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.
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???
“deal with skeptics”? Climate researchers should be sceptical and use the scientific method. Trying to preserve a ‘consensus’ view of how climate behaves without sufficient empirical evidence is what got them into this mess in the first place.
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.
What Bird Stewart Lightfoot (04:47:20) said. Plus Einstein didn’t soak-up millions of dollars in grant money that might otherwise have gone to legitimate science. Cancer research, say.
“At the heart of this issue is how climate researchers deal with skeptics.” No, the heart of it is a conspiracy to commit massive fraud. Most press and public officials are ex-liberal arts majors who wouldn’t know science from seance. They’ve been the target of this sting, whereas the ordinary public remains comparatively unconvinced.
I’m older than Judy Curry and I’m not a stakeholder in this. My advice to grad students would be ‘you’re still young — find another major.’
Here is a piece we wrote in 2002. Like the scientific article that accompanies it, it remains valid and relevant today.
Climate science has not changed. But it has been utterly corrupted by dishonest, self-serving groups such as Mann’s “hockey team’, the IPCC, and their supporters.
For more than a decade, climate science has been hijacked by scoundrels. It is time to get rid of these crooks, and to put climate science back on its proper course.
Full disclosure of raw data, computer code and computed results, a very easy task to accomplish if people acted in good faith, would be a good start.
Previous”research” that fails to meet these objectives should simply be deleted and ignored. This would probably result in the trashing of much IPCC work – TAR and AR4 would go into the dumpster, especially the SPM’s.
Climate science needs to “go back” to where the field became so corrupted, and start again from there.
In the meantime, all talk of climate change legislation and treaties should be suspended – given the lack of a scientific basis, it is little more than the prattling of scoundrels and imbeciles.
Regards to all, and Happy USA Thanksgiving.
_________________________
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
REBUTTAL OF POINT
(BY COUNTERPOINT AUTHORS)
The Pembina Institute’s authors have chosen to avoid the science topic, perhaps because there is no credible scientific basis for the Kyoto Protocol.
Advocates of Kyoto mistakenly cite the United Nations IPCC 2001 report and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences 2001 report as authoritative scientific sources. Dr. Richard Lindzen, Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT and a co-author of both reports, wrote in 2001:
“We are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future…
“Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty – far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge…”
Kyoto has many fatal flaws, any one of which should cause this treaty to be scrapped.
Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.
Kyoto focuses primarily on reducing CO2, a relatively harmless gas, and does nothing to control real air pollution like NOx, SO2, and particulates, or serious pollutants in water and soil.
Kyoto wastes enormous resources that are urgently needed to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today. For example, the money spent on Kyoto in one year would provide clean drinking water and sanitation for all the people of the developing world in perpetuity.
Kyoto will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and damage the Canadian economy – the U.S., Canada’s biggest trading partner, will not ratify Kyoto, and developing countries are exempt.
Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment – it will cause energy-intensive industries to move to exempted developing countries that do not control even the worst forms of pollution.
Kyoto’s CO2 credit trading scheme punishes the most energy efficient countries and rewards the most wasteful. Due to the strange rules of Kyoto, Canada will pay the former Soviet Union billions of dollars per year for CO2 credits.
Kyoto will be ineffective – even assuming the overstated pro-Kyoto science is correct, Kyoto will reduce projected warming insignificantly, and it would take as many as 40 such treaties to stop alleged global warming.
The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.
Romm and Mann are deep and hardcore nasty in their approach
Dr Curry is more like a smoother operator
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/smooth-operator/E4299DBAA7E7F27C6716E4299DBAA7E7F27C6716
“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.
I am heartened that Dr Curry has called for more honesty and openness in the AGW debate in the form of released data. However, I am dismayed at her patronising “us and them inferences”. She assumes that she is right and the skeptics are wrong and need to be lead to enlightenment. Hardly an open approach is it?
Far from being “brainwashed”, I hold two degrees and am quite capable of discerning a patronising tone when I read one.
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.
As mentioned by others above, I stopped reading this “letter” as soon as she began talking about “skeptics”
Dr. Curry begins amiably enough, but quickly falls into the category of those that they “know” the answer and the “skeptics” are a bunch of whiny complainers that don’t like the “real” answers. This is truly a pity, and immediately relegates her entire letter as unworthy.
I routinely publish in high-end chemistry journals (such as those of the American Chemical Society). There is often controversy in chemistry about reaction mechanisms, and there are many examples of important (Nobel-prize winning) chemists skirmishing on how a particular reaction takes place. Never is one assumed to be correct and the others “deniers”. This is ludicrous.
Science can only benefit from questioning. To try to shut those up that would question is a serious breach of scientific protocol. One which ANY good scientist should be ashamed to admit being party to.
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?
I look at this site every day-often multiple times daily. So first of all thanks to Anthony and all who help keep it up and running and for working overtime during the past week (Thanksgiving and all). Also thanks to the regular posters and others who take the time to compose insightful comments– I’m still waiting to dig into that chili-pot that is on the backburner of the stove : )(re: a posting from about a week ago).
Anyway, I am layman in all of this and have never studied anything to do with climatology etc. I don’t have the time (nor the inclination–sorry) to dig into and digest all of the tables, charts, graphs and statistics that are provided.
