Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Judith Curry posted here on WUWT regarding rebuilding the lost trust we used to have in climate science and climate scientists. This is my response to her post, an expansion and revision of what I wrote in the comments on that thread.
First, be clear that I admire Judith Curry greatly. She is one of the very, very few mainstream climate scientists brave enough to enter into a public dialogue about these issues. I salute her for her willingness to put her views on public display, and for tackling this difficult issue.
As is often my wont in trying to understand a long and complex dissertation, I first made my own digest of what Judith said. To do so, I condensed each of her paragraphs into one or a few sentences. Here is that digest:
Digest of Judith Curry’s Post: On the Credibility of Climate Research, Part II: Towards Rebuilding Trust
1 I am trying an experiment by posting on various blogs
2 Losing the Public’s Trust
2.1 Climategate has broadened to become a crisis of trust in climate science in general.
2.2 Credibility is a combination of expertise and trust. Trust in the IPCC is faltering.
2.3 The scientists in the CRU emails blame their actions on “malicious interference”.
2.4 Institutions like the IPCC need to ask how they enabled this situation.
2.5 Core research values have been compromised by warring against the skeptics.
2.6 Climategate won’t go away until all this is resolved.
3 The Changing Nature of Skepticism about Global Warming
3.1 Skepticism has changed over time.
3.2 First it was a minor war between advocacy groups. Then, a “monolithic climate denial machine” was born. This was funded by the oil industry.
3.3 Because of the IPCC reports, funding for contrary views died up. It was replaced by climate auditors. The “climate change establishment” didn’t understand this and kept blaming the “denial machine”.
4 Climate Auditors and the Blogosphere.
4.1 Steve McIntyre’s auditing became popular and led to blogs like WUWT.
4.2 Auditors are independent, technically educated people mostly outside of academia. They mostly audit rather than write scientific papers.
4.3 The FOIA requests were motivated by people concerned about having the same people who created the dataset using the dataset in their models.
4.4 The mainstream climate researchers don’t like the auditors because Steve McIntyre is their arch-nemesis, so they tried to prevent auditors publishing in the journals. [gotta confess I couldn’t follow the logic in this paragraph]
4.5 The auditors succeeded in bringing the climate establishment to its knees because people trusted the auditors.
5 Towards Rebuilding Trust
5.1 Ralph Cicerone says that two aspects need attention, the general practice of science and the personal behaviours of scientists. Investigations are being conducted.
5.2 Climate science has not adapted to being high profile. How scientists engage with the public is inadequately discussed. The result is reflexive support for IPCC and its related policies.
5.3 The public and policy makers don’t understand the truth as presented by the IPCC. More efficient strategies can be devised by recognizing that we are dealing with two groups: educated people, and the general public. To rebuild trust scientists need to discuss uncertainty. [“truth as presented by the IPCC? say what?]
5.4 The blogosphere can be a powerful tool for increasing credibility of climate research. The climate researchers at realclimate were the pioneers in this. More scientists should participate in these debates.
5.5 No one believes that the science is settled. Scientists and others say that the science is settled. This is detrimental to public trust.
5.6 I hope this experiment will demonstrate how the blogosphere can rebuild trust.
Having made such a digest, my next step is to condense it into an “elevator speech”. This is a very short statement of the essential principles. My elevator speech of Judith’s post is this.
Climategate has destroyed the public trust in climate science. Initially skepticism was funded by big oil. Then a climate auditing movement sprang up. They were able to bring the climate establishment to its knees because people trusted them. Public and policy makers don’t understand the truth as presented by the IPCC. To rebuild trust, climate scientists need to better communicate their ideas to the public, particularly regarding uncertainty. The blogosphere can be valuable in this regard.
OK, now what’s wrong with Judith’s picture?
Can The Trust Be Rebuilt?
