her students to understand that it is appropriate for a true believer and aspiring priest to engage with skeptics — as long as it doesn’t compromise the values of the true believers. [note -- I realize that she uses "values" in terms of research values, but that modifier makes no sense in this context unless she means to slander skeptics.]

    I found the post really offensive. But looking at it from her perspective and given the group she is addressing, I’m not sure we could expect anything much different.

  80. “Einstein did not start his research career at Princeton, but rather at a post office.”

    At a post office? You might want to check that one out…

  81. I appreciate that Dr Curry is willing to take a stand. Considering the closed mind-set of the lemming-like academic community regarding global warming and “carbon,” her stand is more risky than most in her position are willing to take. But it would be much better if Dr Curry would free her mind from the canard that there is a problem with scientific skepticism.

    Dr Curry writes:

    At the heart of this issue is how climate researchers deal with skeptics… There is no question that there is a political noise machine in existence that feeds on research and statements from climate change skeptics.

    Dr Curry doesn’t seem to understand the fact that the only good scientists are skeptics. Being a skeptic is a basic requirement of the Scientific Method. And we see the result of simply accepting the conclusions of those in the CRU, the IPCC, and most all of academia. Without answering skeptics’ questions, the current AGW belief is relentlessly advocated by rent-seeking grant applicants in an environment where $Billions are handed out every year — almost exclusively to those making the increasingly questionable assertion that a harmless trace gas will cause climate catastrophe and doom.

    Where are skeptical opinions tolerated, outside of internet sites and an occasional newspaper article? In what academic fora is it openly discussed that there is no empirical evidence at all that measures any specific temperature rise as a direct result of a rise in CO2?

    In fact, the opposite is true: as CO2 rises, the planet’s temperature has declined. And past rises in CO2 have consistently followed rises in temperature. Yet those skeptical of the effect of CO2 are deliberately excluded from peer review journals. Their questions are dismissed with a wave of the hand, as they are labeled “deniers”. Their requests for the underlying raw data are routinely refused. And as we see in the CRU emails, skeptical scientists are constantly vilified by a small clique trying to remain the official arbiters of climate science. Mann, Jones and the rest are seen to be constantly strategizing about how to counter and attack skeptical scientists, instead of cooperating with them in order to find the truth of the effect of CO2.

    Dr Curry needs to speak out and remind people that being a skeptic is an absolute requirement of being a good scientist. Skeptical scientists can certainly be convinced of a hypothesis. But it will take more than the current smoke and mirrors, and the hidden data and formulas that pass for ‘evidence’ of runaway global warming. Those claiming a new hypothesis have the burden of showing how they arrived at their conclusions. Stonewalling requests for data only confirm that they have plenty to hide.

    The Scientific Method requires full transparency of all data and methods used to support the CO2=CAGW hypothesis, and a sincere willingness to openly share those methods and raw data. We are not nearly at that point yet.

  82. Well,it would seem apparent that ‘climate science’ hasn’t upheld core values. As the Russian proverb says ‘If you lay down with dogs you wake up with fleas’.

  83. *****************
    Paul Vaughan (23:00:46) :
    On a more serious note:
    For legitimate reasons, releasing code is not always going to be feasible.
    *******************************
    If you have published in a science journal, what legitimate reasons would you have for not releasing the code? IMO, if you won’t release the code, you should not be allowed to publish.

  84. In my opinion, “skeptics” such as Anthony Watts are already on the “high ground”.

    Judith Curry and her “side” can not take it, but they can join the scientists already there. Engaging those who disagree on acceptable terms (not necessarily “(y)our own”), making data/methods available/transparent, and clarifying the uncertainties certainly would be a start.

    Curry’s “side” may be winning the political aspect, but they are losing the scientific position, damaging the creditability of science now and in the future.

    Her comment as 05:13:45 above – “The public needs some help in differentiating some of the garbage that is out there from serious skepticism.” shows her bias and lessens her standing as far as I’m concerned. (and I suspect many agree)

    What she should say, if she really wants to move toward the “high ground” would be: “The public needs some help in differentiating some of the garbage that is out there from both the supporters of AGW and the serious skeptics.”

    If she’s really being honest, she will recognize that there is “garbage” supporting her GW position as well.

    Just my 2 cents.

  85. I would like Dr. Curry to weigh in on some of the often-discussed issues.

    1. Do you believe Michael Mann’s hockey stick reconstructions yield an accurate representation of past and recent past temperatures?
    2. Would you still use CRUs instrumental temperature “reconstruction” even though they have “lost’ the raw data, cannot tell us what raw data went into it, and how is was “adjusted.”
    3. Do you believe any climate models adequately model clouds?
    4. Do you believe clouds could completely offset warming caused by CO2?
    5. Do you believe a climate model computer run should be given the status of an experiment? Experiments in the usual meaning of the word imply an observation of nature, not code.
    6. If the above problems exist (along with some others of course), do you believe there is enough “clean” evidence to prove global warming will result in a catastrophe?

  86. sylvain (00:07:53) :

    I tried to post this at climate progress where the original from this letter can be found.

    It is informative to realize that hardcore ‘alarmist’ still haven’t learn anything from Dr Curry or ‘climategate’

    Censored post:

    Dr Curry writes:

    “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!”

    The refusal to give access to all that is needed to reproduce one’s research is the main reason that I’m skeptic of climate research. If researchers are confident that there work is solid, then why obstruct others from being able to reproduce their work?

    When I did graduate research and published, the key was to make assertions that were findings in experiments that can be replicated. This is not the pattern in climate research by the dirty dozen.

    There is nothing in prescription drugs that comes from secret research.

    I say we defund research. The novelty is over. If you had some lines regarding the environment in a grant proposal, funding was more likely.

    It is coming to meltdown time for climate research grants. Find another major. Actually accounting degrees are hot and within that people that have tools to detect security breeches and fraud.

  87. Correction:

    should have read ““The public needs some help in differentiating some of the garbage that is out there from both the supporters of AGW and the serious skeptics and properly conducted science.”

  88. I will give the “Good DR” the benifit of the doubt by quoting her from dot earth:
    ““We won the war — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, and climate and energy legislation is near the top of the U.S. agenda,” Dr. Curry said. “Why keep fighting all these silly battles and putting ourselves in this position?”
    In answer to her question she should remove herself from the issue as she is no longer a scientist!

  89. @ Barry R. (23:43:39) :

    “(c) Get the science down to a level people can understand and that they can easily see is devoid of manipulation.”

    This, unfortunately, is not possible in many aspects of the science but particularly the modeling end of it. The average person isn’t going to be able to sort through computer code and determine what was done, much less the honesty behind what was done. The same goes with the use of statistics to turn multiple proxies into a single chart. At the level of integration of science fields we’re using now, it really isn’t possible to make the science this easy to understand.

    If you were talking about physics, chemistry, or biology, then possibly. Climate science is all of those with a healthy does of mathematics thrown in.

  90. Well, it seems that Dr. Curry has realized a political aspect to climate science, she has missed and failed to compensate for the religious aspect. Even for those who are not subject to a bias due to faith in a particular theory, like
    CAGW, there is the more general faith of scientism. This is faith in the scientific method that is justified by reason.

    Being involved in physics in my little world, the only colleagues that I know who believe in CAGW are those who have not looked at the issue themselves but rather accept the vast peer reviewed literature as a validation of the scientific method being properly applied and this unreasoning faith in this scientism that it must be right.

    In the long run, the scientific method advances our understanding. On the short term, it offers nothing but a level playing field for the battle of ideas to take place. There are no guarantees that a preferred idea is more correct than other competing ideas or has any validity in reality.

    Dr. Curry does seem to express her faith both in this scientism and in CAGW in her letter, while discussing the problems of politics and, to her credit, the abandonment of the scientific method by many of her colleagues. I expect to see more interesting things from her as the realization dawns that this CAGW cult has been violating the sanctity of scientism’s belief in the data.

  91. SABR Matt and others have raised a good point about Dr. Curry’s response, i.e, that she thinks in terms of “dealing with the skeptics” as though they are a unified group with some axe to grind. Still, she invited McIntyre to speak, and I trust her ability to recognize meritorious critiques as opposed to ideological attacks. I think she deserves praise for her letter, especially now. She correctly diagnoses the sociological problem of the the AGW supporters.

  92. When massively disruptive, intrusive, and expensive government policies rest on science, and the best science can offer is a ‘consensus,’ then skepticism is not merely inevitable … it is absolutely essential!

    When scientists resist and demonize and marginalize such skepticism, it’s not the motives of the skeptics that beg to be called into question.

  93. ********************
    Jeremy (07:23:23) :

    @ Barry R. (23:43:39) :

    “(c) Get the science down to a level people can understand and that they can easily see is devoid of manipulation.”

    This, unfortunately, is not possible in many aspects of the science but particularly the modeling end of it. The average person isn’t going to be able to sort through computer code and determine what was done, much less the honesty behind what was done. The same goes with the use of statistics to turn multiple proxies into a single chart. At the level of integration of science fields we’re using now, it really isn’t possible to make the science this easy to understand.

    If you were talking about physics, chemistry, or biology, then possibly. Climate science is all of those with a healthy does of mathematics thrown in.
    ***************
    There have already been examples where people have gotten code and were able to understand it and point out flaws. Even code as complex as climate model code should be released if for no other reason than openness. All it takes is some eyeballs attached to a few good minds.

  94. Here’s an experiment that Dr. Curry can easily perform: Have one of your graduate students post a comment with a mild, scientifically sound, courteously worded minor criticism of a scientific paper supporting some aspect of global warming on either RealClimate or ClimateProgress without identifying him or her self as one of your students. See if the comments gets past moderation. See how the person is treated by the ‘regulars’ on the site if it does get past moderation. Consider the fact that for many if not most people a failure to allow open debate on an issue is equivalent to an admission that your ideas won’t stand up to that kind of debate. Any mild skeptic who posts something and has it moderated out almost automatically becomes a more committed skeptic.

    According to at least two people I know who have tried, Climate Progress is deleting without comment any skeptical comments that refer in any kind of detail to the data processing aspects of the Phil Jones situation. That’s happening even on the comment thread to your open letter calling for a more open dialogue. Kind of ironic, don’t you think?

  95. Firstly I think is good when scientsts start to at least see that the issue exists, although from the tone of the letter above, it is obvous there are many deeply ingrained ‘beliefs’ preventing progress. So thank you Dr. Curry for being brave enough to post your thoughts here and on Climate Audit.

    These limiting ‘beliefs’ need to be exposed before any real change can happen to how science is conducted. Unless ths can be achieved then there wll be little chance of improvng our understanding about how our climate works. Many examples of these obstructions to progress exsit in the CRU/GISS/IPCC Climategate dossier, but I will limit my demonstration of just one of those limiting beliefs to those found in Dr. Curry’s letter – scepticsm is bad for science.

    Scientsts must never forget that being a sceptic is vital if you still want to do real sciience. Without sceptcism, no new truths wll be found and no theories will be falsfed. Instead science will divert further and further from the realty of what is observed. It wll become more and more useless and irrelevent as it tries to prop up the crumbling facade by more and more outrageous constructs designed to protect it from falsification.

    There are examples of this happening in many fields, for example dark matter in astronomy and hockey stick graphs in climatology. Facts are the only thing of importance in science and it is essential that the peer review process is conducted by independent sceptics to ensure that the publc get truth.

    Cold hard facts are the life-blood of science, belief has no part to play.

  96. Dr. Curry,

    Maybe we need to stop the labeling. “Skeptic” and “denier” and “The Team” are now impeding the cleaning up of the practice of climate science research. Nobody with an interest in understanding the processes should be relegated to an enemies list. Neither should their credentials or lack of them be a badge of honor or dishonor. We’re in a new age of research where everybody can contribute. They should be encouraged to do so because in a free system the best work will rise to the top. No more hiding of data and methods. Let’s spend our research money on getting the best data and take advantage of a cloud of reviewers (peers in terms of intellect and interest rather than science club membership) to learn from it.

  97. Thank you Miss Curry; I promise to play nice with the skeptics from now on and even let them use my toys. And I also promise to be nice when I completely ignore them.

  98. Just a sidenote about the chap above who mentioned cold fusion research. F+P’s results were actually replicated by many others, which is why research, if low-key, is still ongoing. The only problem is that conventional physics can’t explain it. Trouble is, if we’d always listened to conventional physics we wouldn’t have progressed in science or engineering at all. Thus F+P were unjustly treated by an overly-skeptical scientific community. Hence skepticism can go too far and also retreat into dogma.