As someone with a very limited, but growing, knowledge of these issues, I have to say that I really enjoyed the video post by Cromagnum (21:56:49). It was right up my alley and it is something everyone can easily understand. It is great that it can be viewed by the tens of thousands (millions?) of fans here on this site, but we’re already “skeptics”. Hopefully Cromagnum will find others willing to host it on their sites–sites where people who are not so climate oriented tend to visit. Of course the experts who comment here know if it is based on good science (though it seems logical and solid to me). I don’t know if it would pass the test of our warmist friends, however, since the recorded temperatures don’t seem to have been manipulated.
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.
My very first chemistry teacher in Scotland, Mr Shields, taught us to be sceptics from the start.
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.
“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…
I appreciate that Dr Curry is willing to take a stand. Considering the closed mind-set of the lemming-like academic community regarding global warming and “carbon,” her stand is more risky than most in her position are willing to take. But it would be much better if Dr Curry would free her mind from the canard that there is a problem with scientific skepticism.
Dr Curry writes:
Dr Curry doesn’t seem to understand the fact that the only good scientists are skeptics. Being a skeptic is a basic requirement of the Scientific Method. And we see the result of simply accepting the conclusions of those in the CRU, the IPCC, and most all of academia. Without answering skeptics’ questions, the current AGW belief is relentlessly advocated by rent-seeking grant applicants in an environment where $Billions are handed out every year — almost exclusively to those making the increasingly questionable assertion that a harmless trace gas will cause climate catastrophe and doom.
Where are skeptical opinions tolerated, outside of internet sites and an occasional newspaper article? In what academic fora is it openly discussed that there is no empirical evidence at all that measures any specific temperature rise as a direct result of a rise in CO2?
In fact, the opposite is true: as CO2 rises, the planet’s temperature has declined. And past rises in CO2 have consistently followed rises in temperature. Yet those skeptical of the effect of CO2 are deliberately excluded from peer review journals. Their questions are dismissed with a wave of the hand, as they are labeled “deniers”. Their requests for the underlying raw data are routinely refused. And as we see in the CRU emails, skeptical scientists are constantly vilified by a small clique trying to remain the official arbiters of climate science. Mann, Jones and the rest are seen to be constantly strategizing about how to counter and attack skeptical scientists, instead of cooperating with them in order to find the truth of the effect of CO2.
Dr Curry needs to speak out and remind people that being a skeptic is an absolute requirement of being a good scientist. Skeptical scientists can certainly be convinced of a hypothesis. But it will take more than the current smoke and mirrors, and the hidden data and formulas that pass for ‘evidence’ of runaway global warming. Those claiming a new hypothesis have the burden of showing how they arrived at their conclusions. Stonewalling requests for data only confirm that they have plenty to hide.
The Scientific Method requires full transparency of all data and methods used to support the CO2=CAGW hypothesis, and a sincere willingness to openly share those methods and raw data. We are not nearly at that point yet.
Well,it would seem apparent that ‘climate science’ hasn’t upheld core values. As the Russian proverb says ‘If you lay down with dogs you wake up with fleas’.
*****************
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.
In my opinion, “skeptics” such as Anthony Watts are already on the “high ground”.
Judith Curry and her “side” can not take it, but they can join the scientists already there. Engaging those who disagree on acceptable terms (not necessarily “(y)our own”), making data/methods available/transparent, and clarifying the uncertainties certainly would be a start.
Curry’s “side” may be winning the political aspect, but they are losing the scientific position, damaging the creditability of science now and in the future.
Her comment as 05:13:45 above – “The public needs some help in differentiating some of the garbage that is out there from serious skepticism.” shows her bias and lessens her standing as far as I’m concerned. (and I suspect many agree)
What she should say, if she really wants to move toward the “high ground” would be: “The public needs some help in differentiating some of the garbage that is out there from both the supporters of AGW and the serious skeptics.”
If she’s really being honest, she will recognize that there is “garbage” supporting her GW position as well.
Just my 2 cents.
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?
sylvain (00:07:53) :
I tried to post this at climate progress where the original from this letter can be found.
It is informative to realize that hardcore ‘alarmist’ still haven’t learn anything from Dr Curry or ‘climategate’
Censored post:
Dr Curry writes:
“The counter to that argument is to make all of your data, metadata, and code openly available. Doing this will minimize the time spent responding to skeptics; try it!”
The refusal to give access to all that is needed to reproduce one’s research is the main reason that I’m skeptic of climate research. If researchers are confident that there work is solid, then why obstruct others from being able to reproduce their work?
When I did graduate research and published, the key was to make assertions that were findings in experiments that can be replicated. This is not the pattern in climate research by the dirty dozen.
There is nothing in prescription drugs that comes from secret research.
I say we defund research. The novelty is over. If you had some lines regarding the environment in a grant proposal, funding was more likely.
It is coming to meltdown time for climate research grants. Find another major. Actually accounting degrees are hot and within that people that have tools to detect security breeches and fraud.
Correction:
should have read ““The public needs some help in differentiating some of the garbage that is out there from both the supporters of AGW and the serious skeptics and properly conducted science.”
I will give the “Good DR” the benifit of the doubt by quoting her from dot earth:
““We won the war — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, and climate and energy legislation is near the top of the U.S. agenda,” Dr. Curry said. “Why keep fighting all these silly battles and putting ourselves in this position?”
In answer to her question she should remove herself from the issue as she is no longer a scientist!
@ur momisugly 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.