First, let me say that the problem is much bigger than Judith seems to think. Wiser men than I have weighed in on this question. In a speech at Clinton, Illinois, September 8, 1854, Abraham Lincoln said:
If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. You may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
So it will not be easy. The confidence is forfeit, that ship has sailed.
The biggest problem with Judith’s proposal is her claim that the issue is that climate scientists have not understood how to present their ideas to the public. Judith, I respect you greatly, but you have grabbed the wrong end of the stick. The problem is not how climate scientists have publicly presented their scientific results. It is not a communication problem.
The problem is that 71.3% of what passes as peer reviewed climate science is simply junk science, as false as the percentage cited in this sentence. The lack of trust is not a problem of perception or communication. It is a problem of lack of substance. Results are routinely exaggerated. “Scientific papers” are larded with “may” and “might” and “could possibly”. Advocacy is a common thread in climate science papers. Codes are routinely concealed, data is not archived. A concerted effort is made to marginalize and censor opposing views.
And most disturbing, for years you and the other climate scientists have not said a word about this disgraceful situation. When Michael Mann had to be hauled in front of a congressional committee to force him to follow the simplest of scientific requirements, transparency, you guys were all wailing about how this was a huge insult to him.
An insult to Mann? Get real. Mann is an insult and an embarrassment to climate science, and you, Judith, didn’t say one word in public about that. Not that I’m singling you out. No one else stood up for climate science either. It turned my stomach to see the craven cowering of mainstream climate scientists at that time, bloviating about how it was such a terrible thing to do to poor Mikey. Now Mann has been “exonerated” by one of the most bogus whitewashes in academic history, and where is your outrage, Judith? Where are the climate scientists trying to clean up your messes?
The solution to that is not, as you suggest, to give scientists a wider voice, or educate them in how to present their garbage to a wider audience.
The solution is for you to stop trying to pass off garbage as science. The solution is for you establishment climate scientists to police your own back yard. When Climategate broke, there was widespread outrage … well, widespread everywhere except in the climate science establishment. Other than a few lone voices, the silence there was deafening. Now there is another whitewash investigation, and the silence only deepens.
And you wonder why we don’t trust you? Here’s a clue. Because a whole bunch of you are guilty of egregious and repeated scientific malfeasance, and the rest of you are complicit in the crime by your silence. Your response is to stick your fingers in your ears and cover your eyes.
And you still don’t seem to get it. You approvingly quote Ralph Cicerone about the importance of transparency … Cicerone?? That’s a sick joke.
You think people made the FOI (Freedom of Information) requests because they were concerned that the people who made the datasets were the same people using them in the models. As the person who made the first FOI request to CRU, I assure you that is not true. I made the request to CRU because I was disgusted with the response of mainstream climate scientists to Phil Jone’s reply to Warwick Hughes. When Warwick made a simple scientific request for data, Jones famously said:
Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?
When I heard that, I was astounded. But in addition to being astounded, I was naive. Looking back, I was incredibly naive. I was so naive that I actually thought, “Well, Phil’s gonna get his hand slapped hard by real scientists for that kind of anti-scientific statements”. Foolish me, I thought you guys were honest scientists who would be outraged by that.
So I waited for some mainstream climate scientist to speak out against that kind of scientific malfeasance … and waited … and waited. In fact, I’m still waiting. I registered my protest against this bastardisation of science by filing an FOI. When is one of you mainstream climate scientist going to speak out against this kind of malfeasance? It’s not too late to condemn what Jones said, he’s still in the news and pretending to be a scientist, when is one of you good folks going to take a principled stand?
But nobody wants to do that. Instead, you want to complain and explain how trust has been broken, and you want to figure out more effective communication strategies to repair the trust.
You want a more effective strategy? Here’s one. Ask every climate scientist to grow a pair and speak out in public about the abysmal practices of far, far too many mainstream climate scientists. Because the public is assuredly outraged, and you are all assuredly silent, sitting quietly in your taxpayer funded offices and saying nothing, not a word, schtumm … and you wonder why we don’t trust you?