    Bear in mind too that the previous consensus position among scientists was that excess CO2 didn’t appear to affect the planet. I can easily imagine an alternative scenario where scientists were initially given money by a pro-coal government to investigate manmade CO2 and it was sufficient for them to stop when they discovered that manmade CO2 was only 2% of the natural flux. That didn’t happen of course; the original Hadley research being from a government looking to greenwash nuclear power, so they overstated spurious correlations into facts, turned circular reasoning into an art form and massaged the data until it fit the hypothesis. When more money arrived it became totally self-feeding. Of course someone who has spent their working life teaching a dogma, and whose job depends on it, won’t be too inclined to relook at the assumptions it’s all based on.

    That we are continually told to trust the scientists on either side of the divide is quite ridiculous because most folk have an inner agenda – even if they don’t realize it. Some of the anti green tech or pro nuclear stuff I’ve read on this site has also amounted to unscientific disinformation.

  99. Does a climate scientist lose his credibility when he refers to a successful campaign to oust a skeptical editor as “plugging the leak”?

    CRU scientist Tom Wigley wrote that he intended to get Saiers removed from the editorial board of Geophysical Research Letters. After he succeeded in this effort, he wrote: “The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there.”

    Plugging a leak generally refers to keeping a secret.

  100. To the graduate students and young scientists in fields related to climate research .. welcome to the ranks of the NCAA player who didn’t use drugs but some of his teammates did, the honest Wall Street broker, and the non-pedophile priest.

    You probably did absolutely nothing to be put into the position you maybe in now, but the actions of others in your field of endeavour have affected your future. The best you can hope for is to be “put on probation” while you retrieve your “good name.”

    You probably also know by now, that the science is never settled. The only folks who believe that are fools, idiots and politicians. The old adage that those who lay down with dogs, get up with fleas applies to those politicians as well. Climate Science has been used, this time on an international level. Your “good name” was used.

  101. To Barry R.

    At ClimateProgress, I asked Dr. Curry what her thoughts were about the following comment Kennenth Trenberth made in an October, 2009 email to Michael Mann. Unfortunately, the post got deleted.

    Kenneth Trenberth: The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.

  102. Serendipitous is the simultaneous publication of Dr, Curry’s letter by Andy Revkin at the New York Times’ Dot Earth site. But most main stream media has kept their fingers in their ears. As if by self-delusion they can wish away the millions (billions) who are discussing ClimateGate around the world.

    Part of the arrogance exhibited by CRU and commented on by Dr. Curry is in the refusal to face up to certain discomfiting facts. Until the NY Times and Washington Post, TV networks and other mainstream media accept the leaked documents confirming dangerous unethical behavior by key representatives of climate science – there will be little resolution. Or progress.

    Like any addict in denial, until you admit you have a problem, you have no chance for recovery. Waiting for the enlightened response.

  103. I believe that we need to see this for the patronising rubbish that it really is matching that produced by Monbiot, it has no positive connotations whatsoever and I’m amazed that it’s given space here. Judith believes that this is a temporary hiccup that will be solved by spouting a few platitudes and then back to normal but it isn’t. What we are seeing is the falsification of AGW and the surrounding scientific fraud and what is required is humility and apology after the hubris and ignorance that has proceded this. It isn’t about how they can deal with us ridiculous skeptiks but how we can unwind from their untenable positions with any degree of credibility intact.

  104. @ Judith Curry (05:13:45) :

    —> “I wish the skeptical technical blogs had taken on the papers presented at the Heartland Conference. Peter Webster engaged extensively with one of the authors of a paper at Heartland Conference, and pointed out in detail the flaws in the analysis. The scientist pretty much agreed with Peter, but then continues to present the same arguments. Peter Webster asked Steve McIntyre to do this, but Steve declined saying he wanted to focus on the higher impact papers in the peer reviewed literature. Fair enough, but the stuff at the Heartland Conference feeds the political noise machine.”

    This is another problem I have with your approach, Dr Curry. You seem to want to claim victimhood from the political noise machine while stating honest intentions of openness.

    —->This is the pot calling the kettle black, while holding the very charcoal that made it so.

    It seems that the political noise machine was doing just fine until it started to turn against you, and suddenly you’ve had this epiphany of a need for openness in climate science. While realizing and expressing your epiphany to trained scientists who have been skeptical of your arguments, you claim you are being victimized by propaganda spouted from the skeptical side that now isn’t correctly policing itself.

    I might listen to you if it weren’t so amusing. Science is supposed to withstand tests like this with no problem, and the scientists who are honest should reap the benefits of being honest, even after years/decades of challenges. If you and your colleagues are so below reproach as to demand that those with questions police everyone else with questions before we present our own questions about what the truth really is about our climate… then I truly fear for science in general, but particularly climate science. You guys seem wholly geared towards supporting an agenda that you cannot see that questioning science is what science is all about.

  105. Addendum…

    Dr Curry, you said this:

    “The public needs some help in differentiating some of the garbage that is out there from serious skepticism.”

    No, Wrong. As scientists we shouldn’t give two spits what amount the public understands. Influencing public opinion is the realm of politics, NOT SCIENCE. What we should be concerned with is honesty. You are intermingling politics and science in this one sentence, and you seem to fail to realize that.

  106. Evan, did you use USHCN v2 or the original data set ?

    USHCN-1. (And since there is no gridding, the “station-average” results might be lower than the final results.)

    USHCN-2, as you say, yields an even greater upwards adjustment.

  107. Gold Stars for the insightful comments here.
    Normally I wouldn’t allow myself to read such a letter. It just drips with moral superiority. Stuff milder than this makes me flee to WUWT every day just for a dose of intellectual dignity and perspective.

    The letter actually made me feel humiliated, moreso even than the FOI emails did.
    Open contempt I’m used to from reading RC. Veiled contempt makes me feel small.
    Is there anything that embarrasses those in power?

    Like after having had an intimate, personal doctor visit, one overhears the doctor dictating for the transcriptionist, using unflattering descriptions.

    I’m actually embarrassed by the whole AGW belief system. Like being caught buying a lurid tabloid by someone you know.

    The whole thing, to me, boils down to the fact that we won’t ever be able to measure the effects of any steps we take to try change the climate. We can barely measure the current temps. We certainly can’t seem to add them up or average them in any useful way. We know nothing about the sun. We know next to nothing about the earth’s many complex systems. Just because we can take pictures of it from space and map the ocean floors, make a video we can watch on TV we think we know it.. Arrogant of me to use the term “we” isn’t it?
    Really, you mean people BELIEVE this? Blush! The death of common sense.

    The state of climate science is still in “The Blind Men and the Elephant” stage, in my mind.

    Sort Of Dunno Nothin’ – Peter Denahy

  108. One of the things she said is that they should not have to answer the same question or accusation over and over again… That is correct but I have not seen them answer a skeptical thought in a way that makes me say okay that has been resolved. Rather they dismiss what skptics are saying out of hand, ignore it, or simply state that one of their community have published a paper, based on information that is not accessibility by the way, about the issue and then claim how dumb we are for not simply accepting their conclusions. So basically if we believe them we give into a huge number of fallacies that would actually prove that we did not have a brain in our heads to begin with.

    Look engaging us means taking what we say seriously and then doing the old fashioned, okay lets try to replicate it. Giving us ‘adjusted’ temperatures and then calling us stupid for questioning how you arrived at that dataset does not help us feel like you care. Actually it is REALLY condescending.

    I don’t know I think that the press and the scientists are simply sticking to the same old play book. Ignore the skeptics and pull in the cash. I think that they think we are going somewhere.

  109. Judith,

    With all due respect, core climate research values have been revealed. I suggest the best thing sincere climatologists can do is drop the global warming hysteria, go out for lunch, apologize to everyone, raise a familly and wait another two hundred years of satellite measurements.

  110. Ms. Curry

    Can you explain this statement?

    “We won the war — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, and climate and energy legislation is near the top of the U.S. agenda,” Dr. Curry said. “Why keep fighting all these silly battles and putting ourselves in this position?”

    Are you now just playing CYA?

    source : http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/28/science/earth/28hack.html?_r=1

    If this statement is truly yours, then you need to step aside. It proves that you failed to fully evaluate both sides of one of the most significant scientific debates of our time. One wonders what else could you be so wrong about?

    The above quote is nothing short of irresponsible.

    I apologize in advance if that is not your quote.

  111. harpo (22:19:45) :

    Paltridge wrote in an April 6, 2007 op-ed entitled “Global Warming – Not Really a Done Deal?”

    [“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,”]
    ———-

    This is a serious observation and I think that is exactly what is happening now and will continue to happen for sometime. So much money, credibility, reputations have been invested in this gamble that even if AGW is proved false by falling temperatures over the next 20 years they will simply say (as they have already done) “the underlying warming has been masked by the cooling trend.” 10 years of flat temps plus 20 years of cooler temps = 30 years which is the accepted definition of climate I think so at that point no more “it’s just weather.”

    This would be funny if lives and so much money were not at stake.

  112. “There is no question that there is a political noise machine in existence that feeds on research and statements from climate change skeptics.”

    By this statement, she is implying, imo, that the political noise machine exists on one side only. I have trouble reconciling this kind of statement with someone who is truly thoughtful and unbiased.

  113. Roger Knights – rebuttal list.

    I was in Staples yesterday and spied a pack of t-shirt transfers that you can run through an inkjet printer. Could I ask that a rebuttal list be of a size and shape that could easily be printed on a t-shirt? We could all then buy some cheap, white Ts from Walmart or equivalent, spend a couple of bucks on printer ink and solve the perennial Christmas gift problem. Especially for those few WUWT fans with Warmist friends.

  114. How sad is this situation that Dr. Curry should receive so much praise for actually admitting that colleagues should not be manipulating data and strong-arming editorial boards to prevent opposing viewpoints from being heard. Her statements should be a given; a bare minimum in science and hardly worthy of praise.

    Then she writes:

    “But the “skeptical” arguments by scientists that are qualified by virtue of the training, hard work in doing analyses, and engagiement in the dialogue by joining the relevant professional societies, deserve to be heard.”

    So once again we have the logical fallacy that only those who belong to the proper ‘club’ have the ability to think rationally on climate change. All others, no matter how valid their arguments, can be summarily ignored on the grounds that they do not have the proper pedigree! This would include the likes of Anthony, Steve M., Lord Mockton and many of the others who have done the hard work of pointing out that the ‘climate king has no clothes’.

    It would be nice if she would come down from her Ivory Tower and talk science, instead of maintaining her elitist attitudes and condescending tones. But then, she might have to admit that her position is untenable.

  115. 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!

    Dr. Curry, not “trying it” is not an option in the case of publishing scientific research. If you don’t publish or archive your data and methods fairly contemporaneously with your research and so that any interested person can get it, you don’t even have any research to either promote or defend in the first place.

    That’s the way the Scientific Method and Process works. This issue is not about anyone’s “core values” in the sense of any particular person acting in concert with what can be entirely his or her own subjective values. It’s about doing Science objectively, which is indeed the only way it can be done. Try it.

  116. Jim (06:57:21) “If you have published in a science journal, what legitimate reasons would you have for not releasing the code? IMO, if you won’t release the code, you should not be allowed to publish.”

    This is a question I expected in response to my comments.

    It underscores that many may not realize there are legitimate (not necessarily malicious) reasons for not releasing code.

    It seems we have a topic requiring further discussion in the years ahead. (This is certainly not a simple issue that can be summed up in a few lines. Data release is the simple issue.)

  117. *******************
    Paul Vaughan (09:33:49) :

    Jim (06:57:21) “If you have published in a science journal, what legitimate reasons would you have for not releasing the code? IMO, if you won’t release the code, you should not be allowed to publish.”

    This is a question I expected in response to my comments.

    It underscores that many may not realize there are legitimate (not necessarily malicious) reasons for not releasing code.

    It seems we have a topic requiring further discussion in the years ahead. (This is certainly not a simple issue that can be summed up in a few lines. Data release is the simple issue
    ********************
    Could you at least list a few reasons? You are not really answering the question. Surely is isn’t all that complicated!!!

  118. To understand Curry, all one has to do is read the political philosophy of Hegel, Woodrow Wilson, Rousseau, etc.

  119. Jeremy (07:23:23) “If you were talking about physics, chemistry, or biology, then possibly.

    Biological modeling is at least as difficult as, if not a lot more difficult than (depending on context), climate modeling. When I used to work on ecological modeling, my bosses were happy if they got within an order of magnitude of reality. That job cured me of any earlier naivety about modeling (of highly complex systems).

  120. Bernie Madoff All Over Again!

    That is one context of ClimateGate. We have the appearance of respectability with Madoff being a former chairman of NASD, and Jones being the Director of CRU. How could a people of such reputation participate in, much less, originate what are possibly the largest scams in the history of the world?

