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,
1) Politics has corrupted the field of climatology. It is impossible for someone embedded in the field to honestly look at themselves in the mirror. Yes, the word is “corruption” and until the house is cleaned of evil, it cannot heal itself. Sorry, but when all of the scientists circling the wagons to defend the integrity of climatology are feeding at troughs overflowing with government and institutional research grants, the status quo is not going to change. I highly suspect their concern over integrity is not real; rather it is concern over potentially losing research grants.
(Does the saying: “You get what you pay for” not have relevance in this discourse?)
2) Climatology has discarded the scientific method in favor of the unverified computer prediction model. If the theories are not comprehensive and sound, and if the data is not accurate and is not quality controlled, then prediction models are totally worthless. Yet it seems that most climatologists rely heavily upon such flawed prediction models and seem incapable of addressing true scientific investigations and experiments. Computer prediction models are not scientific proofs.
3) The third issue is statistical expertise, or lack thereof, in the field of climatology. How many climatology scientists also possess an advanced degree (MS or PhD) in statistics? Or are capable of writing their own statistical software programs? (I personally know only one such person.) Yet the basis for the prediction models promoted by climatologists is one of advanced statistical analysis + complex software programming … but the statistics and software programming are left to “associates”. Sorry, but it is extremely simple to manipulate statistical methodologies and data to obtain a desired result, and clearly the “hiding” evident in Climategate bears this out. Yes, the issue of “transparency” has surfaced, but I have not seen “statistical expertise” mentioned. Why do you think there has been rampant fear of Climate Audit? (And there are other climate blogs such as The Air Vent and E.M. Smith that are examining statistical programs and data sets.)
I am embarrassed to refer to myself as a scientist because of what I have seen unfold in Climategate. It will prove detrimental to all of science in the long run.
Heal thyself, and stop looking for answers elsewhere.
As I see it, a great step would be taken if taxpayer funded research data, results, and papers were not shielded behind paywalls. FOI would never have been an issue and therefore climategate would never have happened if the data and processes were open to all.
I am not saying that all the data needs to be published with the paper, just a link to the RAW data would be enough.
What is the reason for such resistance to openness? The truth will set you free (to do your science unfettered).
G.L. Alston (07:37:12) :
This is the best comment here! Please read it again, I sincerely subscribe to this point of view!
Kind Regards,
Invariant
I once read a book by Banesh Hoffman about the physics of the 20th century, from Einstein to The Bomb. It told a story of a smug, self-satisfied community being ripped asunder and experiencing the gales of radical insight and hypotheses under the aegises of quantum mechanics and space-time.
One quote I remember from it: ‘scientists possessed the unusual capability to draw correct conclusions from what later turned out to be faulty premises’.
So I say to all skeptics at this point: stay focussed on the data, the science and the arguments, because, although it might not seem like it at this time, the case for AGW remains merely unmade, it is not certifiably untrue. My strong, strong hunch and gut feel is that it IS untrue, but that’s an opinion, not science. And I certainly wouldn’t be wanting any more long-term funding doled out for more seeohtwo scaremongering…..any more than I think that seeohtwo being ‘a threat to human health’ should be allowed to remain an EPA ruling………
I am of the strong opinion that the key parameters to understand are:
1. What are the key frequencies of input radiation from the sun and solar system which affect our climate?
2. What are the key solar and solar-system parameters which affect the intensities of such key frequencies entering the earth’s climate system?
3. What are the key parameters in the atmosphere, the oceans and the land masses which affect absorption, reflection and escape of that radiation energy in our climate system?
4. What actions, if any, of humans affect those?
5. How do such parameters cross-correlate in terms of outcomes in the near-, medium- and long-term?
6. How, if at all, can we influence them in a safe manner?
7. If the answer to 6 is not ‘in no way’, would we want to do so??
Those 7 areas should be what is tackled in proper research.
There are totally different questions as concerning policy.
I think, right now, it might be good for scientists to be like bankers and to keep ‘proprietary trading’ aka research distinct from ‘commercial banking’ aka policy formation. There’s a case for it being done by law. But it would be more sensible and respectful for a ‘profession’ to be self-regulating.
Are they capable of that??
As a person not trained in science, but whose career is in public policy and law, this article strikes me as missing 2 key points.
1. The public distrusts your hubris. Thankfully, when you admit that the science is not settled, you start to make up for it.