A perfect example is you saying in your post:
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 …
For you to say this without also expressing outrage at realclimate’s ruthless censorship of every opposing scientific view is more of the same conspiracy of silence. Debate is not “alive and well” at realclimate as you say, that’s a crock. Realclimate continues to have an undeserved reputation that it is a scientific blog because you and other mainstream climate scientists are unwilling to bust them for their contemptuous flouting of scientific norms. When you stay silent about blatant censorship like that, Judith, people will not trust you, nor should they. You have shown by your actions that you are perfectly OK with realclimate censoring opposing scientific views. What kind of message does that send?
The key to restoring trust has nothing to do with communication. Steve McIntyre doesn’t inspire trust because he is a good communicator. He inspires trust because he follows the age-old practices of science — transparency and openness and freewheeling scientific discussion and honest reporting of results.
And until mainstream climate science follows his lead, I’ll let you in on a very dark, ugly secret — I don’t want trust in climate science to be restored. I don’t want you learning better ways to propagandize for shoddy science. I don’t want you to figure out how to inspire trust by camouflaging your unethical practices in new and innovative ways. I don’t want scientists learning to use clever words and communication tricks to get people to think that the wound is healed until it actually is healed. I don’t want you to learn to use the blogosphere to spread your pernicious unsupported unscientific alarmism.
You think this is a problem of image, that climate science has a bad image. It is nothing of the sort. It is a problem of scientific malfeasance, and of complicity by silence with that malfeasance. The public, it turns out, has a much better bullsh*t detector than the mainstream climate scientists do … or at least we’re willing to say so in public, while y’all cower in your cubbyholes with your heads down and never, never, never say a bad word about some other climate scientist’s bogus claims and wrong actions.
You want trust? Do good science, and publicly insist that other climate scientists do good science as well. It’s that simple. Do good science, and publicly call out the Manns and the Joneses and the Thompsons and the rest of the charlatans that you are currently protecting. Call out the journals that don’t follow their own policies on data archiving. Speak up for honest science. Archive your data. Insist on transparency. Publish your codes.
Once that is done, the rest will fall in line. And until then, I’m overjoyed that people don’t trust you. I see the lack of trust in mainstream climate science as a huge triumph for real science. Fix it by doing good science and by cleaning up your own backyard. Anything else is a coverup.
Judith, again, my congratulations on being willing to post your ideas in public. You are a rara avis, and I respect you greatly for it.
w.
PS – In your post you talk about a “monolithic climate denial machine”?? Puhleease, Judith, you’re talking to us individual folks who were there on the ground individually fighting the battle. Save that conspiracy theory for people who weren’t there, those who don’t know how it went down.
This is another huge problem for mainstream climate scientists and mainstream media alike. You still think the problem is that we opposed your ideas and exposed your errors. You still see the climate scientists as the victims, even now in 2010 when the CRU emails have shown that’s nonsense. Every time one of your self-appointed spokes-fools says something like “Oh, boo hoo, the poor CRU folks were forced to circle their wagons by the eeevil climate auditors”, you just get laughed at harder and harder. The CRU emails showed they were circling the FOI wagons two years before the first FOI request, so why haven’t you noticed?
The first step out of this is to stop trying to blame Steve and Anthony and me and all the rest of us for your stupidity and your dishonesty and your scientific malfeasance. [Edited by public demand to clarify that the “your stupidity” etc. refers to mainstream climate scientists as a group and not to Judith individually.] You will never recover a scrap of trust until you admit that you are the source of your problems, all we did was point them out. You individually, and you as a group, created this mess. The first step to redemption is to take responsibility. You’ve been suckered by people like Stephen Schneider, who said:
To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
That worked fine for a while, but as Lincoln pointed out, it caught up with you. You want trust? Disavow Schneider, and STOP WITH THE SCARY SCENARIOS. At this point, you have blamed everything from acne to world bankruptcy on eeevil global warming. And you have blamed everything from auditors to the claimed stupidity of the common man for your own failures. STOP IT! We don’t care about your pathetic justifications, all you are doing is becoming the butt of jokes around the planet. You seem to have forgotten the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Read it. Think about it. Nobody cares about your hysteria any more. You are in a pit of your own making, and you are refusing to stop digging … take responsibility.
