An open letter from Dr. Judith Curry on climate science

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.

Is the first paragraph the student’s letter and the rest Dr Curry’s response?

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.

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

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

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?”

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.

Great post, SABR Matt!
You identified exactly the same problem that I felt when reading Dr Curry’s letter (and her post at ClimateAudit too for that matter).
I say let truth prevail, is that not ultimately what science is all about?
I hope that ClimateGate will bring us closer to full disclosure of the methods and data behind the IPCC-report.

I 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.

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.

“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.

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).

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Dr Curry may be an outstanding scientist, but I feel at heart, Dr Curry is a politician

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.

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.

SABR Matt (21:54:42) :
Agree

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

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…

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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???

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.

“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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

*****************
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.

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?

@ 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.

UN Scientists turn on each other:
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/4100/UN-scientists-turn-on-each-other-UN-Scientist-Declares-Climategate-colleagues-Mann-Jones-and-Rahmstorf-should-be-barred-from-the-IPCC-process–They-are-not-credible-any-more

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

@ 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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.)

*******************
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!!!

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).

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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?

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

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

*************
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?

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

@ 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.

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.

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.

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.

Paul, while that is unsatisfying (I was genuinely curious and was hoping for other examples), I accept.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

***************
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.

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.

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.

Wow! It looks like The Times have caught up with the rest of us:
“SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.”
They probably threw away their code also 🙂
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

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.

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.

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.

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.