The WUWT rebuttal piece “Judith I love ya but you’re way wrong” written by Willis Eschenbach has made it all the way to the NYT. There’s also an interesting quote from Gavin Schmidt.
“Climate scientists are paid to do climate science,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a senior climatologist with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies. “Their job is not persuading the public.”
From the RealClimate About page, first sentence:
“RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.”
Note to Gavin: We’ll all be missing your daily work on RealClimate now. What’s the end date? 😉
=========================================
Excerpts of: Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate
By JOHN M. BRODER
WASHINGTON — For months, climate scientists have taken a vicious beating in the media and on the Internet, accused of hiding data, covering up errors and suppressing alternate views. Their response until now has been largely to assert the legitimacy of the vast body of climate science and to mock their critics as cranks and know-nothings.
But the volume of criticism and the depth of doubt have only grown, and many scientists now realize they are facing a crisis of public confidence and have to fight back. Tentatively and grudgingly, they are beginning to engage their critics, admit mistakes, open up their data and reshape the way they conduct their work.
The unauthorized release last fall of hundreds of e-mail messages from a major climate research center in England, and more recent revelations of a handful of errors in a supposedly authoritative United Nations report on climate change, have created what a number of top scientists say is a major breach of faith in their research. They say the uproar threatens to undermine decades of work and has badly damaged public trust in the scientific enterprise.
The e-mail episode, called “climategate” by critics, revealed arrogance and what one top climate researcher called “tribalism” among some scientists. The correspondence appears to show efforts to limit publication of contrary opinion and to evade Freedom of Information Act requests. The content of the messages opened some well-known scientists to charges of concealing temperature data from rival researchers and manipulating results to conform to precooked conclusions.
“I have obviously written some very awful e-mails,” Phil Jones, the British climate scientist at the center of the controversy, confessed to a special committee of Parliament on Monday.
…
Climate scientists have been shaken by the criticism and are beginning to look for ways to recover their reputation. They are learning a little humility and trying to make sure they avoid crossing a line into policy advocacy.
“It’s clear that the climate science community was just not prepared for the scale and ferocity of the attacks and they simply have not responded swiftly and appropriately,” said Peter C. Frumhoff, an ecologist and chief scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “We need to acknowledge the errors and help turn attention from what’s happening in the blogosphere to what’s happening in the atmosphere.”
A number of institutions are beginning efforts to improve the quality of their science and to make their work more transparent. The official British climate agency is undertaking a complete review of its temperature data and will make its records and analysis fully public for the first time, allowing outside scrutiny of methods and conclusions. The United Nations panel on climate change will accept external oversight of its research practices, also for the first time.
Two universities are investigating the work of top climate scientists to determine whether they have violated academic standards and undermined faith in science. The National Academy of Sciences is preparing to publish a nontechnical paper outlining what is known — and not known — about changes to the global climate. And a vigorous debate is under way among climate scientists on how to make their work more transparent and regain public confidence.
Some critics think these are merely cosmetic efforts that do not address the real problem, however.
“I’ll let you in on a very dark, ugly secret — I don’t want trust in climate science to be restored,” Willis Eschenbach, an engineer and climate contrarian who posts frequently on climate skeptic blogs, wrote in response to one climate scientist’s proposal to share more research. “I don’t want you learning better ways to propagandize for shoddy science. I don’t want you to figure out how to inspire trust by camouflaging your unethical practices in new and innovative ways.”
“The solution,” he concluded, “is for you to stop trying to pass off garbage as science.”
…….
read the rest at Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate in the New York Times
This NYT story is a very biased white wash…
For example…
Some of the most serious allegations against Dr. Jones, director of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, and other researchers have been debunked,
Have been following this very closely and am not aware that the ‘serious’ allegations have been debunked..rather the statute of limitations has expired.. very different POV
Indeed Willis,
We must bring back the idea of actual “consequences” for malfeasence.
Not simply the tired status quo of blaming the system while the offenders skate and continue their work.
In the arena of AGW, many individuals, whole departments and enitre institutions must face disqualification from any additional contributions.
The NYT author referred to, “…recent revelations of a handful of errors in…” the IPCC report. A handful of errors? A HANDFUL of errors? (More like dozens of handfuls of errors.)
He also characterized those errors as “several relatively minor errors”. Minor errors? MINOR errors? (More like large enough to call the entire report into question.)
It is clear that the warmists still don’t get it. They still aren’t listening. They are still in denial. (Interesting that the AGW alarmists are the real deniers.)
Note to Gavin: We’ll all be missing your daily work on RealClimate now. What’s the end date?
Is your point that a scientist should not do both scientific research and run a commentary website? Do you consider that a conflict of interest of some sort?
Like a lot terms that get thrown around these days — denier, alarmist, warmist, skeptic — your post here can mean whatever different people want it to mean. I’d like to see this in more scientific terms and urge you to remove the ambiguity here.