2. In regard to the oil industry’s alleged bias, why not also admit the bias of the United Nations, namely that of some blocs of nations against others? Cannot one clearly discern a benefit to be derived if massive transfers of wealth can be justified using climate science as a rationale?
Final comment: scientists need to spend more time trying to understand the process by which their analyses become implementable policies. My guess is that you would be shocked by the bastardization of your work.
“Part II: Towards Rebuilding Trust”
One gets the feeling that what Dr. Curry means by “Rebuilding Trust” is that the interpretation of results from increasingly complicated climate models based on questionable raw data should be kept within the domain of the scientists who developed the models.
That is no longer possible. Pandora’s box is wide open. It would be refreshing if she becomes an advocate for the “open source community” she mentioned.
IMHO, When the science became political it was no longer science. Each side had way too large a stake in the outcome of the information. The warmers needed warming. Otherwise there was no boogeyman for cap and trade. The skeptics are in a tough spot because the agenda of the warmers had actually nothing to do with the planets temperature. They wanted a way to tax. If they were actually serious about stopping AGW then why could you buy carbon credits to keep ” polluting:”? So now the argument is that we need to buy an insurance policy because we cannot afford to be wrong. This is all childish. Maybe the warmers could provide an alternative to taxation and maybe we all would give them a listen again.
I’ve been a used car salesman, and a con man. I don’t know a lot about science, but I do know, by the tenor of a sales pitch if I’m being lied to. How can you tell?
-They portray their side as absolutely right. Argue by appeals to authority.
-Insist that time is of the essence – you have to decide now.
-Restrict the information that you give out.
-Appeal to emotions.
-Appeal to a persons better nature. (Your saving the planet, helping the environment, the children, etc.)
-Appeal to a person’s worst nature, such as greed, ambition, peer pressure, laziness, the need to fit in. All of which would explain the CRU and other scientists actions.
-Avoid talking about actual facts, ie: data.
-Make ad hominem attacks. (Let me tell you about that other salesman, Joe, who has his own agenda.)
-frighten your mark. A frightened person usually makes bad decisions.
So, please tell me how the warmist agenda is different from a con game?
You can tell by first principles (of a con) that AGW is a scam.
Thank you, Anthony, for allowing Dr. Curry’s guest contribution. It is probably more important than ever to keep conversation open between different sides, provided that the discussion is well-reasoned and respectful.
And I want to compliment you, Dr. Curry, on taking so much time to slog through the blogosphere to investigate for yourself the state of climate science both before and after climategate. I feel that you have made a substantial contribution in recognizing the general shift of the skeptical community in the last five years or so. Being a scientist personally, for me the main thing has always been about the science. Reality is what it is, and our best strategy to understand it is to approach it without preconception as much as possible. My greatest concern was that in climate science, the self-correcting mechanisms were largely disabled in favor of pursuing an agenda, both in the scientific literature and on the blogosphere, where dissenting opinions were not tolerated.
Having said that, there are many who oppose the conclusions of climate science for more ideological or political reasons. I assume it is those people to whom you refer as the “denial machine”. While I appreciate that not everyone has the ability or interest to make a thorough study of the science, and while I support everyone’s right to express their viewpoint, I do not feel that their diatribes do much to advance our understanding of climate in a way that will enable us ultimately to make good policy decisions.
Dr. Curry’s article states: “Of greatest importance is the reduced credibility of the IPCC assessment reports, which are providing the scientific basis for international policies on climate change.” I’d like to challenge her presumption that the IPCC reports provide a “scientific basis” for these policies.
Four months ago, I began an investigation of the scientific basis. A fast way to assess the status of a science is to examine the data from tests of this science’s model or models so I googled on “IPCC models” and “validation.” This produced nothing in the way of citations to actual tests of the IPCC models. It did produce a citation to a Web page written by a reviewer of each successive IPCC assessment report, the physical chemist and climatologist Dr. Vincent Gray. Gray explained he had discovered that the IPCC models were not statistically validated and had raised the issue of how they could be validated with the IPCC’s leadership. The leadership had blown him off on the issue of how they could be validated and displayed no interest in the topic. However, it had responded to his critique by a change to terminology that did not imply the models were or could be validated. In the new terminology, the models were not said to make “predictions.” Instead, they were said to make “projections.”
