I asked Dr. Judith Curry if I could repost her letter which she originally sent to Climate Progress, here at WUWT. Here was her response:
From: Curry, Judith A
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 2:10 PM
To: Anthony Watts – mobile
Subject: Re: request
Hi Anthony, by all means post it. I am trying to reach out to everyone, pls help in this effort. Judy
Dr. Curry gets props from the skeptical community because she had the courage to invite Steve McIntyre to give a presentation at Georgia Tech, for which she took criticism. Her letter is insightful and addresses troubling issues. We can all learn something from it. – Anthony
An open letter to graduate students and young scientists in fields related to climate research – By Dr. Judith A. Curry, Georgia Tech
Based upon feedback that I’ve received from graduate students at Georgia Tech, I suspect that you are confused, troubled, or worried by what you have been reading about ClimateGate and the contents of the hacked CRU emails. After spending considerable time reading the hacked emails and other posts in the blogosphere, I wrote an essay that calls for greater transparency in climate data and other methods used in climate research. The essay is posted over at climateaudit.org (you can read it at http://camirror.wordpress.com/ 2009/ 11/ 22/ curry-on-the-credibility-of-climate-research/ ).
What has been noticeably absent so far in the ClimateGate discussion is a public reaffirmation by climate researchers of our basic research values: the rigors of the scientific method (including reproducibility), research integrity and ethics, open minds, and critical thinking. Under no circumstances should we ever sacrifice any of these values; the CRU emails, however, appear to violate them.
My motivation for communicating on this issue in the blogosphere comes from emails that I received from Georgia Tech graduate students and alums. As a result of my post on climateaudit, I started receiving emails from graduate students from other universities. I post the content of one of the emails here, without reference to the student’s name or institution:
Hi Dr. Curry,
I am a young climate researcher (just received my master’s degree from xxx University) and have been very troubled by the emails that were released from CRU. I just want to applaud and support your response on climateaudit.org [95% of it 🙂 ]. Your statement represents exactly how I have felt as I slowly enter this community. The content of some of the emails literally made me stop and wonder if I should continue with my PhD applications for fall 2010, in this science. I was so troubled by how our fellow scientists within the climate community have been dealing with opposing voices (on both sides). I hope we can all learn from this and truly feel that we are going to need voices like yours to fix these problems in the coming months and years.
At the heart of this issue is how climate researchers deal with skeptics. I have served my time in the “trenches of the climate war” in the context of the debate on hurricanes and global warming. There is no question that there is a political noise machine in existence that feeds on research and statements from climate change skeptics. In grappling with this issue, I would argue that there are three strategies for dealing with skeptics:
1. Retreat into the ivory tower
2. Circle the wagons/point guns outward: ad hominem/appeal to motive attacks; appeal to authority; isolate the enemy through lack of access to data; peer review process
3. Take the “high ground:” engage the skeptics on our own terms (conferences, blogosphere); make data/methods available/transparent; clarify the uncertainties; openly declare our values
Most scientists retreat into the ivory tower. The CRU emails reflect elements of the circling of wagons strategy. For the past 3 years, I have been trying to figure out how to engage skeptics effectively in the context of #3, which I think is a method that can be effective in countering the arguments of skeptics, while at the same time being consistent with our core research values. Some of the things that I’ve tried in my quest to understand skeptics and more effectively counter misinformation include posting at skeptical blogs, such as climateaudit, and inviting prominent skeptics to give seminars at Georgia Tech. I have received significant heat from some colleagues for doing this (I’ve been told that I am legitimizing the skeptics and misleading my students), but I think we need to try things like this if we are to develop effective strategies for dealing with skeptics and if we are to teach students to think critically.
If climate science is to uphold core research values and be credible to public, we need to respond to any critique of data or methodology that emerges from analysis by other scientists. Ignoring skeptics coming from outside the field is inappropriate; Einstein did not start his research career at Princeton, but rather at a post office. I’m not implying that climate researchers need to keep defending against the same arguments over and over again. Scientists claim that they would never get any research done if they had to continuously respond to skeptics. The counter to that argument is to make all of your data, metadata, and code openly available. Doing this will minimize the time spent responding to skeptics; try it! If anyone identifies an actual error in your data or methodology, acknowledge it and fix the problem. Doing this would keep molehills from growing into mountains that involve congressional hearings, lawyers, etc.
So with this reaffirmation of core climate research values, I encourage you to discuss the ideas and issues raised here with your fellow students and professors. Your professors may disagree with me; there are likely to be many perspectives on this. I hope that others will share their wisdom and provide ideas and guidance for dealing with these issues. Spend some time perusing the blogosphere (both skeptical and pro AGW blogs) to get a sense of the political issues surrounding our field. A better understanding of the enormous policy implications of our field should imbue in all of us a greater responsibility for upholding the highest standards of research ethics. Hone your communications skills; we all need to communicate more effectively. Publish your data as supplementary material or post on a public website. And keep your mind open and sharpen your critical thinking skills. My very best wishes to you in your studies, research, and professional development. I look forward to engaging with you in a dialogue on this topic.
Judith Curry
Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
References:
My past public statements on climate change can be found at my website http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/policy.htm
My paper on “Mixing politics and science in testing the hypothesis that greenhouse warming is a causing an increase in global hurricane intensity” can be found at
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_BAMS87.pdf
My presentation on the integrity of climate research can be found at
http://www.pacinst.org/ topics/ integrity_of_science/ AGU_IntegrityofScience_Curry.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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!
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
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”.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 .
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?)
The link is here:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/petr-chylek/
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?
May I add to my previous comment? I would like to thank Dr Curry for raising the issues which she has. More strength to her arm!
Why not? You just automatically believe everything you read/hear?
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?
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.