Foreword – Below is a guest post (by request) from Dr. Judith Curry on the issues we deal with every day here. While I and other like minded bloggers were given the opportunity to have some early input into this, little of it was accepted. This I think puts it off to a bad start in light of the title. One of my issues was that it wasn’t necessary to use the word “deniers”, which I think removal of is central to any discourse that includes a goal of “rebuilding trust”. There’s also other more technical issues related to current investigations that are not addressed here.
I had made my concerns known to Dr. Curry before in this post: The Curry letter: a word about “deniers”… which is worth re-reading again.
To be frank, given that she’s still using the term even when pointed out, and had deferred other valid suggestions from other skeptics, I’d given serious consideration to not carrying this at all. But I had carried Dr. Curry’s original post (at my request) on 11/27/09, just seven days after the Climategate story broke here at WUWT on 11/20/09:
An open letter from Dr. Judith Curry on climate science
Since I had carried that one at my request to Dr. Curry, I decided it only fair that I’d carry this one she offered, but with the above caveat. Further, as Andrew Revkin pointed out yesterday, WUWT is now by far the most trafficked climate blog in the world. With that comes a level of responsibility to broadly report the issues. Readers should give their opinion here, pulling no punches, but with one caveat: make the discourse respectful and without labels or inflammatory comments. – Anthony
Guest post by Judith Curry, Georgia Institute of Technology
I am trying something new, a blogospheric experiment, if you will. I have been a fairly active participant in the blogosphere since 2006, and recently posted two essays on climategate, one at climateaudit.org and the other at climateprogress.org. Both essays were subsequently picked up by other blogs, and the diversity of opinions expressed at the different blogs was quite interesting. Hence I am distributing this essay to a number of different blogs simultaneously with the hope of demonstrating the collective power of the blogosphere to generate ideas and debate them. I look forward to a stimulating discussion on this important topic.
Losing the Public’s Trust
Climategate has now become broadened in scope to extend beyond the CRU emails to include glaciergate and a host of other issues associated with the IPCC. In responding to climategate, the climate research establishment has appealed to its own authority and failed to understand that climategate is primarily a crisis of trust. Finally, we have an editorial published in Science on February 10 from Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Science, that begins to articulate the trust issue: “This view reflects the fragile nature of trust between science and society, demonstrating that the perceived misbehavior of even a few scientists can diminish the credibility of science as a whole. What needs to be done? Two aspects need urgent attention: the general practice of science and the personal behaviors of scientists.” While I applaud loudly Dr. Cicerone’s statement, I wish it had been made earlier and had not been isolated from the public by publishing the statement behind paywall at Science. Unfortunately, the void of substantive statements from our institutions has been filled in ways that have made the situation much worse.
Credibility is a combination of expertise and trust. While scientists persist in thinking that they should be trusted because of their expertise, climategate has made it clear that expertise itself is not a sufficient basis for public trust. The fallout from climategate is much broader than the allegations of misconduct by scientists at two universities. Of greatest importance is the reduced credibility of the IPCC assessment reports, which are providing the scientific basis for international policies on climate change. Recent disclosures about the IPCC have brought up a host of concerns about the IPCC that had been festering in the background: involvement of IPCC scientists in explicit climate policy advocacy; tribalism that excluded skeptics; hubris of scientists with regards to a noble (Nobel) cause; alarmism; and inadequate attention to the statistics of uncertainty and the complexity of alternative interpretations.
The scientists involved in the CRU emails and the IPCC have been defended as scientists with the best of intentions trying to do their work in a very difficult environment. They blame the alleged hacking incident on the “climate denial machine.” They are described as fighting a valiant war to keep misinformation from the public that is being pushed by skeptics with links to the oil industry. They are focused on moving the science forward, rather than the janitorial work of record keeping, data archival, etc. They have had to adopt unconventional strategies to fight off what they thought was malicious interference. They defend their science based upon their years of experience and their expertise.
Scientists are claiming that the scientific content of the IPCC reports is not compromised by climategate. The jury is still out on the specific fallout from climategate in terms of the historical and paleo temperature records. There are larger concerns (raised by glaciergate, etc.) particularly with regards to the IPCC Assessment Report on Impacts (Working Group II): has a combination of groupthink, political advocacy and a noble cause syndrome stifled scientific debate, slowed down scientific progress and corrupted the assessment process? If institutions are doing their jobs, then misconduct by a few individual scientists should be quickly identified, and the impacts of the misconduct should be confined and quickly rectified. Institutions need to look in the mirror and ask the question as to how they enabled this situation and what opportunities they missed to forestall such substantial loss of public trust in climate research and the major assessment reports.
In their misguided war against the skeptics, the CRU emails reveal that core research values became compromised. Much has been said about the role of the highly politicized environment in providing an extremely difficult environment in which to conduct science that produces a lot of stress for the scientists. There is no question that this environment is not conducive to science and scientists need more support from their institutions in dealing with it. However, there is nothing in this crazy environment that is worth sacrificing your personal or professional integrity. And when your science receives this kind of attention, it means that the science is really important to the public. Therefore scientists need to do everything possible to make sure that they effectively communicate uncertainty, risk, probability and complexity, and provide a context that includes alternative and competing scientific viewpoints. This is an important responsibility that individual scientists and particularly the institutions need to take very seriously.
Both individual scientists and the institutions need to look in the mirror and really understand how this happened. Climategate isn’t going to go away until these issues are resolved. Science is ultimately a self-correcting process, but with a major international treaty and far-reaching domestic legislation on the table, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
The Changing Nature of Skepticism about Global Warming
Over the last few months, I have been trying to understand how this insane environment for climate research developed. In my informal investigations, I have been listening to the perspectives of a broad range of people that have been labeled as “skeptics” or even “deniers”. I have come to understand that global warming skepticism is very different now than it was five years ago. Here is my take on how global warming skepticism has evolved over the past several decades.
