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.
Below 200 ppm CO2 plants die, at 1,000 to 1,500 ppm CO2 they thrive.
That’s it! They’re trying to save us from a take-over by the Vegetables!
REPLY: The “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” comes to mind:
Very true, Smokey. But, like they’ve hijacked Peer Review, they’ve hijacked the term “skeptic” to mean something other the original meaning.
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!
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.
Re: Jim (11:21:55) & J. Peden (11:05:43)
My comments have been influenced by first-hand experience with messy administrative politics.
I have no interest in others’ code. I do my own calculations. I just need data.
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 ?
To Paul Vaughan and to those saying that young climate scientists should walk away and find something else to do for a living…
I *refuse* to walk away from this. This issue threatens to strip humanity of its freedoms and destroy the American way of life at the hands of global government. I point blank REFUSE to walk away when I believe I can contribute to stopping this disaster. I have a responsibility to take action and do what I can and so do all of you. If you have the ability to do science well in the area of climate change research, then you SHOULD. Shame on those who simply roll over and accept the doom of others to avoid personal hardship.
I have not given up…I believe there are islands of good research in a sea of politicized garbage and I intend to find them.
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 (11:50:00) :
Re: Jim (11:21:55) & J. Peden (11:05:43)
My comments have been influenced by first-hand experience with messy administrative politics.
I have no interest in others’ code. I do my own calculations. I just need data.
****************
I understand your personal take on it, but this isn’t a coding contest we are discussing. What we are discussing is the verification and validation of published papers. In that case, we need to see the raw data, methods used to process the data, and any code or other necessary items. It has to do with replication, validation, openness of science, and confidence in the conclusions.
Certainly others should take the raw data and apply their own methods. That is another necessary part of science. But, again, we are talking about validation/replication, etc.
@ur momisugly 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.
Re: SABR Matt (12:09:45)
I’ve been doing research on my own coin for 11 months now. My funding was slashed to zero 2 weeks after I publicly announced one of my findings about natural climate variations. Whatever funding opportunities I’ve found since then would come with strings that would shut down my investigations.
I hear you loud & clear.
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.
Jim (10:38:15) :
*****************
Paul Vaughan (09:33:49) :
*****************
OK Paul, I’ve given you some time to answer. You are exhibiting the same sort of hubris and condescending behavior as the Hockey Team. You just want us to take your word that you can’t publish code.
I am a programmer. I write code for a living, as apparently you do. I have worked for both private companies and the government. In no case have I ever had IP rights to the code I write. Of course, a private company would not publish their code, but we are discussing government funded code. Unless you work for a private company, your assertion that you can’t publish code is bunk. If your work is funded by the public, then ultimately the public owns it and can get it by the FOIA. And no matter what, if you can’t publish the code, any paper that uses it should not be published by journals.
I would like to support the point of view that if the data and the meta data, i.e. the context of the data taking, are available in the public domain , a scientist worth his/her salt should be able to write the code to process it. It is not an efficient way, in one sense, but if you have followed E.M.Smith’s struggle with the GISS programing you could think that it would be more efficient to write the program from scratch.
This for scientific disciplines where one cannot redo the experiment. In physics, chemistry, biology there is no reason to put the data on the public domain because the scientific method requires an independent repetition/confirmation of the experiment. That is why in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN there are two similar experimental set ups taking data. For independent verification of any important results. Nothing beats experiments.
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.
Judy’s pejoratives reveal her perspective. Should she, however, carefully read the comments on this site and at CA, she might find that, collectively, there is a greater body of technical knowledge here than in her own evidently incestuous ivory tower. At the end of the day, the burden of proof is on her, not on the citizens that fund her every paycheck.
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.
I would like to explain this statement
“We won the war — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, and climate and energy legislation is near the top of the U.S. agenda,” Dr. Curry said. “Why keep fighting all these silly battles and putting ourselves in this position?”
that appeared in Revkin’s NYTimes article, from my statement originally posted on climateaudit
If you look at the complex context of all of my comments on that thread, i was trying to understand why the scientists in the CRU emails did what they did. The statement was putting myself in their shoes, the “we” refers to them, i do not include myself in the “we”. This may sound like sophistry, i don’t intend it to. I did not participate in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, i claim no share in the Nobel Prize. Also, i am on the record over at climateaudit as being opposed to cap and trade.
Also, the “post office” should have been “patent office” obviously, a brain slip (that was not caught be a number of other people who read this before i submitted it).
Also, i like one of the posts i saw wanting to get rid of terms like “skeptic”, “denier”, “team”. I agree, these reflect the tribalism that needs to be broken down.
I am a very small player in all this (not mentioned in the cru emails, not a participant in the IPCC FAR). Putting myself out there in this way is not a comfortable place to me. Please don’t make this about me, i am hoping this will be a start of some reasoned dialogue on this issue.
Paul, while that is unsatisfying (I was genuinely curious and was hoping for other examples), I accept.
Dr Curry said:
“At the heart of this issue is how climate researchers deal with skeptics.” She then mentions the concept of “dealing with” skeptics several more times.
So, to her way of thinking, skeptics are mere annoyances who need to be “dealt with”.
Interesting.
Judith Curry (14:40:01) : ..Putting myself out there in this way is not a comfortable place to me.
Agreed it could not be a very comfortable place for you to be. And the reason why it is not comfortable is because of the enormous power wielded by climate scientists who do their science by manipulation, both of their data and methods and also of the media, hiding data, engaging in ad hominem attacks and avoiding criticism.
After all why should merely suggesting that science be open and subject to the scientific method put the person suggesting it in an uncomfortable position!
No by doing so you are worse than a “denier”, you are an apostate and apostacy is the worst crime in the eyes of the extremist.
Please don’t make this about me, i am hoping this will be a start of some reasoned dialogue on this issue.
Agreed. I would love to debate with you sometime.
darwin:
darwin (13:55:20) : Curry is full of bs. She’s either fully involved with the AGW agenda or she’s more naive (and dumber) than I possibly could have thought
You are the Mann and Jones of the “sceptics”, if we could honour you with such a title.
Judith Curry,
I like to distinguish between nonalarmists & deniers, the latter of which I perceive to be deliberately (for personal/political, not scientific, advantage) causing the problems which I address [Paul Vaughan (12:59:54)] here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/the-curry-letter-a-word-about-deniers/
I acknowledge the risk you are taking.
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.
Guys…you’re acting just as badly as the CRU team here. I disagree with Curry’s characterization of our side being backed by a political noise machine, but there is no need to attack every word she says so roughly. You’re proving the global warming proponents right when they say we don’t listen to reason. I want to listen to reason, and I think we all owe Dr. Curry a fair chance to put her cards on the table without jumping down her throat. She’s in a new location…a new environment and she should be given a chance to adjust.
Mooloo (02:24:21) :
Roger Knights: I agree with Bob.
“Don’t get into ever decreasing circles of rebuttal on individual points. Point out the crux of their argument, and don’t be distracted from it.”
Let’s do both: Have a site (or a sub-section) where one is done, and another where the other is done.
Re: Jeremy (14:45:41)
Thank you. I’d much rather discuss things like this:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/I_IOD_Period.PNG
(Periodicity I recently found in the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) that appears related to solar variation harmonics, Earth orientation parameters, & solar system dynamics.)
IOD is not yet a well-understood phenomenon. I think we should be devoting our attention to such things as much as possible and putting some of the political hysteria on ice for a few days. Related link: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1319