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.
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.
*****************
Jeremy (14:45:41) :
Paul, while that is unsatisfying (I was genuinely curious and was hoping for other examples), I accept.
*************
It could be that we aren’t getting a logical reason why code shouldn’t be release because the reason doesn’t exist. On the various forums where I discuss global warming, there seems to be a new meme that the data should be released but not the code.
In response to Curry’s letter from the political science department, I would like to suggest some steps that should be taken before climate “science” can be taken seriously. No one would care if this were just a food fight among a few dozen scientists, but since we are now confronted with a movement to rearrange the entire world economy with trillions of dollars at stake, it’s important that the science, if there is any, be rock solid. The boulder is rolling down the mountain right now, but a few well placed pebbles may divert it from its intended path.
1. GET RID OF PEER REVIEW. This is now so corrupted by the likes of Mann, Jones, Schmidt, and without doubt by many lesser Manns, Jones, and Schmidts that it is meaningless. In fact, at this point, it’s probably destructive. It will take a generation before the damage is undone.
Peer review came about because of the high cost of paper journals. This need is gone now that storage is cheap. Set up one or more online journals like arXiv.org and let anyone who wants, publish. The good will be sorted from the bad over time.
2. DATA AVAILABILITY. Unique data should be archived online, complete with all its metadata and freely available to all. No on can go back in time and get new, independent temperature station measurements. Any data that requires large expensive efforts to collect and analyze should also be freely available with complete documentation, e.g., ice cores. Any other data should be, but that’s up to the scientists. Of course, no one is going to take you seriously at this point if you don’t make the data available. Any publications using public data have to acknowledge the source.
3. DATA PRESENTATION. Data has errors. Every data point has a measurement error, a calibration error, a systematic error, and so on. The error, correctly calculated, has to be included for every data point on every graph.
Eliminate the data smoothing. Time series fluctuate and the fluctuations have important information in them. The only reason to draw a line through data points is because you have an a priori theory that predicts the data series. You don’t. Smoothing is just a gimmick to fool the eye and creates stupid controversies about how to deal with end points. It is also a source of dishonesty a la “hide the decline”.
Spaghetti plots. HUH? Or better, goat entrails. Only a climate scientist with filthy matted waist length hair, dressed in rags, stinking to high heaven, screaming at the top of his lungs, and stoned to the eyeballs can interpret these things.
4. PROXIES. A proxy is not a proxy until it has been shown by careful measurement, independent of its use, that it provides information about temperature, CO2, whatever. A tree ring is not a thermometer until the confounding effects of sunlight, CO2, water, fertilization, disease, competition, species, nonlinear response, and so on have been understood. If that means spending thirty years tending trees in a real greenhouse under carefully controlled conditions, so be it. It’s not science until then. Same goes for borehole temperatures, sediments, O18, …
5. COMPUTER CODE. Without exception, every professional programmer who does mission critical work has been horrified by climate science computer code that has been published including GISS_TEMP and Model E. Problems like the sum of squares becoming negative, as documented by HARRY_READ_ME.TXT, have been known and understood since at least the 1950s. There’s no reason that something as simple as computing average temperatures should be corrupted by kindergarden errors. Who knows what’s lurking in the GCM codes? Time for the professional programmers to rip the codes apart and rebuild them so that they perform properly.
The GCMs also have to be seriously examined by professionals in fluid dynamics unassociated with climate science. Places to look would be the aircraft industry, chemical industry, and even, horrors, the oil industry. They have peoples’ lives and billions of dollars at stake, which tends to concentrate the mind.
7. MULTIPLE MODELS. Usually presented in spaghetti graphs (see above) and then “averaged” to show us wonderful agreement with data. This is nonsense on thousand foot stilts. By climate science logic, if I have one model says the sky is violet, a second that predicts it’s green, the average is blue, therefore they’re both right. No they’re both wrong. Same goes for the climate models, at best one of them is right and the rest are wrong. Hearing this from an insider makes me certain they’re all wrong. “Kenneth Trenberth: The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
Instead of temperature anomalies, let’s see global temperature plots, for every season and year. The ones I’ve seen in the IPCC reports don’t look too spiffy with the poles 10 C warmer than reality. As an extra bonus you can’t hide the fact that the Pacific Ocean freezes at the equator in the model. A real good idea would be to post these on the web and let’s all wait ten years to see how the predictions come out before bothering with this anymore.
Texan99 (08:04:05) :
Does a climate scientist lose his credibility when he refers to a successful campaign to oust a skeptical editor as “plugging the leak”?
CRU scientist Tom Wigley wrote that he intended to get Saiers removed from the editorial board of Geophysical Research Letters. After he succeeded in this effort, he wrote: “The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there.”
Plugging a leak generally refers to keeping a secret.
What a jackass–he’s inadvertently characterized himself as a “plumber” — remember that term?
JamesinCanada (10:59:56) :
You can do no better than read Christoper Booker’s, ahem, book, to be able to connect the dots.