“Some of the most serious allegations against Dr. Jones, director of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, and other researchers have been debunked, while several investigations are still under way to determine whether others hold up. ”
… and what charges are these? the debunked ones???
When you read the NYT, you not only finish the article less informed than when you started you also leave with less IQ.
It’s too bad the Broder piece was cut off just before Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences is quoted, then followed by this:
The battle is asymmetric, in the sense that scientists feel compelled to support their findings with careful observation and replicable analysis, while their critics are free to make sweeping statements condemning their work as fraudulent.
OT:
Wasn’t Monckton and Lambert supposed to have a debate sometime soon?
I took the quote from the article to mean that scientists shouldn’t over-extend themselves in trying to persuade staunchly opposed people; ‘“Good science,” he said, “is the best revenge.” ‘
It sounds like he’s taking more of a “let the science speak for itself” approach. I don’t see that as opposed to explaining the science on a blog. If you present the newest scientific findings or respond to some misconception, that’s one thing. If you propagandize and over-inflate it while explaining it to the public, it’s going to come back and bite you. I think that’s what he’s cautioning against.
The Grand Logia of The Most Respectful and Holy Progressive BInternational Brotherhood and its International Agenda it is just trying to fix things up a bit so as to make it more swallable for what they disrespectfully consider the idiotic and dumbed general public like us.
I see nutter Schmidt is trying hard to win hearts and minds….
typical new york times garbage. The science is still settled according to them and non biased Gavin schmidt.
Interesting to see how independant this independant panel will be. Lets’ see; the independant panel cannot refute previous studies and will be selected by people like pachuiri. I can’t see anything going wrong with this.
“The solution,” he concluded, “is for you to stop trying to pass off garbage as science.”
Willis, Harsh but Fair
John Broder’s career appears to be tied in w/ AGW. His article is utter slander against everyone who’s exposed the AGW fraud, and, he needs to be fired.
Gavin , the climate scientist, not “trying to persuade the public”:
“…It’s a perfect storm that has allowed the nutters to control the agenda.”
The answer is simple, he said.
“Good science,” he said, “is the best revenge.”
………………………………………………………………………….
His last sentence will hopefully come true, but not in the way he wishes.
I get concerned when I see an article quoting the Union of Concerned Scientists which leans more towards advocacy than they do science.
Sorry, Anthony, but RealClimateAlarmism, the commentary site on climate alarmism by working climate alarmists, is not going to disappear soon.
REPLY: Oh I know that. Perhaps the sarcasm wasn’t clear enough. I’ll add a winky. – Anthony
The NYT continues with its traditional tilt – though I guess it’s a “sea-change” for them to admit the problems exist. The question of causality, however, raises its head. The reason the scientists have had to respond is posited thus:
“It’s clear that the climate science community was just not prepared for the scale and ferocity of the attacks and they simply have not responded swiftly and appropriately.”
This comment fails to acknowledge that the scientists brought the problem on themselves. It was very much an “own goal”. Had they approached their science appropriately, with the caveats that it deserved, from the outset, rather than as a game of advocacy, where bad results are to be concealed, “bodged” or overlooked, the tenor and direction of the debate would have been very much different.
Worryingly, it suggests that MORE time should be spent by climate scientists on blogs such as Real Climate, rather than addressing the genuine problems that exist in how they’ve approached their work and the dissemination of their results.
I think Willis is correct here: the issue is not simply a matter of more effective presentation of the existing “Team” line – it’s an overhaul of how they approach their work, a separation of advocacy from science and a PUBLIC recognition of how material are the caveats, qualifiers and uncertainties in all that they do.
Well, Willis wrote one of the best pieces ever on the so-called science and it was only a matter of time before the media noticed. It is thoughtful and to the point.
Gavin’s comment seems to be that it is not the job of all climate scientists – contra Dr. Curry’s statement – to “respond to any critique of data or methodology that emerges from analysis by other scientists.”
Do you see some contradiction in the fact that he and other scientists choose to “do so in a personal capacity during their spare time” (also from the About page)?
Gavin Schmidt’s duplicity is hopeless. What always amazes me is he still find ears to listen to his double talk.
Thomas,
The questioning itself has been pathetic at best. All that’s been missing is ending each question with “while hopping on one foot?”. Providing that all too clever for the befuddled masses “While hopping on one foot… no.” way out.
Willis speaks for me!
“For months, climate scientists have taken a vicious beating in the media”
LOL. It’s good to see people like Broder coming to the conclusion that most US news organizations, and the NYT, in particular, is not to be considered part of the media.
The National Academy of Sciences is preparing to publish a nontechnical paper outlining what is known — and not known — about changes to the global climate.
Let me save them the trouble.
The climate has been warming since the little ice age.