Because we don’t want scientists who are advocates. We’re not interested in scientists who don’t mention their doubts. We’re sick of your inane “simplified dramatic statements”. We laugh when you cry wolf with your scary scenarios. Call us crazy, but we want scientists who are honest, not scientists who balance honesty and effectiveness. You want trust? Get honest, kick out the scoundrels, and for goodness sakes, get a clue about humility.
Because the truth is, climate science is one of the newest sciences. The truth is, we know little about the climate, we’ve only been studying it intensely for a couple decades. The truth is, we can’t project the climate of the next decade, much less that of the next century. The truth is, we have no general theory of climate. The truth is, we don’t know if an average temperature rise of a couple degrees will be a net benefit or a net loss. The truth is, all of us are human, and our knowledge of the climate is in its infancy. And I don’t appreciate being lectured by infants. I don’t appreciate being told that I should be put in the dock in a Nuremberg style trial for disagreeing with infants. You want to restore trust? Come down off your pedestals, forsake your ivory towers, and admit your limitations.
And through all of this, be aware that you have a long, long, long climb back up to where we will trust you. As Lincoln warned, you have forfeited the confidence of your fellow citizens, and you will be damn lucky if you ever get it back.
[Update: please see Dr. Curry’s gracious response below, at Judith Curry (04:34:45)]
[Update 2: Dr. Curry’s second response is here, and my reply is here]
[Update 3: Dr. Curry steps up and delivers the goods. My reply.]
Sponsored IT training links:
Subscribe for 70-290 training and pass your real exam in first attempt. we offer guaranteed success with latest 642-974 dumps and 350-029 video tutorials.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Willis, I love ya, but. . .
As I said on the other thread, I’m struck by the similiarity here in methodology to GHCN. 1st generation raw data, second generation reduced and value added data, third generation further reduced data –then react based on that. You get points, however, for being much more transparent in the process.
How, in both second and third generation data, did you find Dr. Curry’s call for leveraging the open source distributed computing model unworthy of mention, let alone failing to recognize its potential to be transformative? Your progressive levels of summarization either miss that entirely, or severely mischaracterize it as only “better communicate their ideas” as if it was just more talk-talk. It’s not –It’s what Steve and Anthony and others (including you) have been fighting for for years. How can you zip right by it without even a tip of the cap, let alone a hearty yippee!?
Absolutely brilliant essay.
It’s unfortunate that Willis’ prescription for climate science is so similar to what I preach to my kids: if you want to be taken seriously, show some principles, take responsibility and stop whining! LOL
@ur momisugly Judith Curry (04:34:45):
Thanks for the clarification. That certainly clears up some of the confusion I had regarding your essay.
Dave Williams (03:20:26)
If you joined a family at their table during a particularly intense moment and spouted a load of stuff unrelated to the issue at hand. Would you expect them to say ‘OMG, you’re right. Let us kiss and be friends forever’?
Your first post was about people’s unwillingness to listen. I’d ask you how much listening you’ve done? If you had, you’d know that most people here think that Global Warming is ‘a combination of natural causes and human activities’ and ‘there is some credibility to the AGW theory as well as the “it is all natural” camp’. These very clever people have moved on from that and realise that the true question is ‘by what proportion’? Without high quality science, there will be no answer forthcoming. Seems the scientists were so keen to get their message across they forgot about quality control, honesty and accountability. Scientists are failing both believers and sceptics by being unwilling to clean up climate science.
I think you got that off everybody’s chest. I feel better already.