The Real Global Warmig Disaster
He starts with the rise of modern enviromentalism (I deliberately ommit the ‘n’) and moves via The Evil Canadian Maurice Strong through Rio and on.
Get it from Amazon, or, perha[ps your local Greenpeace store 😉
GaryB: exactly. As a former chemical engineer, I agree 100 percent.
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.
“they will simply say (as they have already done) “the underlying warming has been masked by the cooling trend.”
The crazy thing is that there IS an underlying (but natural) warming trend–since the end of the LIA!
bob (09:57:00) :
Bernie Madoff All Over Again!
That is one context of ClimateGate. We have the appearance of respectability with Madoff being a former chairman of NASD, and Jones being the Director of CRU. How could a people of such reputation participate in, much less, originate what are possibly the largest scams in the history of the world?
It is precisely because Madoff was so respectable that he was able to pull it off.
======
Here’s an interesting quote:
““There was an honesty oozing out of Moocher such as only dishonest men have. They need it. If one of them looks just ordinarily honest, somebody says, ‘We had better test him, to make sure.’ And almost at once he is found out. So a crook has to seem so honest that it is sheer impiety to suggest making any test.”
—Lord Dunsany, “A Matter of Business,” in Jorkens Has a Large Whiskey, p. 261
I am not a scientist, simply an interested bystander with some scientific background. Enough background to be horrified at the possibility of something as extremely important as Climate Change being “possibly” engineered.
I, and the rest of humanity, are depending on scientist to develop the proper and factual information our species needs to survive and prosper. We really would appreciate it if you scientist would get your chit together, and quit behaving like self serving politicians.
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
JP Miller – very well said
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.
Have we been too hard on Ms. Curry here? I will reserve judgement. It depends on whether or not she actually starts debating the science. THAT would be rare and welcomed from someone in the AGW camp.
***************
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.
Jim (18:36:14) :
***************
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.
Let me restate that. I did not direct the commet @jim (16:38:38) to you, specifically.
My comments regarding release of code are referring to the situation where a climate science paper is published in a journal. True science requires that the data and code be published with it, period. If you are doing something other than publishing climate science papers with your code, it isn’t relevant to the discussion. As I said, I’m not badgering you. This is my opinion and it exists independent of you.
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.
Re: Jim (18:36:14)
Jim,
I once had the following experience: After working very long overtime hours on hundreds upon hundreds of files for more than 3 years, one day I found my access to a server blocked permanently at a critical moment without warning. I think you will understand that I am “not at liberty” to reveal the whole story.
In the future I hope to develop websites that will make wavelet methods simple for people with no more than Stat 101. With this in mind, I now write my programs in Excel after learning lessons from the above-mentioned negative experience about files that are only compatible with exclusive software requiring extremely prohibitive site-license fees.
Releasing code may be one means of voluntary public outreach, but it may not be the most constructive outreach in all cases. If there are cases where the public release of code is required by law, I will leave technical commentary to legal experts, but my instinct would be to be concerned that such laws (if they exist) might have unintended side-effects on innocents.
This exchange has been illuminating. I thank you for the comments you have made.
Bad data. Bad methods. How is it possible to address sceptics when you have nothing?
I have a good idea though. How about we dump a LOT MORE MONEY into climate “science” in an effort to start over. From scratch.
Re: SABR Matt (18:55:01)
I agree that volunteer release of extra methodological detail might be important in cases where methods are new to experts, but if non-experts are looking for free tutoring from researchers who barely have time for research due to excessive teaching & administrative duties, I would not hesitate to side with those screaming “vexatious & impractical” without regard for alarmist/nonalarmist &/or left/right lines.
If I have time, I’ll dig out some notes I once posted to explain calculations that were not intuitive to an audience I was addressing. It might be interesting to see what folks around here think of that approach.
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.
Judith: Is this a correct quote?
“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?” (Andrew Revkin column NYT)
If so, and it was not taken out of a modifying context you have lost ALL credibility with me.
Just a bit of attempted CYA by Judith Curry. Unimpressive.
I suspect the CRU data and codes go to the heart of “global warming” and the other surface temperature records are similarly corrupt.
If that’s true you don’t have anything, Judith. Time will tell.
Anyway how come there are so many researchers working in this field? Seems to me there are at least a factor of ten too many. A haven for second and third rate would be “scientists” maybe?
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.
When you start a “reasoned debate” with “You are a bunch of [snipped and replaced with –> ] skeptics who will have to be dealt with.” You have poisoned the well. Add that as one more indictment. Along with corrupted data. Bad programming practices. Unwarranted adjustments. And hiding the decline.
And just to continue in the current vein – any one still pounding the AGW drum with Bad methods and Bad data unresolved is complicit in fraud.
An honest scientist would say: “we have nothing and until we have sorted this all out I have nothing further to say. And let me add that I may have nothing to say for years or decades.”
Judith,
But we have proof they were acting as a “team”. That is not hyperbole or assertion. Fact.