    It is precisely because Madoff was so respectable that he was able to pull it off. It is also because Jones and company commanded a high degree of respect in the scientific community that they were able to go a decade without releasing their data and methods. Any sophmore refusing to reveal her work or methods would be given a failing grade. Why not the professor?

    My attention to the climate debate started years ago when watching CSPAN. Michael Mann was defending his hockey stick in front of a Congressional panel, and Steve McIntyre and Dr. Wegman were there, also. I remember thinking that Mann was probably the most arrogant character I had ever seen. His verbal tap dancing simply did not seem adequate for someone so confident in his work, and his appeals to authority and peer review seemed a bit casual.

    Michael Mann’s scam may turn out to be the biggest scam in the history of the world. It would be a travesty if ClimateGate were allowed to cool, and formerly respectable people like Mann and Jones are allowed to continue living off public largess. Perhaps Mann and Jones need to be behind bars, just like their fellow traveler, Bernie Madoff.
    [snip]

  121. Although I applaud her letter, by nature, all scientists should be skeptical. The constant reference to those seeking truth and not simply confirmation of beliefs is quite disheartening. The climate community needs “skeptics” or, as we have seen by this entire debacle, the entirety of their work will begin to become nothing more than a biased circular argument.

  122. JamesG said:

    “Just a sidenote about the chap above who mentioned cold fusion research. F+P’s results were actually replicated by many others, which is why research, if low-key, is still ongoing. The only problem is that conventional physics can’t explain it. Trouble is, if we’d always listened to conventional physics we wouldn’t have progressed in science or engineering at all. Thus F+P were unjustly treated by an overly-skeptical scientific community. Hence skepticism can go too far and also retreat into dogma.”

    Cold Fusion is still a good example of how science, especially a “break through” is supposed to work. Publish, present ALL the data and the method, then allow the critics to attack. New ideas are ALWAYS attacked by the “standard wisdom” and go through a trial by fire. That is to be expected if you are a scientist. (A thick skin is mandatory)

    Another recent science advance was the idea ulcers were caused by the bacteria Helicobacter pylori. “..the hypothesis that peptic ulcers are caused by bacteria was initially viewed as preposterous by many gastroenterologists…” http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Ulcers.one.html I remember when this initially hit the news and the established authorities were scathing.

    Very very few scientific advances are going to be welcomed with open arms, that is part of human nature as well as what make the Scientific Method so powerful. If the idea makes it through the gauntlet and still stands then it was a good idea. In some cases it make take a generation to become accepted in the mainstream – Darwin and evolution come to mind.

    The short circuiting of the Scientific Method by the AGW group is what has me so angry. We do not need that type of “modification” of the Scientific Method to creep into the culture surrounding science. The fact that a letter such as the one above needs to be written means we need to take a close look at exactly what type of ethics is now being taught to our science students.

  123. It may be of interest to some of you folks that my primary interest in the atmospheric sciences is in long term natural climate variability and the use of multi-decadal and inter-annual signals to make accurate seasonal forecasts…and that I have recently contacted at least one prominent skeptic in the search for a university at which I can conduct research in this field with the support of the faculty as I’m close to finishing my masters degree and in the hunt for a Ph.D. program. My current university is inextricably linked to the IPCC and I know for certain tha I do not wish to remain where I am.

  124. *****************
    Paul Vaughan (09:33:49) :
    *****************
    OK Paul, I’ve given you some time to answer. You are exhibiting the same sort of hubris and condescending behavior as the Hockey Team. You just want us to take your word that you can’t publish code.

    I am a programmer. I write code for a living, as apparently you do. I have worked for both private companies and the government. In no case have I ever had IP rights to the code I write. Of course, a private company would not publish their code, but we are discussing government funded code. Unless you work for a private company, your assertion that you can’t publish code is bunk. If your work is funded by the public, then ultimately the public owns it and can get it by the FOIA. And no matter what, if you can’t publish the code, any paper that uses it should not be published by journals.

  125. Jim (09:46:12) “Could you at least list a few reasons? You are not really answering the question. Surely is isn’t all that complicated!!!”

    I’ll give you one example beyond intellectual property:
    The code I write is not in linear format. It is organized in (sometimes vast) 3-D arrays. There is no way to list it in lines. The file sizes go over 100MB, so I can neither ftp nor e-mail the files even though I have access to a generous university online system. Bottom line: If someone wanted to bar me from publishing for not realeasing my code, I’d have to live with that outcome (but in my view publishing is overrated so I wouldn’t be upset).

    I’ve never had a need to ask for anyone’s code. I read journal articles & webpages and reproduce calculations independently. As for “superconfuser fantasies”: That stuff is such hilarious abstraction (based on absolutely untenable assumptions) that I wouldn’t waste a minute of my time on it.

    The issue I see is data availability – and I have been quite vocal about that around here in the past. I can’t do my own calculations without data.

    [NOTE - FYI, this was posted before the previous rebuke of PV was posted. ~ Evan]

  126. To Dr. Curry,

    I would add a significant aspect to your open letter to graduate students. Many a climate scientist has been led (or is just naturally so inclined) to believe they are all-knowing. To the degree that some who have never logged, planted, nourished, clearcut, then graded 3rd, and sometimes 4th generation trees for various markets, seem to have suddenly developed what they view is the ultimate knowledge of tree ring parameters. Something that loggers could only have developed over many generations of handed down wisdom and knowledge based on field experience.

    In other words, what graduate students need right now is a heavy dose of humble pie from the likes of us. The front-line folks who have been in agricultural families and logging families for generations. We know climate, and we know weather pattern variation, to a far greater degree than you. Not through sudden book knowledge or experiments with models, but through generations of historical and oral histories and experiences of the land we care for, the produce we grow, and the historical patterns of weather variation that determines whether or not we survive during cold and warm years and decades. Yet we are being forced to accept what is being trotted out as this new, unprecedented climate change? By babies of climate change no less, whose heads are blown to ugly size with nothing more than sudden puffery, even at your hands I dare say.

    If we were to believe this nonsense about hockey stick climate warming, and some have made this mistake, we would be left with ruined crops and bankrupted lives. So here is my challenge, you had better take care to get this right, and understand finally that having a Ph.D. in climate science is no guarantee. If you don’t get this right and manage to disregard the field experience wisdom of the ages, you can kiss the food on your plate, the dinner wine you drink, and the house you set in, good by.

  127. Arijigoku (06:25:19) :

    “Einstein did not start his research career at Princeton, but rather at a post office.”

    At a post office? You might want to check that one out…

    Thanks, I won a bet with myself that someone would notice.

  128. There is a “political noise machine” and it has been 99.9% behind AGW. I know because like many here I believed the AGW nonsense because it was the only thing out there. I had to do my own searching to find the answers. So, Dr. Curry, please try to have a little credibility.

    What you should have said to the grad students is for them to discard everything they’ve been taught about climate science. The science needs to be completely rebuilt using true scientific principles. The core of your science is rotten. It’s time to discard the blinders and see the truth. It’s not just CRU, it’s New Zealand, it’s Australia, it’s NOAA and NCAR and GISS and NCDC … It’s a cancer that has destroyed your field of study. Nothing less than complete removal of dozens of those who have been complicit will be acceptable. Only then call you start fresh and rebuild.

    As for the nice little video on UHI, I’d also like to see this as an article (if it hasn’t already been done). I’d like to know how the rural stations were chosen. They could have been cherry picked. I’d suggest using the closest station that meets the “rural” definition. This would avoid any potential cherry picking. If the video holds up to this analysis than it should be shown on Fox News and the little boy and his dad should be interviewed. Oh, and maybe Dr. Curry could explain what this means from a climate scientists perspective.

  129. At the heart of this issue is how reasonable and rational people deal with institutional AGW frauds, cheats, and liars. I have served my time in the “trenches of the climate war” in the context of attempting to prevent my friends from being fired for voicing their scientific findings and to prevent my state and federal governments from jumping off a cliff like crazed lemmings. There is no question that there is a political noise machine in existence, funded to the tune of tens of $billions, and designed to enslave humanity with authoritarian nincompoopery and insanity. In grappling with this issue, I would argue that there are three strategies for dealing with alarmists:

    1. Fire their butts

    2. Prosecute, convict, and incarcerate the fraudsters

    3. Clean house in Academia and government to rid our institutions of mendacious con persons and their syncophants

    Note to young climate scientists: change your major. Your professor is going to jail soon, or at least is going to be discredited and fired. Try some other science, preferably a real one.

  130. Re: SABR Matt (10:21:55)

    There aren’t many holes in the fences blocking attempts at nonalarmist PhDs at present. I expect that will change in future. Any research funding opportunities I’ve found recently would require that I change focus away from the natural climate variations which I investigate. For example, one agency suggested I come up with something about catastrophic consequences of CO2. I was led to believe related funding could be generous. I got no sense that scientific rigor would be required.

  131. I think it’s important for us to realize that the CRU leaks are a seminal moment in time, so to speak, we should never let it go. On the other hand, we should realize that this is just a pattern of human nature that happens everywhere, all the time. It points to a bigger picture of Corruption for political gain.

    The AGW scientists like Curry are mostly True Believers, their belief in man’s overuse of energy trumps any natural skepticism they may have. They see their role as ‘workers’ towards a greater good, when sensible public policy will reign supreme over a formerly ravenous Robber Baron corporatocracy feeding a generally stupid population. Or at least that’s how the huckster Mr. Gore helped to sell the plan to everybody.

    But the AGW people don’t seem to realize that the corrupt Big Energy and Big Manufacturing interests are firmly in control behind the scenes of the UN apparatus, and want the new political changes the (corrupt) AGW science is being created to justify.

    Any scientist or engineer at some point has to step back from the numbers and ask, “What is the problem here I’m trying to solve?”. I think this straightforward analysis by Norm Kalmanovitch of the CO2 warming hypothesis discounts it quite easily:

    http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/CO2_forcing_and_models.pdf

    There are a lot of dots out there to be connected wrt to ‘Climate Change’. Such as who created the UN IPCC, and why? Why are it’s Terms of Reference to find AGW and ignore everything else of scientific relevance? Can statistical models and graphs be massaged to show AGW, even if it wasn’t there? Of course.

    But some of the dots that need connecting is who created the UN in the first place? It’s not an elected body. Why is Al Gore who championed NAFTA for the currently in free-fall USA, featured so prominently in this debate? He was / is a member of the Club of Rome, a UN think tank that wants “Limits to Growth”, and that “hit upon the idea” of selling air pollution as the reason for people to declare “Man as enemy of the Earth”. And Al has a business already raking in cash from so called carbon credits. This is primarily a political and big business issue masquerading as a scientific and moral issue. Malthusian population reduction strategy as Environmentalism. And to stress the obvious point I rarely hear – we can have CO2 ‘emissions’ without having air pollution. That’s where our funding should go, developing scrubbers etc.

    And that’s just touching the surface of Al Gore Warming, this new ‘pope’ is married into the Schiff international banking family, the same people who control along with the Rockefellers and Rothschilds basically everything in the world, including the UN and all it’s approved ‘Green’ NGO’s. We are in trouble here, we are rapidly approaching a totalitarian world super union where no ‘heretical’ ideas like Truth will be allowed (as the leaks from CRU help to illustrate).

    And the natural defenders of freedom and goodness are either watching TV or buying a mercury vapour lightbulb or analysing a statistical data set. We have to start looking at the bigger picture. AGW was a solution looking for a problem and the Malthusian elite wanted to scare us with it, and they succeeded for a while. But from my investigation into the theory of AGW, nothing about it stands up at all, nothing. From the fact that CO2 emitted at ground level stays there:

    http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/carbondioxide.htm

    To the whole idea that CO2 is a very ‘green’ gas, the higher the concentration of it (at ground level, where it is) the greater the amount of crop yields, and the greater the resulting biodiversity. Below 200 ppm CO2 plants die, at 1,000 to 1,500 ppm CO2 they thrive. These are facts not theories. And then one wonders how ‘science’ has anything to do with the mantra, the new Carbon Cult of trying to reduce CO2 production to ‘Save the Planet’. We’re dealing with a new religion here, and science is no longer that relevant. Gore is even in Newsweek saying he’s leading the new cult / religion.

    But finally, what about the whole idea that even the Greenhouse Effect theory doesn’t hold the water we presumed it did? Hans Schreuder has put out some very convincing analysis that could transcend the whole debate:

    http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Falsification_of_the_Atmospheric_CO2_Greenhouse_Effects.pdf

    As well as the topical:

    http://tech-know.eu/uploads/EPAInput.pdf

    Why is it, that the Earth with it’s vaunted Greenhouse Effect is so much colder than the Moon, when the Sun is shining?

  132. It underscores that many may not realize there are legitimate (not necessarily malicious) reasons for not releasing code.