The difference between “predictions” and “projections” is lost on most people, particularly including usually scientifically naive policy makers, but it nonetheless determines whether the models are “scientific” models. Models that make “projections” are not “scientific.” Models that make “predictions” are “scientific.” The IPCC models are not scientific, thus the IPCC models do NOT provide a scientific basis for policy making, contrary to Dr. Curry’s presumption.
What is the crucial difference between “predictions” and “projections”? Predictions form the collection of independent statistical events that is called a “statistical population.” In the validation of a model, one samples this population, observes the actual outcomes of events in the sample and compares the predicted to the actual outcomes. If the model is deterministic, then it is falsified if at least one of the predicted outcomes fails to match the actual outcome. If the model is probabilistic, then it is falsified if the predicted probabilities of the various outcomes fail to match the relative frequencies of these outcomes in the test data. Projections are simply the outputs from computer codes. Using a projection, one can compare the projected to the measured average global temperature. However, one cannot falsify the model. Falsifiability is the mark of a model that is “scientific” and this is not a property of the IPCC’s models.
That the IPCC’s models are not scientific models yet the IPCC makes a pretense of basing its assessments for policy makers upon scientific findings provides the public with solid grounds for mistrust of the IPCC and its process. A basis for trust in the IPCC’s findings was never present and does not exist today. People continue to be hoodwinked by the understandable mistake of thinking that the work product of people who hold PhD degrees, who hold positions in prestigious universities or laboratories and who publish their findings in prestigious peer reviewed journals is “scientific” when it is not scientific at all.
Dr. Curry is better than most of the “so called” Scientists (as opposed to skeptics, or deniers), but she plays a two step clever game in her posting:
1. She takes the Rodney King attitude of “why can’t we all get along” and talks about civility while for many years there is none on the consensus side.
2. She dismisses the skeptics (or deniers in her words), as technical auditors, but conveniently forgets to mention thousands of first class Climate Scientists who disagree with the IPCC. Dr Singer, Dr. Lindzen, Dr. Christy, Dr. Spencer, and all the others are neither technicians, nor paid agents of the oil companies. And if she wants to talk about who is financing the debate – Governments and special interests who are about to gain from the Carbon Scam are spending 100 times more than any productive sector like oil companies.
Dr. Curry is studying Hurricanes and their connection to AGW. I don’t know what her findings are, but in no way is she researching the basic question if warming is man made.
So she is indirectly benefitting from all the hype about AGW, while not contributing to the solution of the real question – if there is warming (now it is a big if) is man responsible for it, not due to urbanization but do to economical development!
Great post. I admire Dr. Curry’s continued presence in the blogosphere. I hope she reads the comments, since there are some great observations.
Funny how record keeping and data quality is regarded as the janitorial level of climate science. I have news for climate scientists- it’s all about the data and it’s all about the details!
Seems the crux of the matter is that climate science put an agenda ahead of the science. Thought they could fool us since we were regarded as scientifically illiterate….
Dr. Curry good essay, can’t say I agree with all of it but it’s a dialogue opening up. My question is this, why do you think that there are only one or two climate scientists, including yourself, that will engage on this topic, with the bloggers or indeed with other sceptical climate scientists?
I’m sceptical because the CO2 connection boils down to the climate scientists looking at the possible causes for the recent, trivial, increase in global temperatures and can find only half can be explained by natural causes. They note that CO2 has arisen over the same timeframe and from that infer that the extra rise in temperature must be caused by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. They could be right, but they could also be wrong, it’s just a guess, an educated guess but a guess nontheless.
They seem entirely unaware of the consequences of their scientific advocacy, socially and economically, they go around the world leaving elephant size footprints and at the same time tell governments that unless we reduce CO2 output, at any cost, we will all be doomed.
I have a question for you. You bravely brought Steve McIntyre to your university to talk to your undergrads about his views on climate science. Is it true that you were reprimanded by the NAS for doing so?
I know so many of you are “hung up” with the term Denier. Personally, as a religious tolerant, historically minded person who could never seriously question the Holocaust and the horror of Nazi, Germany, I still do not get offended by this term AS APPLIED to AGW. I post comments frequently as Dave the denier, believe me it gets read, then they understand the context! IBeyonf this, the healthy position of the skeptic has largely hardened into denial of their conclusions, their methods, and their integrity. If you doubt this, the posts on this story confirm this, you (most of you) are not skeptical of the chicaneries, you DISBELIEVE them.