In the 1980’s, James Hansen and Steven Schneider led the charge in informing the public of the risks of potential anthropogenic climate change. Sir John Houghton and Bert Bolin played similar roles in Europe. This charge was embraced by the environmental advocacy groups, and global warming alarmism was born. During this period I would say that many if not most researchers, including myself, were skeptical that global warming was detectable in the temperature record and that it would have dire consequences. The traditional foes of the environmental movement worked to counter the alarmism of the environmental movement, but this was mostly a war between advocacy groups and not an issue that had taken hold in the mainstream media and the public consciousness. In the first few years of the 21st century, the stakes became higher and we saw the birth of what some have called a “monolithic climate denial machine”. Skeptical research published by academics provided fodder for the think tanks and advocacy groups, which were fed by money provided by the oil industry. This was all amplified by talk radio and cable news.
In 2006 and 2007, things changed as a result of Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” plus the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, and global warming became a seemingly unstoppable juggernaut. The reason that the IPCC 4th Assessment Report was so influential is that people trusted the process the IPCC described: participation of a thousand scientists from 100 different countries, who worked for several years to produce 3000 pages with thousands of peer reviewed scientific references, with extensive peer review. Further, the process was undertaken with the participation of policy makers under the watchful eyes of advocacy groups with a broad range of conflicting interests. As a result of the IPCC influence, scientific skepticism by academic researchers became vastly diminished and it became easier to embellish the IPCC findings rather than to buck the juggernaut. Big oil funding for contrary views mostly dried up and the mainstream media supported the IPCC consensus. But there was a new movement in the blogosphere, which I refer to as the “climate auditors”, started by Steve McIntyre. The climate change establishment failed to understand this changing dynamic, and continued to blame skepticism on the denial machine funded by big oil.
Climate Auditors and the Blogosphere
Steve McIntyre started the blog climateaudit.org so that he could defend himself against claims being made at the blog realclimate.org with regards to his critique of the “hockey stick” since he was unable to post his comments there. Climateaudit has focused on auditing topics related to the paleoclimate reconstructions over the past millennia (in particular the so called “hockey stick”) and also the software being used by climate researchers to fix data problems due to poor quality surface weather stations in the historical climate data record. McIntyre’s “auditing” became very popular not only with the skeptics, but also with the progressive “open source” community, and there are now a number of such blogs. The blog with the largest public audience is wattsupwiththat.com, led by weatherman Anthony Watts, with over 2 million unique visitors each month.
So who are the climate auditors? They are technically educated people, mostly outside of academia. Several individuals have developed substantial expertise in aspects of climate science, although they mainly audit rather than produce original scientific research. They tend to be watchdogs rather than deniers; many of them classify themselves as “lukewarmers”. They are independent of oil industry influence. They have found a collective voice in the blogosphere and their posts are often picked up by the mainstream media. They are demanding greater accountability and transparency of climate research and assessment reports.
So what motivated their FOIA requests of the CRU at the University of East Anglia? Last weekend, I was part of a discussion on this issue at the Blackboard. Among the participants in this discussion was Steven Mosher, who broke the climategate story and has already written a book on it here. They are concerned about inadvertent introduction of bias into the CRU temperature data by having the same people who create the dataset use the dataset in research and in verifying climate models; this concern applies to both NASA GISS and the connection between CRU and the Hadley Centre. This concern is exacerbated by the choice of James Hansen at NASA GISS to become a policy advocate, and his forecasts of forthcoming “warmest years.” Medical research has long been concerned with the introduction of such bias, which is why they conduct double blind studies when testing the efficacy of a medical treatment. Any such bias could be checked by independent analyses of the data; however, people outside the inner circle were unable to obtain access to the information required to link the raw data to the final analyzed product. Further, creation of the surface data sets was treated like a research project, with no emphasis on data quality analysis, and there was no independent oversight. Given the importance of these data sets both to scientific research and public policy, they feel that greater public accountability is required.
So why do the mainstream climate researchers have such a problem with the climate auditors? The scientists involved in the CRU emails seem to regard Steve McIntyre as their arch-nemesis (Roger Pielke Jr’s term). Steve McIntyre’s early critiques of the hockey stick were dismissed and he was characterized as a shill for the oil industry. Academic/blogospheric guerilla warfare ensued, as the academic researchers tried to prevent access of the climate auditors to publishing in scientific journals and presenting their work at professional conferences, and tried to deny them access to published research data and computer programs. The bloggers countered with highly critical posts in the blogosphere and FOIA requests. And climategate was the result.
So how did this group of bloggers succeed in bringing the climate establishment to its knees (whether or not the climate establishment realizes yet that this has happened)? Again, trust plays a big role; it was pretty easy to follow the money trail associated with the “denial machine”. On the other hand, the climate auditors have no apparent political agenda,
are doing this work for free, and have been playing a watchdog role, which has engendered the trust of a large segment of the population.
Towards Rebuilding Trust
Rebuilding trust with the public on the subject of climate research starts with Ralph Cicerone’s statement “Two aspects need urgent attention: the general practice of science and the personal behaviors of scientists.” Much has been written about the need for greater transparency, reforms to peer review, etc. and I am hopeful that the relevant institutions will respond appropriately. Investigations of misconduct are being conducted at the University of East Anglia and at Penn State. Here I would like to bring up some broader issues that will require substantial reflection by the institutions and also by individual scientists.