    Nah, not if you are doing Science. In fact, in respect what to a lot of the elite Climate Scientists publish, the code is their science, especially since they also seem to think that fiddling with coded Models is doing Science, you know, conducting “experiments” and such.

    Not releasing code would be equivalent to an alleged scientist publishing only his/her conclusions nakedly, without anything else whatsoever in support of them.

    n.b. – that’s one of the things which started to alert me to the possibility that the ippc, enc., was not doing Science back in 2000 when I decided to look at the AGW issue simply because I wanted to understand it – I had never had any idea that Scientists would not be doing Science.

    It happened that the ipcc was about to release the TAR. I saw the press release, or whatever it was, from the ipcc stating findings, then eagerly looked for the actual TAR which was intended to support the findings. It wasn’t there! I thought there must be something wrong with me, but no, it turned out that they were only going to publish the TAR later, and they didn’t tell me even that or when, at least as far as I could find.

    I gave them a pass back then, but things only got worse.

  133. Perhaps I missed it in my quick scan of the emails, but as near as I can understand, Dr Curry still has not grasped the significance of the skeptical view.

    1. ANY scientific study, (peer reviewed or not), INCLUDING HERS, which is based on the manipulated data, is now flawed; and does not have any scientific value, until the data has been fixed, and the conclusions based on real data, have been reviewed!

    2. In the second place, the manipulated data can’t be fixed until the weather STATION PROBLEMS have been addressed and fixed! The raw data has no value unless the stations are giving true readings, or at least are being compensated correctly!

    3. The billions of dollars and the thousands of hours used in scientific study, based on the bad data, are wasted. It is one thing to spend money to prove or disprove a given hypotheses; it is something else when it is wasted on purposefully corrupted data.

    4. In the future don’t confuse mythical and political skepticism with data, methodology and transparency skepticism.
    Stephen

  134. Rats deserting the sinking ship is right!

    The alarmists think they have a PR problem, when the real problem is their complete lack of scientific integrity.

    Too little, too late, Judith.

  135. Dr. Curry has opened herself to dialogue with scientists and others who have been marginalized for a long time. That is a beginning.

  136. she had the courage to invite Steve McIntyre to give a presentation at Georgia Tech

    Dr. Curry, please invite Steve back again soon for a symposium on “Climate Science and ClimateGate: How Can Science Survive Politics”. This thread shows that there is much interest in this topic. Invite the MSM to cover it.

  137. *************
    Paul Vaughan (10:40:29) :

    Jim (09:46:12) “Could you at least list a few reasons? You are not really answering the question. Surely is isn’t all that complicated!!!”

    I’ll give you one example beyond intellectual property:
    The code I write is not in linear format. It is organized in (sometimes vast) 3-D arrays. There is no way to list it in lines. The file sizes go over 100MB, so I can neither ftp nor e-mail the files even though I have access to a generous university online system. Bottom line: If someone wanted to bar me from publishing for not realeasing my code, I’d have to live with that outcome (but in my view publishing is overrated so I wouldn’t be upset).

    I’ve never had a need to ask for anyone’s code. I read journal articles & webpages and reproduce calculations independently. As for “superconfuser fantasies”: That stuff is such hilarious abstraction (based on absolutely untenable assumptions) that I wouldn’t waste a minute of my time on it.

    The issue I see is data availability – and I have been quite vocal about that around here in the past. I can’t do my own calculations without data.

    [NOTE - FYI, this was posted before the previous rebuke of PV was posted. ~ Evan]
    ******************
    I apologize in that I didn’t know you had answered. I have an 8 gig thumb drive. I’ll mail it to you (just kidding, but you get the point.) 100 mb ain’t squat. I just did an ubuntu update that was about that size as I recall. It took an hour or two, but was certainly doable. I wasn’t using a torrent which would have made it much faster. Size really isn’t an issue, now is it?

  138. Below 200 ppm CO2 plants die, at 1,000 to 1,500 ppm CO2 they thrive.

    That’s it! They’re trying to save us from a take-over by the Vegetables!

    REPLY:
    The “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” comes to mind:

  139. Dr Curry doesn’t seem to understand the fact that the only good scientists are skeptics. Being a skeptic is a basic requirement of the Scientific Method. And we see the result of simply accepting the conclusions of those in the CRU, the IPCC, and most all of academia. Without answering skeptics’ questions, the current AGW belief is relentlessly advocated by rent-seeking grant applicants in an environment where $Billions are handed out every year — almost exclusively to those making the increasingly questionable assertion that a harmless trace gas will cause climate catastrophe and doom.

    Very true, Smokey. But, like they’ve hijacked Peer Review, they’ve hijacked the term “skeptic” to mean something other the original meaning.

  140. That’s it! They’re trying to save us from a take-over by the Vegetables!

    REPLY: The “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” comes to mind

    Hey, wait a minute. The Watermelons are already upon us!

  141. A Response to selected statements of Professor Judith Curry –

    “At the heart of this issue is how climate researchers deal with skeptics.”

    Also at the heart of this issue is how AGW greenhouse gas proponents shut out legitimate research whose work does not fall in line with their views and how researchers who do not curry favor (or at least keep their mouths shut) are ostracized, marginalized and are met with an organized wall of resistance that forces their research out of the mainstream and attempts to ruin their reputations. This has not changed nor will it change as long as the current climate leadership is allowed free reign.

    “There is no question that there is a political noise machine in existence that feeds on research and statements from climate change skeptics.”

    Interesting how Professor Curry completely leaves out the predominate and largely vicious political noise machine of AGW greenhouse gas proponents. I suppose the AGW crowd finds it unfair and troubling that some critics chose to fight fire with fire.

    “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.”

    Yes, it would be nice if how AGW greenhouse gas proponents started to adhere to the principles of the scientific method including a return to a legitimate peer review process instead of the appalling corruption of it brought about by AGW greenhouse gas proponent machinations.

    “Ignoring skeptics coming from outside the field is inappropriate”

    Moreover, ignoring , marginalizing, and attempting to destroy the reputations of climate scientists within the field whose legitimate research is not well aligned with the status quo is outrageous.

    “So with this reaffirmation of core climate research values”

    Obviously, any reaffirmation of core climate research values will result in business as usual.

    I believe Professor Curry may well be are sincere about changing climate of climate science from the abject poverty of respect and consideration for all aspects of climate research as has been historically and repeatedly demonstrated by the AGW greenhouse gas thugocrasy, but a glance at RealClimate and Climate Progress doesn’t leave much room for hope. They are going for option #2.

  142. Re: Jim (11:21:55) & J. Peden (11:05:43)

    My comments have been influenced by first-hand experience with messy administrative politics.

    I have no interest in others’ code. I do my own calculations. I just need data.

  143. By the way, a copy of “A Response to selected statements of Professor Judith Curry” was offered as post to comments on Climate Progress under the blog entry “An open letter (etc.)”. Any bets on whether it gets accepted ?

  144. To Paul Vaughan and to those saying that young climate scientists should walk away and find something else to do for a living…

    I *refuse* to walk away from this. This issue threatens to strip humanity of its freedoms and destroy the American way of life at the hands of global government. I point blank REFUSE to walk away when I believe I can contribute to stopping this disaster. I have a responsibility to take action and do what I can and so do all of you. If you have the ability to do science well in the area of climate change research, then you SHOULD. Shame on those who simply roll over and accept the doom of others to avoid personal hardship.

    I have not given up…I believe there are islands of good research in a sea of politicized garbage and I intend to find them.

  145. Paul Vaughan (11:50:00)

    I have no interest in others’ code. I do my own calculations. I just need data.

    That’s fine with me. I was just jumping on the question of code release you happened to offer to try to make a point which didn’t have to have anything to do with what you actually do. In the AGW world the elite Climate Scientists have offered up all kinds of invalid and deceptive reasons for not releasing their data and code, which seems to have finally resulted in them having to obstruct FOI requests, which were obviously related to what they do.

  146. ************
    Paul Vaughan (11:50:00) :
    Re: Jim (11:21:55) & J. Peden (11:05:43)
    My comments have been influenced by first-hand experience with messy administrative politics.
    I have no interest in others’ code. I do my own calculations. I just need data.
    ****************
    I understand your personal take on it, but this isn’t a coding contest we are discussing. What we are discussing is the verification and validation of published papers. In that case, we need to see the raw data, methods used to process the data, and any code or other necessary items. It has to do with replication, validation, openness of science, and confidence in the conclusions.

    Certainly others should take the raw data and apply their own methods. That is another necessary part of science. But, again, we are talking about validation/replication, etc.

  147. @ Paul Vaughan (10:40:29) :
    ————
    I’ll give you one example beyond intellectual property:
    The code I write is not in linear format. It is organized in (sometimes vast) 3-D arrays. There is no way to list it in lines. The file sizes go over 100MB, so I can neither ftp nor e-mail the files even though I have access to a generous university online system. Bottom line: If someone wanted to bar me from publishing for not realeasing my code, I’d have to live with that outcome (but in my view publishing is overrated so I wouldn’t be upset).
    ————

    Paul, leaving aside your lack of need for someone else’s code (kudos to you for being a good coder), this example doesn’t hold water, imho. 100MB is nothing, I regularly download such amounts over ftp and universities should have plenty of space/bandwidth to share.
    I also do not understand this ’3D arrays of code’ mention. I’ve used a lot of different languages, even visual OO languages and I don’t know what you’re talking about there. All code can be shared in some fashion. No one is asking you to convert it to text-file format before sharing it. Let those who wish to replicate it deal with finding the right compiler/interpreter.

    Also, what kind of scientist doesn’t use something with an open-source (or free to academics) compiler/interpreter? Science is supposed to be open, just like the FOSS community.

  148. Re: SABR Matt (12:09:45)

    I’ve been doing research on my own coin for 11 months now. My funding was slashed to zero 2 weeks after I publicly announced one of my findings about natural climate variations. Whatever funding opportunities I’ve found since then would come with strings that would shut down my investigations.

    I hear you loud & clear.

  149. Data should be made available, but not necessarily code.

    One option is to agree to disagree respectfully.

    I do not wish to discuss this further at this time. Thanks to all for their contributions on the subject. The exchange has been quite illuminating.

    Regards,
    Paul.

  150. Jim (10:38:15) :

    *****************
    Paul Vaughan (09:33:49) :
    *****************
    OK Paul, I’ve given you some time to answer. You are exhibiting the same sort of hubris and condescending behavior as the Hockey Team. You just want us to take your word that you can’t publish code.

    I am a programmer. I write code for a living, as apparently you do. I have worked for both private companies and the government. In no case have I ever had IP rights to the code I write. Of course, a private company would not publish their code, but we are discussing government funded code. Unless you work for a private company, your assertion that you can’t publish code is bunk. If your work is funded by the public, then ultimately the public owns it and can get it by the FOIA. And no matter what, if you can’t publish the code, any paper that uses it should not be published by journals.

    I would like to support the point of view that if the data and the meta data, i.e. the context of the data taking, are available in the public domain , a scientist worth his/her salt should be able to write the code to process it. It is not an efficient way, in one sense, but if you have followed E.M.Smith’s struggle with the GISS programing you could think that it would be more efficient to write the program from scratch.

    This for scientific disciplines where one cannot redo the experiment. In physics, chemistry, biology there is no reason to put the data on the public domain because the scientific method requires an independent repetition/confirmation of the experiment. That is why in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN there are two similar experimental set ups taking data. For independent verification of any important results. Nothing beats experiments.

  151. I certainly applaud your private research pursuits, Mr. Vaughan…I didn’t mean to suggest that you were rolling over, just to be clear. I’m just trying to explain why I want to pursue this kind of research academically…even though I know it is going to be very difficult for me.

  152. Judy’s pejoratives reveal her perspective. Should she, however, carefully read the comments on this site and at CA, she might find that, collectively, there is a greater body of technical knowledge here than in her own evidently incestuous ivory tower. At the end of the day, the burden of proof is on her, not on the citizens that fund her every paycheck.

  153. Curry is full of bs. She’s either fully involved with the AGW agenda or she’s more naive (and dumber) than I possibly could have thought.

  154. I would like to explain this statement

    “We won the war — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, and climate and energy legislation is near the top of the U.S. agenda,” Dr. Curry said. “Why keep fighting all these silly battles and putting ourselves in this position?”

    that appeared in Revkin’s NYTimes article, from my statement originally posted on climateaudit

    If you look at the complex context of all of my comments on that thread, i was trying to understand why the scientists in the CRU emails did what they did. The statement was putting myself in their shoes, the “we” refers to them, i do not include myself in the “we”. This may sound like sophistry, i don’t intend it to. I did not participate in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, i claim no share in the Nobel Prize. Also, i am on the record over at climateaudit as being opposed to cap and trade.