Furthermore, Alarmists have lost touch with the public, lost the trust of the public and no longer are being supported by many governments or their programs (ie reverses in France,Australia, UK, Japan, China, India and USA). This leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Alarmist, the Warmists, the AGW Elite, the Climate Changers are, in fact, the Deniers. Denying their hoax has largely been exposed, it’s teeth removed and has little to no chance of being acted upon.
Current US Politics are a prime example. The Administration and their pet bulldog the EPA will continue to push for legislation or work around with pollution regulations, all the while denying that thier premise is false, CO2 is not the driver and taxes are not warranted. As is always the case, once the word has been spread, which has been wonderfully, people will not support this and THEY (AGWers) are in fact denying reality.
davidmhoffer (07:50:31) : “When I see a sceptic make a mistake, the heat from other sceptics is often worse than from the warmists. ”
David that is absolute rubbish and you know it. I’ve been on boards with people talking complete nonsense and not a word was said against them so long as they were cheering the right team.
REPLY: I wish she’d consider saying “the term deniers is distasteful and counterproductive, we need to drop it from the discussion” – A
So the fact that she uses this at all – once as a quote of how others view skeptics, and once as a description of what she thinks skeptics are not is reason enough for you to allow your Foreword to prejudice your readers against this whole essay?
Look at the comment below mine, at 8:50:07. Your Foreword clearly gave this reader the impression that Dr. Curry thinks climate skeptics are ” ill-informed, uneducated people,” when what she said in her essay was that they are “technically educated people” with “substantial expertise in aspects of climate science” who are “independent of oil industry influence” and “are demanding greater accountability and transparency of climate research.”
She is clearly distancing herself with the term, but your Foreword gives the exact opposite impression. Why do you want to let that stand?
REPLY: Because I asked her to remove or denounce the usage and she declined to do so. – If that upsets you that I comment on the word usage where it is not called for, I’m sorry. My point stands, the word “denier” poisons the debate and does not need to be included, anymore than the “n word” needs to be included in racial discussions. As proof that it poisons the debate, here we are arguing about it right now. She could have accomplished the same essay by leaving out the word, or by clearly delineating that she does not favor its use. Right now I don’t know what her position is on it for certain.
If Dr. Curry and others truly want to extend an olive branch, I’m open to accepting one and offering one in return. But if she and others continue to use the word they may as well be offering leafless sticks, IMHO. We have to start somewhere, this seems to me to be a good place to start, by denouncing use of one offensive word. – Anthony
Aha, Dr. Curry is an associated member of the HockeyTeam;
http://www.gpb.org/georgiaweekly/2007/05/06
Lots of words surrounding Dr. Curry’s position. The main point is very basic and hence very simple: who is paying the naive scientists; and what does the paymaster wants to hear!! So, do not follow the science, follow the money. This is a disaster, not for the paymasters ( the politicians) they will still be there, but for the scientists who lost the only thing they have, which is credibility.
I’m grateful you put this on the site, and I think it is a good essay and a very good effort by Dr. Curry. Yes, she has a ways to go, but this will be an eye opener for people just starting to wake up from the warmist style of thinking.
The science isn’t settled – just accepting that does away with most of the really big problems, like pumping billions of dollars into some half brained new tax scheme.
I don’t want to be redundant, but the tone of Dr. Curry’s piece struck me as elitist. If only the “rubes” were intelligent enough to understand the science, then everything would have turned out fine. We(the warmists) have the best of intentions, so why should you “deniers” have the audacity to question our motives? But since you have, and you’re not, maybe not, in the pay of Big Oil, then we will get together with you and tell you how things really are. At least those of you who are “true sceptics” as opposed to those of you who are deniers.
This may all be semantics, anyway. The huge deficits now being racked up by governments, along with high unemployment, are going to make the changes proposed by the global warming cult impossible to implement. Perhaps Dr. Curry’s “olive leaf” should be viewed in that light, as she is attempting to gain support for more work for the bureaucrats.
As for the science not being settled, she had better inform President Obama and the EPA, as they are of the opinion that it is, and are acting accordingly, albeit with less certainty than before November.
I agree with jeff (07:50:34).