Climate research and its institutions have not yet adapted to its high policy relevance. How scientists can most effectively and appropriately engage with the policy process is a topic that has not been adequately discussed (e.g. the “honest broker” challenge discussed by Roger Pielke Jr), and climate researchers are poorly informed in this regard. The result has been reflexive support for the UNFCCC policy agenda (e.g. carbon cap and trade) by many climate researchers that are involved in the public debate (particularly those involved in the IPCC), which they believe follows logically from the findings of the (allegedly policy neutral) IPCC. The often misinformed policy advocacy by this group of climate scientists has played a role in the political polarization of this issue.. The interface between science and policy is a muddy issue, but it is very important that scientists have guidance in navigating the potential pitfalls. Improving this situation could help defuse the hostile environment that scientists involved in the public debate have to deal with, and would also help restore the public trust of climate scientists.
The failure of the public and policy makers to understand the truth as presented by the IPCC is often blamed on difficulties of communicating such a complex topic to a relatively uneducated public that is referred to as “unscientific America” by Chris Mooney. Efforts are made to “dumb down” the message and to frame the message to respond to issues that are salient to the audience. People have heard the alarm, but they remain unconvinced because of a perceived political agenda and lack of trust of the message and the messengers. At the same time, there is a large group of educated and evidence driven people (e.g. the libertarians, people that read the technical skeptic blogs, not to mention policy makers) who want to understand the risk and uncertainties associated with climate change, without being told what kinds of policies they should be supporting. More effective communication strategies can be devised by recognizing that there are two groups with different levels of base knowledge about the topic. But building trust through public communication on this topic requires that uncertainty be acknowledged. My own experience in making public presentations about climate change has found that discussing the uncertainties increases the public trust in what scientists are trying to convey and doesn’t detract from the receptivity to understanding climate change risks (they distrust alarmism). Trust can also be rebuilt by discussing broad choices rather than focusing on specific policies.
And finally, the blogosphere can be a very powerful tool for increasing the credibility of climate research. “Dueling blogs” (e.g. climateprogress.org versus wattsupwiththat.com and realclimate.org versus climateaudit.org) can actually enhance public trust in the science as they see both sides of the arguments being discussed. Debating science with skeptics should be the spice of academic life, but many climate researchers lost this somehow by mistakenly thinking that skeptical arguments would diminish the public trust in the message coming from the climate research establishment. Such debate is alive and well in the blogosphere, but few mainstream climate researchers participate in the blogospheric debate. The climate researchers at realclimate.org were the pioneers in this, and other academic climate researchers hosting blogs include Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke Sr and Jr, Richard Rood, and Andrew Dessler. The blogs that are most effective are those that allow comments from both sides of the debate (many blogs are heavily moderated). While the blogosphere has a “wild west” aspect to it, I have certainly learned a lot by participating in the blogospheric debate including how to sharpen my thinking and improve the rhetoric of my arguments. Additional scientific voices entering the public debate particularly in the blogosphere would help in the broader communication efforts and in rebuilding trust. And we need to acknowledge the emerging auditing and open source movements in the in the internet-enabled world, and put them to productive use. The openness and democratization of knowledge enabled by the internet can be a tremendous tool for building public understanding of climate science and also trust in climate research.
No one really believes that the “science is settled” or that “the debate is over.” Scientists and others that say this seem to want to advance a particular agenda. There is nothing more detrimental to public trust than such statements.
And finally, I hope that this blogospheric experiment will demonstrate how the diversity of the different blogs can be used collectively to generate ideas and debate them, towards bringing some sanity to this whole situation surrounding the politicization of climate science and rebuilding trust with the public.
Dr. Curry,
First, thank you for this essay. It is helpful to see acclaimed scientist like you write:
“No one really believes that the “science is settled” or that “the debate is over.” Scientists and others that say this seem to want to advance a particular agenda. There is nothing more detrimental to public trust than such statements.”
If rebuilding trust is really the goal, then real steps have to be taken – not just well-written essays by important scientists. Here are two ideas:
1. The journals, especially Nature and Science, will have to take a pro-active approach to publishing work by climate skeptics. Pielke Sr., Christy, Spencer, McIntyre and others have complained that certain of their papers have not been published purely because the conclusions were not politically acceptable. This is a wrong which must be righted. Will you join with others calling for the journals to publish science which draws skeptical conclusions?
2. Scientific conferences need to invite more skeptical scientists to speak. You have already taken a lead in this by inviting McIntyre to speak at Georgia Tech and you caught lots of flak because of it. More of this needs to happen. When skeptics are shut out of the conversation, it damages people’s confidence in the science. Why not invite Spencer to speak at Georgia Tech about the negative feedback he observed over the tropics? Or about his theory regarding how the PDO affects cloud cover? Why not invited Christy to speak about his research in California that has been shut out by the journals? Why not invite Anthony Watts to speak on surfacestations.org and the recent Henne paper? Why not put James Hansen and EM Smith on a panel to debate the surface temp record?
I do want to thank you again for this essay. I believe I have seen real growth in your perspective regarding climate skepticism. Although I am disappointed you are still using the term “deniers.” This term is incredibly offensive and damages any call to rebuild trust.
Also, I would like to point out that your section on the changing nature of skepticism is not quite accurate. While it is true the war between advocacy groups has gotten the headlines, the real skeptics – working scientists and very intelligent newcomers like McIntyre – have never been funded by Big Oil. Nothing has changed about the way they have gone about their approach. These people were wrongly proclaimed to be funded by Big Oil and nefarious organizations. Some are still saying this. All of these ad hom attacks need to stop.
Dr Curry makes some great points. Her reference to the medical sciences and double blind studies is particularly prescient. The global warming scientists have had two decades of hiding in their labs, going to great confabs where they get to nod in agreement with each other, they publish in journals that they like, and diss the ones they that don’t. All the while making unsubstantiated claims to the outside world with a bunch of political advocates shilling for them. Now the cold light of day is shining into their cozy publicly funded worlds and they obviously don’t like the scrutiny they now find themselves under. Their reaction is not unexpected but must be curtailed.