I’m guessing this is the most popular blog that posted Dr. Curry’s letter. Yesterday’s post (as of now) is closing in on 600 responses, plus another 300 responses on WE’s reply. I didn’t see a single response from Dr. Curry. Is this her idea of communication?
Great essay, Willis.
Excellent “reply” article, Willis.
Willis Eschenbach (03:14:11) Feb 25 said:
“So you best get used to it, bro’, because I assure you, I’m not the only one who is mad as hell and who is not going to take it any more.”
Add me to that “mad as hell” group.
If you are truly ready to pull the bull by the horns in this debate of trust, you must be impartial to both sides with no favoritism to both sides until the science is totally clear. Having tainted theories and covering mistakes or making the mistakes look good is not good for trust.
We all understand that this is some scientists “bread and butter” but disciple or fire the offenders would make up for the coverups.
Massive changes to this system also needs to be in order so that any new science that doesn’t conform to the current “old boys club” can have a chance to be explored and reviewed by impartial individuals who have half a brain that if they do not know what they are looking at can ask questions and seek advice from more knowledgable individuals.
IsoTherm (06:50:50) :
Nothing wrong with ‘good scientific evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas’. This is not at question. What is an issue, is climate feedback. Positive or negative? The Earth’s climate is more than the sum of it’s parts, it doesn’t operate like a lab experiment. The Devil, as they say, is in the detail
You can’t get to that detail unless the science is exemplary and maybe not even then.
I think there’s a great analogy between climate science and a giant porcelain fixture. We’ve all seen the turds floating on the surface. The works of Mann, Steig, Briffa and the IPCC AR4 are good examples. I liken climategate to a trip of the flush lever. What we are seeing now is the giant swirling effect. In the not too distant future we get to see these stinkos disappear into the sewer of bad science forever. (Josh feel free to use this analogy)
Where will folks Like Luis Diaz be? Still denying? Only time will tell.
Well said Willis.
I am angry too, very angry.
This government in the UK has left my children with a huge debt that will take most of their lives to repay. As I help them through University I struggle to find the money, and I worry for their future. Meanwhile, my government and others propose to spend billions of pounds on what is clearly unproven science. Until it is proven beyond all reasonable doubt, I would like to hear Dr Curry and the rest say this to our politicians-
“STOP!! we are uncertain of the science, and there are many opposing views and theories. Until we have certainty, it is folly to spend these huge sums that may be better used elsewhere.”
But they will not have the courage to do this. As I struggle to raise my family, and am nearing the end of my working life, I see them living high on the hog on my (taxpayers money), and allowing governments everywhere to waste it on unproven science.
I am angry, very angry that people such as Gore should use such scaremongering to line their own pockets. It is not just immoral, it is obscene.
And I am angry, very angry that people such as Curry, Mann, Jones etc do not have the moral courage to stand up and say that theirs is an uncertain science, and that governments should hold their horses until we know more.
They have sown the wind, through a lack of morality, courage and honesty. As I, and many others struggle to meet our obligations to our families, I await the whirlwind.
You are right Willis, not just from the scientific viewpoint, but from that of the man in the street. We are angry, and as more of us understand what has been going on, that anger will rise.
Willis, great retort. I’m wowed and humbled by your ability to get to the core of Curry’s fantasy and to show exactly where she has erred.
As I read Curry’s outreach I just got angry and mumbled to myself at how wrong she was. Thanks for putting into words what is likely the best response to her post I will likely see.
Look at “climatology” historically – what is it?
It is the observation and interpretation of climate, by the measurement of temperature, pressure, precipitation, … differences between reference points on the Earth, which are used to discern periodic climate phenomena such as decadal cycles; the “science” behind it attempting to explain the origins of these observations.
Since the advent of the application of “systems and control” methodology to “climatology” to “modernize” this field of study, what actual advances in the field have been produced?
Have subcycles of the larger cycles been discerned? Have their origins been explained? Can anyone explain the origins of the El Nino?