    Also, the “post office” should have been “patent office” obviously, a brain slip (that was not caught be a number of other people who read this before i submitted it).

    Also, i like one of the posts i saw wanting to get rid of terms like “skeptic”, “denier”, “team”. I agree, these reflect the tribalism that needs to be broken down.

    I am a very small player in all this (not mentioned in the cru emails, not a participant in the IPCC FAR). Putting myself out there in this way is not a comfortable place to me. Please don’t make this about me, i am hoping this will be a start of some reasoned dialogue on this issue.

  155. Dr Curry said:
    “At the heart of this issue is how climate researchers deal with skeptics.” She then mentions the concept of “dealing with” skeptics several more times.
    So, to her way of thinking, skeptics are mere annoyances who need to be “dealt with”.
    Interesting.

  156. Judith Curry (14:40:01) : ..Putting myself out there in this way is not a comfortable place to me.

    Agreed it could not be a very comfortable place for you to be. And the reason why it is not comfortable is because of the enormous power wielded by climate scientists who do their science by manipulation, both of their data and methods and also of the media, hiding data, engaging in ad hominem attacks and avoiding criticism.

    After all why should merely suggesting that science be open and subject to the scientific method put the person suggesting it in an uncomfortable position!

    No by doing so you are worse than a “denier”, you are an apostate and apostacy is the worst crime in the eyes of the extremist.

    Please don’t make this about me, i am hoping this will be a start of some reasoned dialogue on this issue.

    Agreed. I would love to debate with you sometime.

    darwin:
    darwin (13:55:20) : Curry is full of bs. She’s either fully involved with the AGW agenda or she’s more naive (and dumber) than I possibly could have thought

    You are the Mann and Jones of the “sceptics”, if we could honour you with such a title.

  157. Judith Curry (14:40:01) :

    Thank you for your postings.
    I can’t help but think this is an incredibly teachable
    moment, not just in climate science, but in history.

  158. Guys…you’re acting just as badly as the CRU team here. I disagree with Curry’s characterization of our side being backed by a political noise machine, but there is no need to attack every word she says so roughly. You’re proving the global warming proponents right when they say we don’t listen to reason. I want to listen to reason, and I think we all owe Dr. Curry a fair chance to put her cards on the table without jumping down her throat. She’s in a new location…a new environment and she should be given a chance to adjust.

  159. Mooloo (02:24:21) :

    Roger Knights: I agree with Bob.

    “Don’t get into ever decreasing circles of rebuttal on individual points. Point out the crux of their argument, and don’t be distracted from it.”

    Let’s do both: Have a site (or a sub-section) where one is done, and another where the other is done.

  160. Re: Jeremy (14:45:41)

    Thank you. I’d much rather discuss things like this:

    (Periodicity I recently found in the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) that appears related to solar variation harmonics, Earth orientation parameters, & solar system dynamics.)
    IOD is not yet a well-understood phenomenon. I think we should be devoting our attention to such things as much as possible and putting some of the political hysteria on ice for a few days. Related link: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1319

  161. To Dr. Curry, personally,

    I want to try to explain why there is so much anger over here and why you’re encountering a lot of negative commentary that may be misdirected.

    We in the skeptics camp have been held back, prevented from participating fairly in the debate, personally attacked, villified, and made to feel unwelcome in the halls of science when we dared speak up for our beliefs. There is a lot of repressed (and now, not so repressed) anger and hurt over how we have been treated. You have to understand that although you may not see negative connotations in some of the language you use, it’s the very same language that others in the AGW camp have been using to dismiss and denigrate us for over a decade now.

    Look…I respect your position. I think you’re a bright scientist and a brave person for wanting to reach out to the skeptics and open a dialog on the issues. I think we’re behaving kind of badly here right now because we’re all feeling betrayed by ongoing events. But I am hoping you’ll use some of the comments here as reasons to look at the way you phrase things…to realize some of the words you choose are loaded ones for us and to come at this from the realization that we want the same thing that you do…the objective truth. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt until they prove me wrong and I believe you want the truth just as much as I do.

    Please…don’t take our anger as being necessarily directed at you. We are angry for certain…you just happen to be the only person in the room willing to talk to us who believes in AGW as a real threat and you’re taking heat you shouldn’t have to take all on your own. I hope you will continue to hang around here and comment fairly and with an open mind…demonstrate your knowledge and truth-seeking process and you will fit in just fine. The world needs more people willing to talk openly as you say in your letter.

  162. *****************
    Jeremy (14:45:41) :

    Paul, while that is unsatisfying (I was genuinely curious and was hoping for other examples), I accept.
    *************
    It could be that we aren’t getting a logical reason why code shouldn’t be release because the reason doesn’t exist. On the various forums where I discuss global warming, there seems to be a new meme that the data should be released but not the code.

  163. In response to Curry’s letter from the political science department, I would like to suggest some steps that should be taken before climate “science” can be taken seriously. No one would care if this were just a food fight among a few dozen scientists, but since we are now confronted with a movement to rearrange the entire world economy with trillions of dollars at stake, it’s important that the science, if there is any, be rock solid. The boulder is rolling down the mountain right now, but a few well placed pebbles may divert it from its intended path.

    1. GET RID OF PEER REVIEW. This is now so corrupted by the likes of Mann, Jones, Schmidt, and without doubt by many lesser Manns, Jones, and Schmidts that it is meaningless. In fact, at this point, it’s probably destructive. It will take a generation before the damage is undone.

    Peer review came about because of the high cost of paper journals. This need is gone now that storage is cheap. Set up one or more online journals like arXiv.org and let anyone who wants, publish. The good will be sorted from the bad over time.

    2. DATA AVAILABILITY. Unique data should be archived online, complete with all its metadata and freely available to all. No on can go back in time and get new, independent temperature station measurements. Any data that requires large expensive efforts to collect and analyze should also be freely available with complete documentation, e.g., ice cores. Any other data should be, but that’s up to the scientists. Of course, no one is going to take you seriously at this point if you don’t make the data available. Any publications using public data have to acknowledge the source.

    3. DATA PRESENTATION. Data has errors. Every data point has a measurement error, a calibration error, a systematic error, and so on. The error, correctly calculated, has to be included for every data point on every graph.

    Eliminate the data smoothing. Time series fluctuate and the fluctuations have important information in them. The only reason to draw a line through data points is because you have an a priori theory that predicts the data series. You don’t. Smoothing is just a gimmick to fool the eye and creates stupid controversies about how to deal with end points. It is also a source of dishonesty a la “hide the decline”.

    Spaghetti plots. HUH? Or better, goat entrails. Only a climate scientist with filthy matted waist length hair, dressed in rags, stinking to high heaven, screaming at the top of his lungs, and stoned to the eyeballs can interpret these things.

    4. PROXIES. A proxy is not a proxy until it has been shown by careful measurement, independent of its use, that it provides information about temperature, CO2, whatever. A tree ring is not a thermometer until the confounding effects of sunlight, CO2, water, fertilization, disease, competition, species, nonlinear response, and so on have been understood. If that means spending thirty years tending trees in a real greenhouse under carefully controlled conditions, so be it. It’s not science until then. Same goes for borehole temperatures, sediments, O18, …

    5. COMPUTER CODE. Without exception, every professional programmer who does mission critical work has been horrified by climate science computer code that has been published including GISS_TEMP and Model E. Problems like the sum of squares becoming negative, as documented by HARRY_READ_ME.TXT, have been known and understood since at least the 1950s. There’s no reason that something as simple as computing average temperatures should be corrupted by kindergarden errors. Who knows what’s lurking in the GCM codes? Time for the professional programmers to rip the codes apart and rebuild them so that they perform properly.

    The GCMs also have to be seriously examined by professionals in fluid dynamics unassociated with climate science. Places to look would be the aircraft industry, chemical industry, and even, horrors, the oil industry. They have peoples’ lives and billions of dollars at stake, which tends to concentrate the mind.

    7. MULTIPLE MODELS. Usually presented in spaghetti graphs (see above) and then “averaged” to show us wonderful agreement with data. This is nonsense on thousand foot stilts. By climate science logic, if I have one model says the sky is violet, a second that predicts it’s green, the average is blue, therefore they’re both right. No they’re both wrong. Same goes for the climate models, at best one of them is right and the rest are wrong. Hearing this from an insider makes me certain they’re all wrong. “Kenneth Trenberth: The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

    Instead of temperature anomalies, let’s see global temperature plots, for every season and year. The ones I’ve seen in the IPCC reports don’t look too spiffy with the poles 10 C warmer than reality. As an extra bonus you can’t hide the fact that the Pacific Ocean freezes at the equator in the model. A real good idea would be to post these on the web and let’s all wait ten years to see how the predictions come out before bothering with this anymore.

  164. Texan99 (08:04:05) :

    Does a climate scientist lose his credibility when he refers to a successful campaign to oust a skeptical editor as “plugging the leak”?

    CRU scientist Tom Wigley wrote that he intended to get Saiers removed from the editorial board of Geophysical Research Letters. After he succeeded in this effort, he wrote: “The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there.”

    Plugging a leak generally refers to keeping a secret.

    What a jackass–he’s inadvertently characterized himself as a “plumber” — remember that term?

  165. JamesinCanada (10:59:56) :

    You can do no better than read Christoper Booker’s, ahem, book, to be able to connect the dots.

    The Real Global Warmig Disaster

    He starts with the rise of modern enviromentalism (I deliberately ommit the ‘n’) and moves via The Evil Canadian Maurice Strong through Rio and on.

    Get it from Amazon, or, perha[ps your local Greenpeace store ;-)

  166. Regarding Dr. Curry’s comment about critiquing the Heartland papers:
    Some months back (just after its release) Leif Svalgaard, via a comment on WUWT, simply dismissed one of those papers as wrong. I don’t have the reference –and just which paper and what Leif said isn’t necessary to know here – but venture to guess it was about solar issues.

  167. “they will simply say (as they have already done) “the underlying warming has been masked by the cooling trend.”

    The crazy thing is that there IS an underlying (but natural) warming trend–since the end of the LIA!

  168. bob (09:57:00) :

    Bernie Madoff All Over Again!

    That is one context of ClimateGate. We have the appearance of respectability with Madoff being a former chairman of NASD, and Jones being the Director of CRU. How could a people of such reputation participate in, much less, originate what are possibly the largest scams in the history of the world?

    It is precisely because Madoff was so respectable that he was able to pull it off.
    ======

    Here’s an interesting quote:

    ““There was an honesty oozing out of Moocher such as only dishonest men have. They need it. If one of them looks just ordinarily honest, somebody says, ‘We had better test him, to make sure.’ And almost at once he is found out. So a crook has to seem so honest that it is sheer impiety to suggest making any test.”
    —Lord Dunsany, “A Matter of Business,” in
    Jorkens Has a Large Whiskey, p. 261

  169. I am not a scientist, simply an interested bystander with some scientific background. Enough background to be horrified at the possibility of something as extremely important as Climate Change being “possibly” engineered.

    I, and the rest of humanity, are depending on scientist to develop the proper and factual information our species needs to survive and prosper. We really would appreciate it if you scientist would get your chit together, and quit behaving like self serving politicians.

  170. Judith Curry’s letter shows quite clearly what happens when a scientist comes to believe they have found truth that requires mankind to change in some fnudamental way. They have become “un-scientists.” I felt compelled to challenge Dr. Curry to become a scientists once again, so I wrote her this email. I hope the next few weeks/ months allows her time for contemplation.
    —-
    Dear Dr. Curry,

    I read your open letter on “Watts Up With That.” I have a PhD from Northwestern University (in a social science field), so I know something about science, its practice, history, and philosophy.

    While I applaud your call for openness, transparency, and honest debate – and your efforts to do that yourself – you still seem not to “get” that there are, in fact, real scientists who doubt the validity of the AGW hypothesis. In your letter you only refer to those who are skeptical of the AGW hypothesis as “skeptics,” but never refer to any skeptics as scientists. You never acknowledge that there are scientific findings that are clearly contrary to the AGW hypothesis. Tell me, how do you distinguish “skeptics” from the “scientists” who doubt the AGW hypothesis is valid? By their academic degree? By their current employment? By whether or not they have published (been allowed to publish) in so-called peer reviewed climate science journals? And why do you implicitly suggest in your letter that, in the context of the UEA CRU revelations, only “skeptics” (but not skeptical scientists, I presume) need to be “engaged?”

    Clearly, skeptical scientists have been fighting concerted collusion to marginalize them and their research, irrespective of its merits – which you do not even acknowledge in your letter. In fact, by not acknowledging them you have implicitly marginalized them through your letter.