But then Dr. says this “The failure of the public and policy makers to understand the truth as presented by the IPCC is often blamed on difficulties of communicating such a complex topic to a relatively uneducated public that is referred to as “unscientific America” by Chris Mooney.”
And there people, is the crux of the entire “professional” problem with the global warming science. The assumption is and always has been that the wizardry of climate change can only be understand by the boffins. Meanwhile, global warming auditors of the auditors (people like me) have Math degrees, have published their own papers (in other fields) and simply don’t fall under the rubric of the “relatively uneducated public”. Thus, we’ve spent our own two decades understanding cosmic ray theory, urban heat island effect, the PDO, sublimation etc while we carried on in our own professional capacities earning a buck for our families. But, the global warming scientists, Mr Mann, Dr Jones et al, simply do not understand that the average person that takes an interest validation of the truth of AGW theory is far better able to apprehend the concepts, the science and the pursuit of determining the truth than they imagine. That is why, they should be releasing ALL of their data and results for analysis so that we, as intelligent lifeforms, are able to see with our own eyes and with our faculties, the truth or the falsehood of their strident claims of doom and gloom.
One day, I might get to release my own analysis of the temperature record of Lord Howe Island. But until I can be certain of my results, I will hold off publishing for now.
Mike.
c james (09:59:20) :
I tend to agree with you although I think that for more open debate to be generated there has to be some recognition of the current state of the situation from much higher powers. There are elections due this year in both the UK and US, which I feel will be greatly effected by the current controversy. Take the politics out of science and take the science out of politics. IPCC take note your mistaken policy is going to push two of the major western governments further to the right than you can handle.
No, sorry. Not buying this, Dr Curry, when you state:
*******************************************************************************
Steve McIntyre’s early critiques of the hockey stick were dismissed and he was characterized as a shill for the oil industry.
*******************************************************************************
Without bothering to finish the point – the point being that Steve M’s critique was accurate. Damned with faint praise or what?
I am afraid that the overwhelming message that came across from this article, was that Climategate (and all the other recent revelations) has been PR disaster. So, you have to get the PR better next time. Well, excuse me, but I think you should be addressing the science, not the PR disaster.
And this is the killer regarding your credibility, as far as I am concerned:
******************************************************************************
The failure of the public and policy makers to understand the truth as presented by the IPCC is often blamed on difficulties of communicating such a complex topic to a relatively uneducated public that is referred to as “unscientific America”
******************************************************************************
The “truth”? Give me a break.
And as for the stunningly patronising second half to that sentence – well, you are definitely still, firmly in the same place as all the other warmists who believe that they know so much better than everyone else.
Forget the PR – only one thing matters – truth. And there can be no accurate assessment until all data is released, together with every single reason (or excuse) for adjustment of numbers, or elimination of records. And include all the models in that release too. I have a feeling that some of these models will be the subject of intense embarrassment for their creators, when they have been examined by some real world scientists.
I can think of no branch of legitimate science or engineering (note I did not use the word “other” before “branch”) where such a scandalous situation would have been allowed to persist for so long, with so much riding on the outcome.
Reality check time – go back to the beginning, chop out the canker, start again.
Nothing else will be acceptable.
TO Judith
With all the name calling that has in the past been bantered back and forth, how about we just cease and desist. In true fashion you should replace every use of warmers, skeptics, deniers, and other less polite terms with the simple terms scientist or researcher.If “no one truly believes the science is settled” then don’t use these terms again.
Benjamin Franklin was considered a “scientist” but I would think we would all agree he had no fornal degree or position. A “scientist” is not a title but rather a description of the heart of the person. Some of us are highly technically trained and know which end of a spreadsheet or themometer to read.
Don’t discount citizen scientists.
Jay
Thank you for reaching out to both sides of the climate debate but I think it’s too late to rebuild trust in climate science and what is needed is a reconstruction of climate science itself.
A good start is admitting that there are big problems but I’m not sure that many AGW scientists are ready to do that yet. Policy makers don’t even understand that there could be problems and the CAGW cheerleaders wouldn’t admit to one, even under torture.
AGW dogma started life in that 1988 senate hearing with James Hansen and it started with spin, with showmanship, with an attempt to influence with something more than the facts. Things have got worse. Even now, many AGW supporters are thinking in terms of what public relations techniques can be adopted to sway the public. Wrong!
For once in the history of the planet, the only thing that will do is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It’s an alien concept to many of the players in this whole sorry mess. Of course, it may be the case that the truth (as we can currently can prove it) is not sufficient to mobilise the world to act on CO2, in which case, too bad. Does that sound harsh? Probably, but lies are always found out and they undermine the rest of the evidence.
Even as a sceptic I never doubted that the temperature record was faulty and then I read about the surface stations project, the arbitrary adjustments and then the loss of raw data. Now I’m wondering if any of the science can be relied upon. If they can’t get the foundations right, I’m not even going to examine the rest.
Every time we hear ‘it’s worse than we thought’ another thread of credibility breaks. Every silly research project that squeezes climate change into it’s title makes me cynical of the management of funds and the motives of the guardians of science. Climate scientists are treating their field as a joke, why am I not laughing?
If AGWers are right, CO2 would be the most dangerous thing on the planet. Compare it to nuclear energy. Would you let the likes of Phil Jones and Michael Mann build you a reactor? It’s time to treat climate science as a life and death issue.