Nada. Instead, this junk has been applied to find an artificial decomposition of “forcing” and “feedback” of things like CO2 and water vapor – for the express purpose of telling us we’re all going to die by burning fuel, the whole lot of it complete junk from the get go; the worst trash to come along in a hundred years or more.
Why?
That’s the real question to be answered right now, I think, then we can begin to set the record straight
/end rant
In my opinion, modern “scientists” no longer understand the principles of science, and have transformed themselves from scientists to soothsayers and oracles. They no longer present ideas and theories that are expected to be tested, they now make pronouncements that they expect or hope will catch the ear of politicians and will result in research grants.
When an individual raises an objection to a pronouncement, they do not consider the weight of the objection, they attack the objector: he or she lacks educational credentials; they do not understand the finer nuances of the theory; and, they are motivated by opponents to their fine idea.
I can understand how this happens, our modern educational and entertainment systems have actually encouraged. We have groups that attach the word “scientist” to their organization as if merely being called one will make you one. Many members of the Union of Concerned Scientists are no more scientists than members of the religious organization that uses the same word.
But it is not their lack of education that prevents them from being scientists, it is their inherent inability to apply critical thinking to their individual belief sets. They make a statement and seem to believe that this is enough to make their statement true.
Hear! hear! I like Willis. I have tried for 4 months trying to find the results of testing that would prove to me that the odd 70 ppm’s of CO2 that were added to the atmosphere since 1960 are significant, i.e. that it causes global warming. Could not find it. I tried everywhere including the IPCC, Al Gore, Hansen, Joe Romm, Spencer Weart, Prof Ahlers,etc.. Did not get any answers from them. But they are the “experts” who claimed to have this evidence. They say this research has been “done”. Why and where did they hide it so good that I cannot find it?
The only “test” I could find was done with 100% CO2. Rediculous!!
Like Willis’ experience with RealClimate, I also experienced being censored on certain sites, e.g. Sceptical Science. I even found that a definition on Wikipedia about the greenhouse effect had been altered after I had used it in an hefty argument. I found these experiences incredible and most amazing. Big Brother watching me. A lot has happened since Nov. 2009 but I doubt if things have changed that much on these sites, even after climategate and all those revelations that there really has not been any significant warming in the past 15 years.
I am glad I found WUWT….
Applause! Dr Curry seems to not understand the huge ANGER that the exaggerations and blatant advocacy has caused, not because of poor communication but because the consequences of the POLICIES, for which the so called SCIENCE is the launch pad, are likely to be truely awful!
Maybe we should put up with it IF the WG2 catastrophies were true, but they aren’t! And even the WG1 science is suspect. (OK, I’m no scientist, apart from a good first degree in Natural Sciences from Cambridge, England, but I can still smell a rat, and saw business “modelling” lead companies into ruin)
* key countries won’t sign on (China, India)
* others will say they will, but won’t implement much
*unintended consequences will hit those who do cap n trade, etc (eg UK has lost its last bulk steel factory, and some 8000 linked jobs, because Corus, a subsid of Tata, can then sell its EU carbon credits, Tata plans to rebuild the capacity in India & get UN CDM money, and there will be zero impact on CO2)
* other pressing enviro. & poverty problems will be ignored due vast resource diversion.
OK, policies may seem OT, but it is because the actions flowing from the science are so dire that we are all so worked up to be sure the science is right! Its not “communication” Its that wherever one probes, the science seems dodgy, or just plain wrong. GRRR. Rant over.
Kudos to Dr Curry for opening dialogue, but it should be “how do we clean up the science”, not “how do we better communicate what we think we know”
Sorry folks, but I find Curry’s letter reasonable and Eschenbach’s response unfair. What more do you want? She rips Phil/Jones and CRU…
“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 she calls for the “auditors” to be part of the scientific process to do, well, auditing of the quality of science and an “open source” approach.
“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.”
I understand there is ample justification for cynicism based on history, but this kind of statement and the recent Met Office proposal should be treated as great opportunities to engage and move forward. A win is a win.