    But, back to the theme of your letter: skeptics (who are, I presume, those you consider not to be “true scientists”). To quote you, “…(I have tried to) more effectively counter misinformation…(by) posting at skeptical blogs, such as climateaudit…” So, you implicitly tie “misinformation” and “climate audit” together. Tell me, who is guilty of spreading misinformation, Michael Mann with his infamous and clearly debunked (Wegman Report) “hocky stick” findings or Steve McIntyre (Climate Audit host), who exposed Dr. Mann’s ridiculous statistics, which led to the Wegman investigation and report? And what about Keith Briffa’s Yamal Tree proxy data? 12 specifically selected trees and 1 outlier that overwhelms their collective variance? Science, not misinformation? And, as you must know, these are not isolated – just the most blatant – examples of misinformation couched as science.

    Tell me, in your mind, what is the difference between “misinformation” and “different findings”? The fact that they appeared in a peer reviewed journal? Surely, that cannot be the litmus test for truth.

    Scientists (and non-academic skeptics) have generated reasonable research that calls into question the validity of the AGW hypothesis. Surely, you must agree there is enough uncertainty in our knowledge of the Earth’s climate that we cannot draw firm conclusions about AGW? Or, have you got cloud reinforcing dynamics (just to cite one important and unresolved issue) thoroughly worked out at this point? Or, have you demonstrated the actual CO2 => H2O reinforcing physics in the atmosphere, controlling for all other possible intervening/ interfering phenomena (to cite another important and unresolved issue)?

    Your attitude seems to be no different from Phil Jones’s; the only difference is your strategy for dealing with the situation caused by the UEA CRU revelations, or, more generally, for dealing with those who are skeptical about the validity of the AGW hypothesis. While your letter shows you are a scientist in your call for transparency in data and methods, you fail badly in your lack of “disinterestedness” and “tentativeness” that are the hallmarks of true scientists. For anyone to claim or to implicitly think and act as though climate science “is settled” (which, from your letter, appears to be your implicit attitude), is to surely fail those requirements of a scientist given the current state of knowledge regarding what factors are currently affecting changes in the Earth’s climate.

    I hope this Climategate affair gives you a significant and lengthy opportunity to examine the scientific activity in which you and other climate scientists have been involved for the last 20 years. It may come as a shock for you to even consider the possibility that CO2 is not a significant factor in Earth’s climate. But, that is exactly what you must do to save yourself from the path of the un-scientist. It is not enough to “challenge the skeptics” to defend the legitimacy of climate science. You must become one yourself.

    Respectfully,

    JP Miller

  171. Re: Jim (16:38:38)

    The demands for code-release appear based on false premises. If someone demands code, that is no different from demanding money.

    It appears clear that it is going to take many discussions spread out over a long period of time to reach even a basic mutual understanding among all involved parties regarding the various issues surrounding the release of code.

    I have no interest in being badgered further about this issue, just as I have no interest in being mugged. (However, keep in mind that sometimes people give voluntarily to charity.)

    For those who disagree:
    One option is to agree to disagree respectfully.

    By contrast, data-release is a simple issue. I have been among the most vocal calling for data release. With data in hand, code needn’t be an issue.

  172. Have we been too hard on Ms. Curry here? I will reserve judgement. It depends on whether or not she actually starts debating the science. THAT would be rare and welcomed from someone in the AGW camp.

  173. ***************
    Paul Vaughan (18:14:37) :
    Re: Jim (16:38:38)
    I have no interest in being badgered further about this issue, just as I have no interest in being mugged. (However, keep in mind that sometimes people give voluntarily to charity.)
    *************
    Paul – I didn’t direct any comment to you in particular. Although I can see why you might believe I did. I am not trying to antagonize you. I hope that is clear.

  174. Jim (18:36:14) :

    ***************
    Paul Vaughan (18:14:37) :
    Re: Jim (16:38:38)
    I have no interest in being badgered further about this issue, just as I have no interest in being mugged. (However, keep in mind that sometimes people give voluntarily to charity.)
    *************
    Paul – I didn’t direct any comment to you in particular. Although I can see why you might believe I did. I am not trying to antagonize you. I hope that is clear.

    Let me restate that. I did not direct the commet @Jim (16:38:38) to you, specifically.

    My comments regarding release of code are referring to the situation where a climate science paper is published in a journal. True science requires that the data and code be published with it, period. If you are doing something other than publishing climate science papers with your code, it isn’t relevant to the discussion. As I said, I’m not badgering you. This is my opinion and it exists independent of you.

  175. Paul

    If you don’t think the code should be released…can you at least agree that detailed pseudocode detailing what every subroutine does should be released? Nothing short of ful method disclosure is acceptible to me…we need to see how the processed data turned out the way it did.

  176. Re: Jim (18:36:14)

    Jim,

    I once had the following experience: After working very long overtime hours on hundreds upon hundreds of files for more than 3 years, one day I found my access to a server blocked permanently at a critical moment without warning. I think you will understand that I am “not at liberty” to reveal the whole story.

    In the future I hope to develop websites that will make wavelet methods simple for people with no more than Stat 101. With this in mind, I now write my programs in Excel after learning lessons from the above-mentioned negative experience about files that are only compatible with exclusive software requiring extremely prohibitive site-license fees.

    Releasing code may be one means of voluntary public outreach, but it may not be the most constructive outreach in all cases. If there are cases where the public release of code is required by law, I will leave technical commentary to legal experts, but my instinct would be to be concerned that such laws (if they exist) might have unintended side-effects on innocents.

    This exchange has been illuminating. I thank you for the comments you have made.

  177. Bad data. Bad methods. How is it possible to address sceptics when you have nothing?

    I have a good idea though. How about we dump a LOT MORE MONEY into climate “science” in an effort to start over. From scratch.

  178. Re: SABR Matt (18:55:01)

    I agree that volunteer release of extra methodological detail might be important in cases where methods are new to experts, but if non-experts are looking for free tutoring from researchers who barely have time for research due to excessive teaching & administrative duties, I would not hesitate to side with those screaming “vexatious & impractical” without regard for alarmist/nonalarmist &/or left/right lines.

    If I have time, I’ll dig out some notes I once posted to explain calculations that were not intuitive to an audience I was addressing. It might be interesting to see what folks around here think of that approach.

  179. Jim (18:42:50) “True science requires that the data and code be published with it, period.”

    I can suggest that we agree to respectfully disagree regarding code.

  180. Judith: Is this a correct quote?

    “We won the war — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, and climate and energy legislation is near the top of the U.S. agenda,” Dr. Curry said. “Why keep fighting all these silly battles and putting ourselves in this position?” (Andrew Revkin column NYT)

    If so, and it was not taken out of a modifying context you have lost ALL credibility with me.

  181. Just a bit of attempted CYA by Judith Curry. Unimpressive.

    I suspect the CRU data and codes go to the heart of “global warming” and the other surface temperature records are similarly corrupt.

    If that’s true you don’t have anything, Judith. Time will tell.

    Anyway how come there are so many researchers working in this field? Seems to me there are at least a factor of ten too many. A haven for second and third rate would be “scientists” maybe?

  182. I disagree with Curry’s characterization of our side being backed by a political noise machine, but there is no need to attack every word she says so roughly.

    When you start a “reasoned debate” with “You are a bunch of [snipped and replaced with --> ] skeptics who will have to be dealt with.” You have poisoned the well. Add that as one more indictment. Along with corrupted data. Bad programming practices. Unwarranted adjustments. And hiding the decline.

    And just to continue in the current vein – any one still pounding the AGW drum with Bad methods and Bad data unresolved is complicit in fraud.

    An honest scientist would say: “we have nothing and until we have sorted this all out I have nothing further to say. And let me add that I may have nothing to say for years or decades.”

  183. I posted a comment over at ClimateProgress in response to Dr. Curry’s open letter in support of her general position of opening the floor of scientific debate to skeptical inquiry in the climate sciences. I was immediately attacked with ad-homonym and told I knew nothing about scientific process or engineering. After responding with a polite reaffirmation of why skepticism is a healthy part of the scientific process of inquiry, I got banned from the site then subsequently attacked more with no ability to respond. So, I had a practical exercise in what is meant by “there is no debating the science.”

    While Dr. Curry and I may disagree on our conclusions regarding AGW, I respect that she has raised her head above the safety of the climatology trenches to take a position in favor of furthering open debate. I have seen the nefarious reaction to her letter by some at ClimateProgress. She is being shot at from both camps for trying to take a stand on middle ground of such a heated conflict. What differentiates Dr. Corry from the various actors in Climategate is her willingness to say we don’t presently agree on our conclusions so lets explore the science behind our positions openly and professionally. It seems a reasonable place to start to bring back a resemblance of the scientific process of inquiry in a field too long under the thumb of secretive players.

  184. A quick position summary for Dr Curry……
    1. the temperatures have gone down for ten years, when there was panic about a tipping point five years ago. This 10 year trend is now near the lower boundary of the model projections, suggesting pretty strongly the models are wrong, and suggesting that forecasting weather or climate is still pretty much impossible beyond a few days.
    2. historical sea temperature data are unacceptably inaccurate and meaningless. Recent accurate data from the Argo buoys show no warming, despite “corrections”
    3. Dr Curry’s own hurricane data show no overall increase in number or intensity in any region of the world. The identification of an increase in type 4 and 5 hurricanes proves nothing in terms of mechanism of cause and effect. Given the short data set, this is probably a chance finding.
    4. the talk of increasing infectious disease rates has been categorically refuted by Reiter and others. Climate has nothing to do with it – other factors predominate.
    5. the glacier data are hopelessly inaccurate and the valid results are all over the place – Indian glaciers are not melting overall and the two main NZ glaciers are growing.
    6. the above findings mean that economic analyses are complete GIGO – garbage in and garbage out.

    So with all these findings of poor data and lack of correlations with CO2 and temperature, I am unconvinced. And when I read the content of the Climategate emails, I see that open scientific debate has been actively suppressed.

    Dr Curry, you’ll need much stronger data correlations to convince me. In the meantime I will support more research, but not carbon emission reductions. As Bjorg Lomborg has shown, the money would be better spent saving lives elsewhere.

  185. That’s it! They’re trying to save us from a take-over by the Vegetables!

    REPLY: The “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” comes to mind

    Hey, wait a minute. The Watermelons are already upon us!

    The avocados are marching.

  186. mlsimon (20:41:10) :

    “That’s it! They’re trying to save us from a take-over by the Vegetables!

    REPLY: The “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” comes to mind

    Hey, wait a minute. The Watermelons are already upon us!

    The avocados are marching.”

    Show the vegetables an undressed hamburger. They understand that what comes next is a sharp knife and a cutting board.

  187. SABR Matt (18:55:01) :

    Paul

    If you don’t think the code should be released…can you at least agree that detailed pseudocode detailing what every subroutine does should be released? Nothing short of ful method disclosure is acceptible to me…we need to see how the processed data turned out the way it did.

    Lets do a gedanken experiment, assuming it is a discipline where experiments cannot be carried out but only data gathering:
    1) Scientist A gets hold of Data X and generates curves that appear in Journal Y after being peer reviewed.
    2) Scientist B thinks there may be a mistake in the calculations of A. Gets hold of the public data, calculates and comes out with curves contradicting curves and publishes in Y after review
    3) A number of people enter the controversy and recalculate the curves from the data which agree with B and not with A.
    Finally the matter is resolved because A goes back and finds a mistake in his/her code, or is marginalized by the plethora of new calculations and it is clear that he/she has made an error in his/her coding.

    I agree it is not efficient, but is it efficient to be seeking errors in somebody’s complicated coding? Only if fraud is involved, and it is a matter for detectives and not scientists.

  188. Steve Hempell (20:03:41) :

    Judith: Is this a correct quote?

    “We won the war — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, and climate and energy legislation is near the top of the U.S. agenda,” Dr. Curry said. “Why keep fighting all these silly battles and putting ourselves in this position?” (Andrew Revkin column NYT)

    If so, and it was not taken out of a modifying context you have lost ALL credibility with me.
    ============

    See her quote above (about 80% of the way thru this thread, which reads:

    Judith Curry (14:40:01) :

    I would like to explain this statement … [just quoted] that appeared in Revkin’s NYTimes article, from my statement originally posted on climateaudit

    If you look at the complex context of all of my comments on that thread, i was trying to understand why the scientists in the CRU emails did what they did. The statement was putting myself in their shoes, the “we” refers to them, i do not include myself in the “we”.