Climate science needs the kinds of gruelling control systems that big business has to face. When climate scientists have to deal with the types of red tape that most of us take for granted, they may look back fondly on the days they only had to worry about a few FOI requests. When people like Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts no longer feel the need to audit climate science, there won’t be a need to build trust in climate science, it will already deserve it.
Hi Dr. Curry. Seems everyone denies something in this matter. It’s not a question of who is a denier but what one denies. The whole IPCC machinery, since its first report, which affirmed the existence of the MWP and LIA, has denied these historical events, the scientific basis basis for which is overwhelming and the historical record of which is solid and has been accepted as a “closed question” for at least a century, opened only when it became evident that the MWP and LIA were the real inconvenient truths.
Let us agree term “denier”, if it is to be considered an apt description of some single of individuals, ought to be used only for those who deny the MWP and LIA.
While it is odious to compare such “deniers” to those whose denial pertains to genuine crimes against humanity like the Holocaust, Holodomor or Armenian genocide, I have to say that when it comes to LIA denial such comparisons may be apt in a way, considering the immense human cost of that period of cooling in terms of human life, next to which even the holocaust pales. Like holocaust deniers, those who by their denial would deflect attention or pooh-pooh what is the most likely direction from which worldwide climate-induced disaster may arrive, do great harm to humanity in the long run, should they succeed. For the next ice age, whether full or “little”, is sure to come and, by all indications, is not far off. Not anthropogenic, and unlikely to be staved off by expensive geoengineering at the hands of some other UN body, but something for which we can, and should, be fully prepared to cope!
How about backing off the precipice of proposed massive climate intervention programs in favor of the noise vs signal?
I can pull data sets all day long from the thousands of stations where swings from year-to-year of 10 degrees mean temp swamp the supposed global warming signal of a single degree F.
I do not see sufficient proof of AGW’s overheating the planet to justify the risk of the remeidies proposed, either ensured environmental destruction or economic destruction.
By the same token, I don’t think steering an asteroid towards Earth impact to ascertain the demise of the dinosaurs is a good idea, either.
What else can it be is an exceptionally weak rationale for initiating climactic armageddon measures in the name of saving the planet. This is the issue that made me dig into climate, and made me profoundly distrust climate research.
As long as those measures are ‘on the table’, there will not be, nor should there be, any trust.
“No one really believes that the “science is settled” or that “the debate is over.” Scientists and others that say this seem to want to advance a particular agenda. There is nothing more detrimental to public trust than such statements.”
Tell that to Babs Boxer and Mrs. Jackson…
Joe Romm has just posted the letter and rips her appart. If Judith can’t cuss and smear Romm’s enemies, he has no use for her.
Course he ran a nasty piece on Gov Palin weekly for a while. Maybe he hates women that are professional.
Back to this post. We wouldn’t have this post had it not been for climategate.
I admire Judith for her courage.
REPLY: Here’s the ClimateProgress post:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/24/my-response-to-dr-judith-currys-unconstructive-essay/
Gee all I did was ask her to stop using or denounce the use of the d-word. – Anthony
Behaviors such as distorting and hiding data, corrupting the peer review process, behaving condescendingly towards those on the other side as not worthy of participating in a real debate have all deservedly failed to earn most climate scientists any trust.
The superficialities advocated by Dr. Curry (i.e. “discussing broad choices…”) do not even begin to address the distrust of most climate scientists that is warranted given their behavior. Dr. Curry seems not to realize that trust must be earned, it cannot be given.
Josh (10:20:35) :
Although some scientists have undoubtedly been like ‘car thieves’ as David Hoffer said above most try to do the best job they can>>
Some? The IPCC says they have THOUSANDS. Who referenced other studies by TENS of thousands. Who formed gangs to eliminate the ones who were ACTUALLY doing their best. Add to that the blogs by “scientists” and the iPhone apps by “scientists” and the movies by “scientists” all to support a new taxation system that will take money from the have’s (who worked for it) and give it to the have not’s (or more correctly their corrupt governments who will squirrel it away in their own bank accounts).
Look at the mediator they just sent in to fool you some more. She claims that part of the problem is that they were just trying to explain things to an un-educated public. ing bull . Their misrepresentations and outright lies were a stratefy PREDICATED on the public being un-educated. Thank Gore for the internet or it would have worked!
They stole your car and now this nice lady wants you to calm down and understand that the thief wasn’t really meaning to steal your car now that he’s been arrested and maybe we could have an out of court settlement so you understand he’s not that bad a person and he doesn’t have to go to jail, and if enough people like you agree then the charges against all his friends will get dropped too, and we’ll forget that whole intimidation of people who knew about the car theft ring but were afraid to say so.
She’s negotiating, and you’re letting her.
Dr Curry,
Neither the IPCC, nor CRU, nor MBH, nor anyone else promoting the catastrophic AGW hypothesis [CAGW] follows the scientific method. Not one of them.
Prof Richard Feynman explains the scientific method’s requirement for complete openness, transparency and cooperation:
Dr Feynman is certainly not describing the methods or ethics of those promoting the AGW scare.
The purveyors of the CAGW hypothesis stonewall requests for information, and deliberately corrupt the local FOIA officers, and threaten and conspire against journals and their editorial boards for publishing anything remotely skeptical of AGW, and generally act as if they just came down from the mountain with AGW tablets. Where is the scientific method? It has morphed into a fraudulent claim of “consensus,” and “the science is settled.”
The purveyors of CAGW have been caught red-handed in the CRU emails and the Harry-Read_Me.txt files, which show scientists deliberately fabricating entire temperature data sets when the original data could not be found.
This is no longer a debate regarding the validity of a proposed new hypothesis. What we see instead is a concerted effort to control the climate “pal review” process, from submission to publication, in order to protect a lucrative grant gravy train. The scientific method has been defenestrated in the process by scientists who have lost their moral compass, and who have traded their professional ethics for money and status.