Anthony,
Very eloquantly put. I am mailing this to all my scientist friends ( lots of them are professors ). Particularly about the need for humility.
If you can summarize in a 10 or less video, with your own voice and emotuions, this will be like the “rant heard around the world” by Rick Santelli that started the tea-party movement… this will start a climate-party movement
Judith Curry (04:34:45) :
“So by staking this middle position, i pretty much am getting tomatoes thrown at me from both sides”
Don’t we know it.
Judith, thanks for taking the tomatoes for your side. Everyone really does appreciate it and appreciate you for doing that.
Don’t overlook the fact that it was your side that started it, kept it up, and got caught doing it.
spelling and content correction:
Anthony,
Very eloquantly put. I am mailing this to all my scientist friends ( lots of them are professors ). Particularly about the need for humility.
If you can summarize in a 10 min or less video, with your own voice and emotions, this will be like the “rant heard around the world” by Rick Santelli that started the tea-party movement… It will do a lot of good, and might even start a climate-party movement
The only reality going forward is not more talk about healing, but what will Judith and the so called “mainstream” climate science community do. After Willis’ clear and accurate analysis, everyone here will know the true colors of climate scientists by what they do going forward.
There is great personal, financial (funding), and career risk in changing course for most. Skeptical scientists have dealt with it for a long time (hence the anger). Hopefully, it won’t be like in “Ghostbuster”s where the new team member says, “I’ll believe anything if there is a steady pay check in it.” Getting off the safe AGW bandwagon will take courage and will cost folks a lot of money. I know I’ll be watching.
Kum Dollison, You are not correct!
Kum Dollison (04:58:51) :
Willis, I haven’t gone through your whole article, yet, but this sentence needs to be changed.
When is one of you mainstream climate scientist going to speak out against this kind of malfeasance?
to “when ARE.
Don’t change it!
‘When is one of you…… going to speak out…’ is correct.
All I can say is WOW you nailed it Willis there isn’t a word I would change. I believe the phrase speak truth to power just got a polish and now shines brightly for all to see its definition. Keep this up and never let up, They need to see the anger that they have engendered with the lies and the quiet acceptance of those lies.
The science is NOT settled. It’s as simple as that, Curry acknowledges it, but even though she suggests than no-one believes it, obviously many very influential people do, scientists and policy-makers alike. Those people need to learn to be skeptical and understand scientific processes better.
There is still a problem with truth; “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” and the egregious use of the word truth in the title of Al Gore’s movie indicate warmist’s belief that they have discovered the truth, and need to proselytize it. Both the report and the movie are replete with what Huck Finn called stretchers, neither forgivably, Al Gore has made a lot of money from the panic, and the IPCC report is supposed to be SCIENCE based, so no wonder trust has evaporated.
Curry’s analysis and excuses of stress and apprehension of a monolithic opposition causing the wrong-headed approach of the climate establishment to stifle opposing views and denigrate critics indicates she still has a long way to go to be fair-minded about the situation and the history. The science magazines Nature and Science have been essentially one-sided as well, and Cicerone worries about trust?
As Eschenbach demands: do good science, be transparent, welcome criticism, follow the scientific method. The science magazines should encourage debate.
The mainstream media has it’s own issues which include overt attempts to influence opinion (and Gore’s movie is part of it, rather than part of the scientific sphere, of course), The Guardian website has a blog: “Do climate change sceptics give scepticism a bad name?”, where it continues to stress that although embarrassing mistakes have been made, the climate is still changing, and that human activity is responsible. They are likely the most influential climate change advocates, and I noticed there were a few articles critical of the climategate shenanigans, but they are unlikely to change their basic stance without a sweeping groundswell. They presume the truth of a hypothesis, and support the agenda.
I hope that there can be at least a review of methods and data quality that WUWT, Climate Audit, and the other blogs have been asking for, otherwise, no trust.