I don’t have a problem with the way Curry uses the d-word, primarily in quotes in an historical context, although I detest it almost as much as the n-word. Clearly, she believes that climate science is largely correct, but that is her experience and her perception (and her bias). The fact that she states rather emphatically that the science isn’t settled shows that at least she is willing to consider evidence to the contrary. While I don’t share her confidence in the correctness of the science or the benign motives of her climate colleagues, I commend her for her openness, her efforts at dialogue, and her attempt to begin to repair the damage that has been done to (all) science by their infusion of ideology and prejudice into what is supposed to be a truth-seeking endeavor.
A little feedback for Judith.
Judith says:
I see you left something out. James hansen in concert with ENRON cooked up cox, sox, nox and methane as 4 “greenhouse gasses” to be hindered and dealt with via cap and trade. Brush up on your history. BIG Oil.
Now GE owns Enron wind and Warren buffet owns a lot of the pipeline group from ENRON.
I may post a few more comments on the pet references you make about big oil. I suspect you drive a car and trust big oil to sell you the exact gallons that are stated on the meter when you replace petrol uused in driving.
It is popular to repeat claims about big oil but seemingly they may be urban legends. Exxon for example has used weather information longer than you have been around. They forcast weather and adjust refining for sales of fuel, heating oil and even weather conditions that impact safety in the North Sea for example on drilling platforms.
Back to the point, it is convenient to castigate Big Oil and castigate “deniers” and skeptics because it is popular for people that are political enthusiasts with a global warming message and agenda. If you are a strong scientist, you would have a very ambivalent tone toward people and big oil.
At this time, there is no way we can go anywhere with no consumption of fossil fuels. It is mind boggling for example how much fossil fuel is consumed to build and erect a single wind turbine.
I applaud Dr Curry’s second letter, trying to build bridges. It is indeed courageous.
However, there are a few points which she missed – perhaps Dr Curry can address these in a further letter.
Why is it, if ‘nobody thinks the science is settled’, that we can count on the fingers of one hand the climate scientists actually coming out into the open, saying so?
Can we assume there are pressures, not just from those inside the climate scientific community, but from those who found the research?
If so – should that not be of greater concern than for climate scientist to work on ‘regaining trust’?
Why is it that even now climate scientists still fail to understand that it is the hijacking of their work by advocacy groups and politicians which is doing so much damage?
Why is it that not one of these scientists take issue with, for example, the piece of work rightfully criticised by Anthony:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/22/the-most-slimy-essay-ever-from-the-guardian-and-columbia-university/
There are two places where public trust in climate science has been lost: one is the truly abominable science perpetrated by certain ‘scientists’, which the ‘auditors’ have been addressing for some time – the other is the way that these selfsame ‘scientists’ have become the promoters of a political ideology.
Finally – good scientists don’t need to address the public as if they are too stupid to understand the issues. A good scientist does not speak from up high to the peasants below. As this blog shows, it is a great mistake to assume that participants here have no scientific knowledge.
I give her credit for acknowledging that Watts, McIntyre, et al are winning the “Credibility” war and that the climate scientists and their institutions have a serious trust deficit. She doesn’t acknowledge, however, that the climate scientists and their institutions, are currently (no analogy intended to the US Govt debt) deepening this trust deficit with their “denial” of the problem and their whitewash investigations and inquiries.
My experience has been that when policy makers become secretive or obfuscatory, they have an agenda which not only will not be supported by the outer circle, but which they know themselves to be the wrong course of action.
As details of their plans inexorably percolate to those affected, feedback from some among the latter group is ignored, then rebuffed. Others from the latter group hitch their wagon to the policy makers’ star, so to speak, seeking political survival in the shape of things to come, and unfortunately lending credibility to plans that would otherwise have failed a cursory analysis.
Inevitably, opposition mounts as it becomes more and more obvious that the scheme is unworkable. So there is a final push to ram through the agenda, where the policy makers dare to hide information or even lie to those to whom they are accountable. They know they can get away with this, because to punish them, their superiors would have to admit to being gullible or incompetent.
It’s about this time that the policy makers jump ship, and find another policy making position, often lower down in the hierarchy of a different organization. Other people are left to explain what went wrong and clean up the mess, or sweep it under the rug.
Rinse and repeat.
I don’t think it has anything to do with science, specifically, but instead with the culture of non-accountability that has infected our society.