Their protective employers are closing ranks behind those being investigated, and the result will be a minor *tsk, tsk* for some inconsequential infractions – while the central problem of scientific misconduct and corruption is ignored.
Further, these money- and status-hungry scientists willingly serve two [or more] masters: the hard-bitten taxpayers who pay their salaries and benefits, and expect unbiased research in return are at the bottom of the list in importance, trumped by the institutions the the scientists work for, which are as ravenous for grants, from any source, as the scientists themselves. And as everyone knows, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
And so the public gets cheated, because a large number of those grant sources consist of NGOs pushing a heavy pro-CAGW agenda, such as the Heinz Foundation, the many tentacles of George Soros, the Grantham Foundation, SCORCHIO, to name but a few.
It is simply psychological projection to claim that a handful of the thousands of grants of all kinds made by large energy companies [to numerous and varied recipients, not just to AGW-skeptical scientists], which went to investigate the other side of the AGW question, have resulted in corrupting the recipients – when at the same time literally $millions are paid to universities by governments and government entities like CRU, to quangos, and to blogs like Joe Romm’s Soros-funded climateprogress, and Fenton Communication’s free services given to the private blog RealClimate [which operates throughout every work day by Gavin Schmidt and other NASA employees when they are ostensibly being paid by the public to do unbiased work].
The discredited promoters of the highly questionable CAGW hypothesis can only begin to regain some semblance of respect when they fully, transparently, and cooperatively answer skeptics’ questions. That is how the scientific method is intended to work.
But as of now, we don’t see the necessary change in attitude: data, methodologies, code, notes, and anything else bearing on the AGW hypothesis must be made publicly available. That has not happened; the holders of that information continue to stonewall such requests [except for their friends, who are given exceptional access].
You need to decide how important professional integrity and the scientific method are to you, Dr Curry. Keep in mind that Dr Phil Jones isn’t out of a job because he has a strong moral compass.
Finally, enough with the “denier” labeling, in any form. It is grossly insulting; everyone knows it is a reference to the Holocaust deniers, several of whom have been convicted. Kindly stop using any word with “deny” as its root when labeling skeptics.
No other scientific discipline uses “denialist” as a pejorative; you don’t see astronomers questioning the Big Bang, or physicists questioning string theory being called “deniers.” Ignaz Semmelweis wasn’t labeled a “denier” for advocating hand washing. No, only believers in CAGW label questioning skeptics “denialists.” It is deliberatley insulting, so please stop doing it, even in quotes.
Skeptics aren’t looking for a fight, and skeptics have nothing to prove; skeptics have no hypothesis to defend. They simply say, “Show us your data and your methods, and the chain of custody tracing your adjusted data and the adjustment algorithms back to the original raw data.”
But your side refuses. Why? No doubt because they know their CAGW hypothesis would be promptly and decisively falsified – and the rent-seeking scientists acting as the gate-keepers might begin to lose their lucrative grants.
Well, I hope she reads this comment from a person who reviews a lot of NASA programs and scientific approaches to determine feasibility and quality.
The problem with the current AGW theories is their lack of scientific and mathematical rigor. As someone who deals with the complex and demanding arena of space, I can say without hesitation the quality levels surrounding AGW theories and conclusions is rock bottom.
For example, it is not fully acknowledged that the derivation of a global temp index from the 130 temperature record used by GISS, NCDC and CRU is unproven. Temperature measurements decay with distance and time – rapidly. That means the uncertainty in estimating temperatures in 500×500 km grids carry with them huge error bars even in modern times (last 30 years). To create an ‘average’ from temperature predictions which are based on scattered measurements has to show a realistic uncertainty.
I did one back of the envelope check on temperatures in a 160 km range around DC and discovered on any given day the std deviation was +/- 2°F.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/12246
That means a single measurement only has low probability of reflecting the temperature in that range. It is trivial to perform a rigorous check of how well a gridded prediction can represent a large (and in this case geographically homogenous) area. This has never been done.
When we then delete measurement records in places like Bolivia and smear a measurement form 1000’s of km away in completely different geographic locations we should see error bars expanding to complete uselessness.
I noted in the CRU data dump included an interesting detail on the estimated uncertainty in the 1960 global index which clearly shows there is no way to detect a sub degree change in temperature even halfway back through the baseline record.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11824
CRU admits they cannot accurately reconstruct regional temperatures from grids in 190 below a degree, and sometimes at much higher uncertainties. This error budget is required of any mathematical model trying to create a historic record of global temp indexes. Where is it? Why avoid the unpleasant truth that the quality of data in time and distance just degrades to the point of huge uncertainties when we go back to 1960 or 1880?
Those of us deal with estimates and decay of estimates know the limitations. We cannot predict a satellite’s orbit over 10 days with confidence, even though this is one of the simplest of physical models out there (gravity). Why should we be applauding science that pretends to create accuracy and precision where clearly none exists?
When professionals challenge the math and science we are executing the scientific process. When so called scientist respond to valid challenges with the term ‘denier’ we can rightly assume the scientists are likely in over their head.
If AGW theory was before me as a NASA proposal for a science program asking for 100’s of millions of dollars to fly it would fail the test. The foundation and confidence has not been demonstrated. This is even before we get to the amateur code and data quality that is evident in the CRU files, and other instances of found and corrected errors.
My proposal is start from scratch and derive the uncertainty/error in the way a global temp index is computed form sparse measurements. If the AGW supporters can prove their indexes have the accuracy to detect a sub degree change in the baseline 130 year record, then we can move on.
But until then you can have all the expertise in the world and still output shoddy results. We see this in the space arena all the time. Want credibility restored? Do a credible job and deal with the challenges.