  189. To ann v

    I think there is value i being able to actively reproduce exactly what error could have produce the errant curves in your experiment. Given the high stakes to the careers of all scientists these days if they are proven wrong, scientist A is not likely to go back and prove himself wrong unless he is forced to by the system in place. The way to force that is for scientist A to be required to come forward with his exact method so that scientist B can explain to scientists C through ZZZ why scientist A’s curves are wrong and his curves are better. Without that ability to explain what’s wrong with scientist A’s curves, there will be many people in the field who continue to believe scientist A even though scientists B through G got a different contradictory result.

  190. Regarding my call above for a rebuttal-of-rebuttals site, here’s a quote from nearly half a year ago that puts it better than I did:

    Lucy Skywalker (16:33:05) :

    John Galt (11:39:38) : There are various AGW myths and memes propagated by the “How to talk to a Skeptic” sites that claim to debunk all the skeptics’ arguments. Unfortunately, those sites do no such thing and have themselves been debunked over and over.

    “But the claim of debunking skeptics live on. Whenever somebody calls into question the quality of the data, they will inevitably reference this document and claim there is no problem with the data whatsoever.

    “There still is NOT a comprehensive single rebuttal of Coby Beck’s army of straw dogs at Gristmill, or of Skeptical Science’s ditto. Rebuttals exist but only in fragmented form. IMHO these two websites in particular, plus RC’s “info” pages, plus New Scientist’s equivalent pages need integrated rebuttals to douse the AGW wildfire claims. IMHO, this is a job that a skeptics wiki (written by blog-peer-reviewed skeptics) could, should and would undertake, over time.”

  191. Re: Roger Knights (23:40:56)

    Thanks for the important note Roger. Some of the shiny trinkets are red herrings.

    Many here may wonder about shots across the bow. They are aimed at administrative threats that appear to be off many radars. (Keep in mind that university administrators in media relations offices will be assigned to read here.)

    This is worth repeating:

    The problem is that a lot of contributors from the 2 extremes have a political interest in making sure middle-ground is no-man’s-land.

    Venturing into the centre requires ability to withstand vicious stoning from both sides.

    The message to bystanders is:
    This is what will happen to you if you don’t commit to one of the opposing extremist factions.

    In a way, it’s a horseshoe alliance that militantly resists balance & stability.

  192. SABR Matt (00:02:14) :

    Well, it is a way being proposed that is not the way science has developed the past five hundred years. It has developed by scientists trusting that the other scientist has done the best possible, but, nevertheless, the experiment has to be repeated for the result to be credible in the community, and often many times, if discrepancies arise. Methods of analysis can be discussed, etc, but there has been no effort expended in trying to find the specific wrongs of a publication that ends up to be falsified.
    It has worked, because it allows enough freedom of expression to the individual scientist and at the same time there are checks and balances to correct matters if they go wrong. So even data is not scrutinized but rather replicated for each new publication.

    In scientific disciplines where the data are unique, it is self evident that they should be in the public domain if funded by the public, so that all researchers have access to them.

    The proposal of entering to the smallest fine details of computation does not have meaning in an experimental paper, because it will stand or fall by replication only.

    Now theoretical methods are another matter. I was fortunate to hear first hand Feynman describe how he discovered the Feynman diagrams and how he confounded gurus of physics at the time of a workshop where many of them were gathered and were calculating cross sections. They would be working a week to do the integrations, and Feynman would take the problem overnight and bring them the result next day. Of course he had to tell them the exact details of his calculations .

  193. The short circuiting of the Scientific Method by the AGW group is what has me so angry. We do not need that type of “modification” of the Scientific Method to creep into the culture surrounding science.

    Engineering is more honest. It has to be. We do our work as if people’s lives depend on it. Because they do.

    I would make every scientist who wants a PhD to pass a Design Review.

    Personally I like giving and receiving them. The sharper the participants and the more brutal their attitude the better.

  194. Re: SABR Matt (00:02:14)

    Matt, I appreciate your perspective and I am prepared to agree to disagree respectfully if you insist that demanding code is not a counterproductive opening proposition in negotiations, but I caution as follows:

    1) Working on the Pareto Principle, we can efficiently answer the important questions with just the data.

    2) Giving administrators & editors more ammunition to impose censorship is not the path to public enlightenment.

  195. Much debate here about the difficulty of posting data , codes, etc.

    I say hogwash – it is easy to make available all your data, codes, etc. I’ve done it.

    From now on, publish all papers on the internet, with links to the authors’ computer code, data files, etc.

    Past papers that fail to meet these standards can be rehabilitated by the authors or their institutions.

    If not, to the dustbin with these papers.

    ANY attempts to suppress access to codes, data, etc, should be met with the disclaimer “Unfit for human consumption.”

    According to these reasonable standards, much of the past work of CRU and GISS on surface temperatures would be discarded.

    So would much of the work of the IPCC, especially the SPM’s.

    That would be a good start.

    The Copenhagen Climate Conference should be cancelled – it will comprise no more than the ridiculous prattling of scoundrels and imbeciles.

  196. mlsimon (20:24:12) :

    Judith,

    But we have proof they were acting as a “team”. That is not hyperbole or assertion. Fact.

    ==

    Let me amend that. If you prefer we could call them the conspiracy. Or conspirators. If you find “team” too prejudicial.

  197. Dear all, it seems to me that in essence Dr Curry is saying she and those in this field are right and that anyone who is either unconvinced or in open dispute is somehow missing the obvious reality for reasons that are related to innate awkwardness or an unwillingness to concede to the presumed intellectual superiority of climate researchers. While she is to be commended for being open and willing to communicate, it is clear this is little more than a patronising subterfuge, pity.
    As the many gifted contributers to CA, WUWT and others sites have proven, the facts are not so clear cut, as Anthony himself recently acknowledged.

  198. Allan M R MacRae (02:13:28) “Much debate here about the difficulty of posting data , codes, etc.”

    Release of data is infinitely more essential than release of code. I advise targeting the data and leaving the decoys (code) for the less experienced hunters.

  199. The tone of Judith Curry’s letter is disturbing and not a good role model for her students. The tenor is of some sort of war zone, as though being sceptical is someting that ‘they’ the ‘sceptics’ (the enemy) need to be cured of like some disease. Dr Curry, do you not know that a sceptical mind is perhaps the most important tool of thought that any scientist or serious thinker of any type should possess?

    I think you should go back to school and re-examine those research values you trumpet in your letter. A critical approach is the highest of academic values.

  200. Paul…

    I certainly don’t want to be perceived as piling on to a subject you don’t really want to discuss, so keep that in mind. I am seeking a little clarification as to why you think the release of pseudocode (not necessarily the exact code used…but a list of general instructions on what has to be done to replicate your experiment) is against the freedom of the researcher and why you believe it gives admins more power to censor. I’m a relative newcomer to climate science and have no experience dealing with admins, so you might be able to warn me of why I shouldn’t be doing the kinds of things I have proposed…because I always thought that a methods section in a scientific paper had the purpose of ensuring that anyone else could replicate exactly what you did.

  201. **************
    SABR Matt (06:36:59) :
    Paul…
    I certainly don’t want to be perceived as piling on to a subject you don’t really want to discuss, so keep that in mind. I am seeking a little clarification as to why you think the release of pseudocode (not necessarily the exact code used…but a list of general instructions on what has to be done to replicate your experiment) is against the freedom of the researcher and why you believe it gives admins more power to censor. I’m a relative newcomer to climate science and have no experience dealing with admins, so you might be able to warn me of why I shouldn’t be doing the kinds of things I have proposed…because I always thought that a methods section in a scientific paper had the purpose of ensuring that anyone else could replicate exactly what you did.
    ***********
    It appears Paul is working on a mathematical tool. This tool could be used in climate science or other sciences. This does appear to be a gray area if that’s the case. If a researcher used Paul’s tool, I would want to see the calcs done another way just to verify the results.

  202. Hi Robert Wood of Canada (16:52:33)

    (and anyone who can think outside the box a bit)

    I have seen some of Booker’s articles online, and if it wasn’t clear from my marathon post, I was hoping for others to start connecting the dots, to get an idea of the big picture while their curiosity might still be able to accomplish something. After the Copenhagen treaty is signed in a month, this whole debate will be meaningless because the signatory nations will be locked in to following all the future climate related funding dictates. Willie Soon, I believe his name is, the fellow who worked to expose the Medieval Warming Period cover up of Mann et al, found the Copenhagen treaty documents hidden on the UN website and forwarded it to Lord Monckton. He in turn has begun publicizing it.

    If it’s not clear already, science has been used by the UN as an excuse to scare and control the public. They intend to cement the lies as future laws. I suggest that scientists who may disagree with it all may want to step back a bit and examine the whole issue, the big picture, for overall flaws. Does CO2, heavier than air, even float up and form this magic 2 way mirror of a greenhouse? Does the Greenhouse theory as Schreuder is pointing out with it’s double counting of radiative forcing still stand up today? Apparently not

    Is it wise to debate and analyze the specific minutae of a scam rather than just exposing the scam from basic principles?

  203. Her “Option 3″ is the obvious way forward and should be accepted by anyone interested in the field. Given that apparent state of the source data, the collection methods, the analysis methods, and “correction” methodologies employed at CRU – a complete and transparent release of CRU “science” would take them completely out of the game. An acceptable result IMO.

  204. Although I applaud her overall tone about openness and accepting dissent, I agree with those who say that Dr. Curry’s feeling that skeptics need to be “dealt with,” seems a bit “off,” and wrong-headed.

    Openness and skepticism are the foundations upon which the scientific method is built. Science doesn’t “deal” with skepticsm, it deals with honest scientific questions. Science is fundamentally about being skeptical, and if Dr. Curry isn’t a skeptic herself, she’s in the wrong line of work.

    Good scientific questions are: how does the Earth’s climate change over time? Which of those changes are cyclical, and which are evolutionary? What forces cause these changes? What fraction of those cyclical changes is anthropogenic? hese are highly complex questions, not prone to simple, easy answers. We certainly don’t have the answers to them, yet.

    There are no honest scientific questions in any position which assumes that we’ve already answered the above questions, and which further assumes that the answers are ~ 0% natural cyclical changes and ~ 100% anthropogenic causes, and then which further intends only to seek the best method and best data to “prove” to the masses that theose ridiculous answers are true.”

    Any scientist should be ashamed to be associated with such a set of questions and assumptions, and should also shun any political movement which holds them to be true, a priori.

  205. The Wegman Report was published in 2006. In it, the CRU scientists were described as people who might very well form a cabal that would be capable of stooping to subversion of the peer review process. I would like to ask Dr. Curry if the Wegman report motivated her to ask the CRU scientists whether they indeed were too inward looking and perhaps overly aggressive in their efforts to control what gets published in their area? Dr. Curry, did you ask the CRU scientists about this matter? If not, why not? Exactly how do you wear your moral authority when the subjects are your colleagues?

  206. J. Peden

    That’s it! They’re trying to save us from a take-over by the Vegetables!

    REPLY: The “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” comes to mind

    Hey, wait a minute. The Watermelons are already upon us!

    REPLY: NO NO run for your lives! Its the attack of the Greenhouse Warming Melons!

  207. SABR Matt said

    “I *refuse* to walk away from this. This issue threatens to strip humanity of its freedoms and destroy the American way of life at the hands of global government….”

    I thank you for your dedication. Try some smaller privately funded colleges. Also get in contact with some of the well respected skeptic scientists. They maybe able to give you names of non-corrupt colleges and universities.

    Good luck

  208. Re: SABR Matt (06:36:59)

    I’m not opposing the release of code; rather I’m trying to raise awareness that data release is infinitely more essential than code release.

    Regarding administrators:

    Generally speaking, every time they encounter a problem, they create a rule to make sure it never inconveniences them again. Increasingly paralyzing red tape is the cost to others of their drive for convenience. Rarely do they prioritize operational efficiency over administrative convenience.

    If situations start exceeding their creativity & patience (a very common occurrence), they “snap” and resort to rewriting history. Innocents get steamrolled, but if one is a “yes” person, compensation is sometimes (not always) offered for “maintaining cordial relations” and going with the flow.

    I imagine you know that the preferred tactic of administrators is to “build in delays”, which enables them to leverage on deadlines. Everyone is made a slave of the calendar even though the result is a counterproductive process treadmill.

    Because of the unionized environment, those advocating innovation are accused of throwing rocks in the pond. They meet fierce, unethical, & even hysterical resistance. Once the “solidarity” reaction gets triggered, truth becomes absolutely irrelevant.

    The preceding is certainly not an exhaustive overview, but it is important for non-insiders to understand the source of the corruption in the university system. (Much of the anger vented around here during the past week has been misdirected.)

    I advise choosing battles wisely. Although the conflicts can get very nasty, sometimes they are fun if all the involved players understand “the game”.