Dr. Curry,
Thank you for taking the time to lay out your thoughts in such detail. I have a few comments:
1. I think there is a fundamental disconnect between science and policy that cannot be bridged – that policy makers demand certainty that honest scientists cannot provide. I think you are on the money with your belief that providing the uncertainties does not diminish the argument, but I fear this goes against the grain of politicians. The recent closed door creation of health policy comes immediately to mind.
2. I think the entire AGW argument has been tainted, perhaps forever, by the idea that scientists must ensure their results are suitably alarming to provoke public action. Dubious comparisons of Earth to Venus and recent warnings that there may be no fish in the ocean in fifty years come to mind. I cannot read any press confirming the need for action on AGW without this coloring my perception of it. I do not just doubt agw science now – I doubt all science. And that is the most serious impact of this situation for me.
3. The emphasis on models is maddening, especially in the face of what I perceive to be a near total disregard for observation. I have watched now for years as station after station shows up improperly sited. I am curious about these things, so I had my middle school math kids take temperature readings at various points in their environment (I am blessed to teach in a rural school where I have real open space) and I saw the reality of UHI myself. I personally could not believe the impact of asphalt and buildings on nearby temperatures (several degrees in some instances). Now when I look at these officlal stations my BS meter pegs. I do not care how the data is massaged – garbage in, garbage out. What happened to scientists getting out and doing the work themselves?
4. I think the imprimatur of science is now too often used to sell things, and I believe I am being sold on this issue.
5. I firmly believe in Arthur C. Clarke’s 2nd law – that any sufficiently advanced technology will appear to be magic. In an environment of public trust, where many people are not educated enough in these areas to evaluate the science for themselves, many will follow on faith. But in an environment of public doubt, which I think has now been established, less and less will follow as they begin to peek behind the curtain for themselves.
6. I cannot get around the hypocrisy (my perception) of agw proponents, especially those in high places. Carbon offsets or no, if I truly believed my actions were destroying the world I would stop. Vast fleets of airborn diplomats jetting about the planet to dine on lobster bisque and toast points does nothing for my ability to accept what they are saying and, more importantly, to give a fig about how they think I should live.
Thank you again for sending us your thoughts on the issue. I appreciate having the opportunity to communicate with you. I fear that this sort of openness can be hair raising in a forum such as this since it requires a very thick skin, and I appreciate your courage the more for doing so.
Dr. Curry has done a reasonable job of intellectualizing a debate that is rather simple. People don’t trust climate science, government, mainstream press, and academics who all somehow think they know better than the people they purportedly serve.
An effective example of why this is, and a discussion Dr. Curry avoids, is demonstrated by the mainstream media as waterboy for government. When Dr. Jones admitted in the Feb 13th BBC interview that there had been no statistically significant global warming from 1995 to present – the U.S. media took a powder. All newswires, networks, papers and public broadcast (PBS) refused to report the event. This is a major “confession” from a major, if not THE major player in climate science! Unless and until someone somewhere steps forward to explain this ludicrous, ham-fisted act of blatant censorship in a land supposedly governed by the First Amendment – Dr. Curry’s olive branch will wither.
And Dr. Curry dares not address an even more troubling issue. Where the money leads. When we get finished tracking the hundreds of millions of dollars that have passed into the hands of climate “researchers” – the trail of corruption appears staggering. It cannot be swept under the rug. We cannot declare a “new dawn of trust” without accountability from those who misdirected public funds and betrayed public trust.
Perhaps Dr. Curry would like to speak for those who have misrepresented the science and funding for a noble cause. They deserve a fair defense. But they have done a grave harm to our nation and must not be allowed to duck responsibility for their actions. Actions DO have consequences.
If Dr. Curry wants to be taken seriously as any kind of “expert” Climate Science spokesperson, facilitator, or mediator in regard to the question of what Climate Science has done to its own credibility and to the credibility of real Science, she has some explaining to do, starting with her own role in creating the problem – which is precisely her apparent lack of “expertise” as a Scientist, which in turn has produced the “lack of trust” she claims to address.
Dr. Curry’s kind of thinking itself is characterized precisely by a critical lack of scientific and rational scepticism, and thus destroys any “expertise” she alleges to seperate out from the issue of “trust”. Again, this lack of sceptical expertise is in fact an exact cause of the distrust Dr. Curry is trying to address. Climate Science has simply not been doing real Science in this regard, too, apart from its other manifest failings concerning its affrontery of the dictates of the Scientific Method.
For example, where was Dr. Curry’s own scientific scepticism when it was alleged that one can derive a temperature signal from wild trees and that this signal manages to teleconnect with something called a Global Mean Temperature over hundreds of years, a “logic” which then finally even manages to do things like erase the MWP?
How is it possible that Dr. Curry as an “expert” Climate Scientist did not want to personally verify these manifestly absurd-until-proven-otherwise scientific ideas herself, or at least advocate for a complete disclosure of the “materials and methods, including code” which are the “science” which underlies the claims, so that they could be subjected to the process of real Science’s scepticism, as a proxy for her own otherwise necessary scepticism as an “expert”?
Or where was Dr. Curry’s scepticism when it was alleged by the ipcc “Climate Science” process that Global Warming itself had been proven to be a net Disease and also even a massive threat to Humanity? Where was her scepticism especially given the fact that Dr. Curry herself has been a Policy Advocate lobbyist based exactly upon this “disease entity” claim and its alleged CO2 AGW cause and cure!
Therefore, where was Dr. Curry’s scientific scepticism also in the face of the implied claim that the “Climate Science” process has proven that the ipcc’s alleged cure to its alleged AGW disease, draconian decreases in the World’s use of fossil fuel, would not itself produce a disease itself, and indeed one worse than the alleged AGW disease which its “cure” claims to “treat”?