  209. I apologize to Dr. Curry for any remarks that betrayed my anger. After reflection, I empathize with her situation. The foundation of her field is irreparably cracked and the edifice is tumbling down. Maybe skeptical science could lend a hand, because the alarmist (PoMo normal) science is imploding.

    It’s like Enron. Everybody blamed the corporate ringleaders but felt sorry for the lower-level employees, who lost their jobs and their pensions, a lot of good all that pity did for them.

    The AGW consensus is now reversed. Every worthwhile scientist should have been looking for evidence against the theory (which, by the way, is the proper method of science), and should now be displaying those findings with glee. “Look at me! I have evidence against the hoaxers! Don’t fire me. I’m not one of them.” Etc.

    And I wish her best of luck with that, and a bit of advice. Join us. Leap into the climate realist camp (aka “skeptics”) with both feet. Sooner is better than later.

  210. I see I am not alone in questioning the scientific data. Please see below:

    “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

    “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

    “So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” – Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

    “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” – Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

    “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

    “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

    “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

    “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

    “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

    “I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken…Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” – Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

    “Nature’s regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

    “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

    “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

    “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

    “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

    “All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” – Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

    “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

    “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

    “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata

    “Whatever the weather, it’s not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

    “But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” – Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

    “The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society’s activities.” – Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

    “Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” – Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

    “I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” – Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO.

  211. Dear Dr. Curry,

    Clearly, circular reasoning has become your guide. M. Thatcher wanted to get rid of those polluting coal-fired facilities and replace them with nukes. You, bought into the whole deal. The team has been caught.

    You can start your rehab by admitting CO2 is good. Water is a better GHG… and your data sets are way to small to be significant.

    We will welcome you to our side, any time you are ready.

    Steve

  212. To Gail…

    I have already contacted one prominent skeptic in the university system…unfortunately, I’ve been “in the game” for less time than most here, so I don’t know all of the names associated with the skeptics camp. I could benefit from a listing.

    I wonder if Anthony would consider posting a skeptics list…a sort of directory of people a young atmospheric scientist in the skeptics camp can turn to when he/she is just starting to stumble his/her way into the fight.

    If I had known about the Heartland Conference early enough to attend, I would have. Oddly, I got word of it from Accuweather.com meteorologist Joe Bastardi – not this blog (I hadn’t found it yet…amazing what a little controversy does for my google-foo). I think the skeptics need to physically meet more often than they do.

  213. To Paul,

    I am very familiar with university admins pointing people where the money is (on this issue, that means getting on the badnwagon)…it happens all the time at Stony Brook. Professors and admins push grad students toward where the grant money will be easiest to obtain and push research results toward a final outcome that will make it easier to obtain grants in the future…they do it to make their own lives simpler (they HAVE to…otherwise they’d be spending their whole lives banging the ssaber for funding and not getting anything else done) and the professors do it out of the honest intention to help their students get into the field successfully.

    I am an analog forecaster. I’ve seen analog techniques work significantly better than the techniques employed by the CPC on a regular basis, but because analog forecasting is not popular in the field, and my desire to study ways of extending the accuracy of analog seasonal forecasts does not meet with the approval of operational consensus (all of the focus is on improving the dynamical models)…my own adviser relentlessly pushes me to stop trying to drive my research in that direction. He wants to ensure that he can find me funding…he wants to get me thinking about the science the same way he does…he means well…but it feels, from my position, like he’s being a closed-minded prig. I’m sure the same thing is happening all over the world to young skeptics who want to study natural climate variability and use it for forecasting the way I do.

    I still don’t understand why disclosure of code and methods would increase the jeopardy of red tape, though.

  214. Let me simplify the basis for the skewed DATA and current need to scrap all of it along with the people linked to ANY appearences of making threats or general verbal abuse to those questioning the EAU/IPCC claims for the pending Global disaster.

    I’m more versed in the Trades because my School focused on several classes that teach students how to build a House while also doing the Blue prints and Drafting images .
    So just imagine how skewed a House would be if I bought my Drafting tools from someone who used faulty research to make all the Measuring items like the Graduated rulers based on assuming what a Foot would be, or the guessed t the 90Degree angled squaring tools.
    Even if my Rulers are out by 1/4 of an inch every 13.0 Inches and the set-square and Tee-set off by 1 Degree of arc , this means that every measurement will be out by the same Error.
    The Home Builder will argue with the buyer that it is well built and the consensus by experts shows that the Models are accurate and only an idiot or Home-denier would question the construction.

    Good luck for NASA trying to send a Space Ship to Pluto if the DATA is skewed and they have a 1.0 Inch error every 10’000 feet of distance because that’s 1.0 Foot per 120’000 feet forward, plus you add a 1.0 Degree error for the Arc and after the near 3 billion mile trip you can’t see Pluto since your off by millions of miles on it’s orbital plane.

    The CRU can scream all they want about the numbers being right, which they are because the Model was flawed from the start by using a Yardstick that was only 34.75″ and not Calibrated to the actual agree upon 36.0″ .
    A broken watch that has stopped is still correct only twice a day for 1 minute at PM and AM .

  215. Judith Curry somewhere I read or heard you say that you expected a whole lot of other climate scientists to voice your concerns at the revelations of the emails and then found that you were alone.

    If you read this then I want to tell you, you are not alone. I dont know if you received this email from Petr Chylek?

    Subject: Delete if not interested in Climate Change
    Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:28:38 -0700
    From: Petr Chylek
    To: Climate@lanl.gov, energy@lanl.gov, isr-all@lanl.gov, ees-all@lanl.gov

    Dear Climate People:

    FYI below is a letter that I sent on Saturday to about 100 top climate research experts including Jim Hansen, Steve Schneider, Phil Jones (UK) and other superstars. Till now I got 14 replies which are about 50/50 between supporting of what I said and defense of the IPCC process.

    Greetings,
    Petr

    Open Letter to the Climate Research Community

    I am sure that most of you are aware of the incident that took place recently at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The identity of the whistle-blower or hacker is still not known.

    The selected release of emails contains correspondence between CRU scientists and scientists at other climate research institutions. My own purely technical exchange of emails with CRU director Professor Phil Jones is, as far as I know, not included.

    I published my first climate-related paper in 1974 (Chylek and Coakley, Aerosol and Climate, Science 183, 75-77). I was privileged to supervise Ph. D. theses of some exceptional scientists – people like J. Kiehl, V. Ramaswamy and J. Li among others. I have published well over 100 peer-reviewed papers, and I am a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, the Optical Society of America, and Los Alamos National Laboratory. Within the last few years I was also honored to be included in Wikipedia’s blacklist of “climate skeptics”.

    For me, science is the search for truth, the never-ending path towards finding out how things are arranged in this world so that they can work as they do. That search is never finished.

    It seems that the climate research community has betrayed that mighty goal in science. They have substituted the search for truth with an attempt at proving one point of view. It seems that some of the most prominent leaders of the climate research community, like prophets of Old Israel, believed that they could see the future of humankind and that the only remaining task was to convince or force all others to accept and follow. They have almost succeeded in that effort.

    Yes, there have been cases of misbehavior and direct fraud committed by scientists in other fields: physics, medicine, and biology to name a few. However, it was misbehavior of individuals, not of a considerable part of the scientific community.

    Climate research made significant advancements during the last few decades, thanks to your diligent work. This includes the construction of the HadCRUT and NASA GISS datasets documenting the rise of globally averaged temperature during the last century. I do not believe that this work can be affected in any way by the recent email revelations. Thus, the first of the three pillars supporting the hypothesis of manmade global warming seems to be solid.

    However, the two other pillars are much more controversial. To blame the current warming on humans, there was a perceived need to “prove” that the current global average temperature is higher than it was at any other time in recent history (the last few thousand years). This task is one of the main topics of the released CRU emails. Some people were so eager to prove this point that it became more important than scientific integrity.

    The next step was to show that this “unprecedented high current temperature” has to be a result of the increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. The
    fact that the Atmosphere Ocean General Circulation Models are not able to explain the post-1970 temperature increase by natural forcing was interpreted as proof that it was caused by humans. It is more logical to admit that the models are not yet good enough to capture natural climate variability (how much or how little do we understand aerosol and clouds, and ocean circulation?), even though we can all agree that part of the observed post-1970 warming is due to the increase of atmospheric CO2
    concentration. Thus, two of the three pillars of the global warming and carbon dioxide paradigm are open to reinvestigation.

    The damage has been done. The public trust in climate science has been eroded. At least a part of the IPCC 2007 report has been put in question. We cannot blame it on a few irresponsible individuals. The
    entire esteemed climate research community has to take responsibility. Yes, there always will be a few deniers and obstructionists.

    So what comes next? Let us stop making unjustified claims and exaggerated projections about the future even if the editors of some eminent journals are just waiting to publish them. Let us admit that our understanding of the climate is less perfect than we have tried to make the public believe. Let us drastically modify or temporarily discontinue the IPCC. Let us get back to work.

    Let us encourage students to think their own thoughts instead of forcing them to parrot the IPCC conclusions. Let us open the doors of universities, of NCAR, NASA and other research institutions (and funding agencies) to faculty members and researchers who might disagree with the current paradigm of carbon dioxide. Only open discussion and intense searching of all possibilities will let us regain the public’s trust and move forward.

    Regards,
    Petr Chylek

    AND THE RESPONSE

    Dear Climate People:
    It was yesterday an interesting day. My Letter (now at several websites
    e.g. here: http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/218-petr-chylek-open-letter-to-the-climate-research-community.html) WAS READ BY OVER 100 TOP CLIMATE EXPERTS AND BY MANY OF YOU AT LANL.
    Today it is quiet day. Lab is closed and I am the only one in the NISC building.
    THE LANL RESPONSE WAS MORE THAN 3:1 IN SUPPORT OF WHAT I HAVE SAID (here I count Charles Keller’s multiple responses as one). I thank you for your email and I apologize that due to time limitation I am not able to response to all emails individually.
    To get the feeling what is the climate atmosphere at LANL, samples from supporting email are below.
    I appreciate your support and I will continue my discussion with “world top climate experts” to bring to open and to correct the exaggerated claims made by climate research community.
    Greetings,
    Petr

    (Anthony I wonder if this is deserving of a seperate post?)

  216. Dr Curry writes: “At the heart of this issue is how climate researchers deal with skeptics.”

    This is an absurd statement. One might as well, or better, write “At the heart of this issue is how climate researchers deal with the consensus. Many climate researchers either are sceptics or share values and beliefs with them. I strongly resent Dr Curry’s arrogant implication that people who have doubts about the received climate change orthodoxy, or who even ‘deny’ it, are somehow part of the problem. Dr Curry, they are part of the solution.

    I’m no sceptic, I don’t know enough yet to qualify, but I am trying to educate myself. Having ploughed through the best part of the IPCC WG1 Reports for 2001 and 2007 I am coming to the conclusion that the IPCC is more concerned with concealing essential parts of the scientific story than with improving scientific understanding. The IPCC is not telling the whole truth. It is behaving like a political pressure group with an axe to grind.

    For their own good, and for the benefit of the rest of us who pay, and pay generously, for climate research, climate researchers across the entire spectrum of scientific opinion need to consider the big question, which is: How to deal with the IPCC?

  217. Whilst I respect and admire Dr Curry for the majority of her words, I have the same problem as SABR Matt (21:54:42) i.e. I do not see why the good Doctor uses words like ‘dealing with the sketics’. Eminent climate scientists such as Professor Richard Lindzen, Dr Vincent Gray, Pofessor John Christy, Dr Joanne Simpson, Dr Henrik Svensmark, Professor Larry Vardiman and Dr Roy Spencer do not require ‘dealing with’ but listening to, surely.

    What has happened to science to allow entrenchment to prevent the advancement of knowledge?

  218. If I may make so bold as to add Professors Pat Michaels, Tim Ball and Dr Fred S Singer to my list of eminent climate scientists who need to be heard.

    Another issue which I feel needs to be considered across the climate patch is that most of us are well aware that there is a range of scientists involved in climate change and its possible effects (Natural or Anthropogenic). The AGW proponents cite the fact that a dissenting scientist may be a geologist, a chemist, a physicist, a mathematician or even an economist. However, AGW proponeents are not exclusively climate scientists either.

    As an example, AGW dissenters cite Nicholas Stern as an economist whilst AGW proponents cite Professor Ross McKitrick (an IPCC Expert Reviewer) as an economist.

    If all play fair then we understand that scientists from many different disciplines have valid contributions to make. I would remind all that many IPCC participants such as Pauchari himself and the skeptical Dipl-Ing Peter Deitz are not climate scientists.

    Climate change is an issue that should be much more inclusive and lose its aura of certainty. How could such a complex system be expected to react in a simplistically certain manner? There are still more questions than answers and the real deniers of science are those who cannot or will not recognise this.

Comments are closed.