Again, Dr. Curry herself has been a Policy Advocate based upon this claim as to the alleged cure for the alleged AGW disease, but one which if instituted instead looks to be not only inappropriate and not scientifically warranted, but also grossly dangerous in itself to the wellbeing of Humanity.
Or where were Dr. Curry’s sceptical antennae in the case of viewing the actions and pronouncements of our own top U.S. Climate Scientist, James Hansen, which seem to strongly suggest that the man has a gross Missionary Complex and cannot be trusted in any significant way?
Dr. Curry especially needs to explain her lack of scepticism to herself. Because that’s where a significant part of this AGW Climate Science problem is coming from: people not being hard nosed about doing their jobs responsibly, thus not having the requisite “expertise” to begin with, which then is the direct cause of other people’s valid distrust.
It’s really not all that difficult to analyze the problems presented by Climate Science. But Dr. Curry is not yet the one to do it.
Eric,
Your political bias is showing. You say that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are ” deniers” and others – presumably – Watts, McIntire and other scientists like Lindzen, Spencer, Christie are skeptics.Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck are not scientists and never claimed to be. They are media figures who support conservative views. Since the liberal press is totally committed to the AGW view, they provide an alternative -and scrupulously documented – information for the general public like timely information about Climategate, which was ignored for weeks by the MSM. Sarah Palin is a politician, who – as an elected official – set up a commission to study the impact of Global Warming on Alaska, hardly an act of a ” denialist” as you call her. She also sued the Federal Government for putting the Polar Bear on the list of endangered species, an act that subsequent events and information proved that was fully justified. You probably obtained your information about her being a “denialist” from attacks by her political opponents who said that “She is so stupid that does not even believe in Global Warming”
Indeed, the dabate is certianly not settled, but has certainly entered into a new and divisive phase. The main battle is, and apparently always has really been, for the hearts and minds of both the public and policymakers, whereas the battle should have from the beginning to find the truth behind the data. This is not to slight those many dedicated scientists who are doing real science in this field, it simply is to point out that ultimately this data has been used by the leading voices in unscrupulous ways beyond the control of the scientists who may have gathered that data. But regardless of what anyone thinks that data is saying or not saying, out there somewhere is the truth…that is, either there is significant human caused climate change occuring, beyond any natural cycles, or human activity has no significant effect beyond natural cycles.
There are members of both sides of the debate who really and truly believe that they know what the data is saying or isn’t saying– they are “true believers” to their cause. It is natural in such heated debate to distrust the other side and the minimize and ridicule their positions. This is a natural– but not a productive reaction. Such emotionalism leads away from the goal of actually looking at the data through a true objective lens, for an individual’s interpretation of the data will be then colored by their emotional attachment to trying to read something in the data that may or may not be there. As we have seen then, the presentation of the “data” then becomes selective and even highly edited– and both sides are guilty of this.
While a return to as object and open process as possible– that is back to fundamental open peer-reviewed scientific research– is the best way out of this situation, but unfortunately I don’t think that will completely occur, and there are two possible outcomes going forward, based on what the actual physical truth of the science is. Here’s what I see as the two most likely outcomes:
1) If human caused global climate change is a real physical phenomenon, then though the debate will continue to rage on for some time, and data will be twisted, rejected, excluded, and generally “manipulated” by both sides, eventually the real-world effects of physical phenomenon happening with more and more frequency will so overwhelm the debate, that the obviousness of the situation will make the debate simply fade away as humans get down to the busines of trying to do something about it, or simply trying to survive a rapidly changing climate.
2) If human caused global climate change is not a real physical phenomenon, then though the debate will continue to rage on for some time, eventually the voices of those proponents of AGW will slowly be diminished by the fact that nothing out of the ordinary seems to be happening that hasn’t happened either in recent human history, or even more distant human history, such as during the MWP.
In either of these two scenarios, we see the rule of human nature take hold which I call human inertia. Human emotional utlimately rules and they will not change, either in behavior or beliefs until some external physical force makes them change. If scenario #1 above comes about, then the law of human emotional inertia will prove to be disasterous, if scenario #2 comes about, then the law of human emotional inertia will once more prove to be a useful evolutionary tool that will prevent the needless spending of trillions of dollars to prevent something that is nothing more than a fantasy.
From the title of this post: “…Rebuilding Trust”: How can you re-build something that didn’t exist to begin with? Try “…Starting to Build Trust” instead.
Kudos to Luboš Motl (08:16:29) for his excellent and concise criticism of Dr. Curry’s post, with which I wholeheartedly agree. The very basis for trust has been destroyed. This is all very “too little, and too late”, and frankly the timing of it is suspiciously convenient.
The white flag is rejected.
“The failure of the public and policy makers to understand the truth as presented by the IPCC is often blamed on difficulties of communicating such a complex topic to a relatively uneducated public that is referred to as “unscientific America” by Chris Mooney.”
Judith, I am appalled at your arrogance in making the above statement. Please change the words “the truth as presented by the IPCC” to “the pronouncements of the IPCC”, to reflect the fact that many of these pronouncements are merely creative reporting by arrogant people, the acronym for which I’m sure you can figure out.
AJ, could I be so bold as to sum up your great post in this way.
I always thought it particularly foolhardy and prone to enormous error as to try to predict the outcome of such a grand chaotic system as our Earth’s climate.
I have no trust whatsoever in any of “climate scientists” except those, who were able to speak openly against the AGW on scientific basis in the past years, before Climategate.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/02/23/sen_sanders_compares_compares_global_warming_skeptics_to_nazi_deniers.html
Perhaps Dr. Curry could straighten out Senator Sanders