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.
Well said Willis.
I don’t want to trust climate scientists. I don’t want them to “better communicate” their junk science considering they’ve had more than two decades, a servile media and billion$ dollar$ to do it. Enough is enough.
5.3 The public and policy makers don’t understand the truth as presented by the IPCC.
1. The policy makers accept the dogma in the IPCC as truth, but most of the public apparently understand the truth as evidenced by declining AGW poll numbers.
2. Elitist, smug, liberal, condescending “intellectuals” always resort to this thinly veiled ad hominen. For example, I’m told by Reid and Pelosi etc. that I’m against the health care bill because, “I don’t understand” or “we haven’t explained it well enough”. Well, get this. I understand both AGW and the health bill completely and still don’t want either”. Why? This is the biggest quackery since LBJ’s Great Society. How’d that work out? Do we still have poverty after trillion$ spent. We’ll still have a warming climate if we spend trillions to “fix” CO2, just like the trend for the last 10,000 yrs. If you want someone to let that sentence slide, go to RC.
Mrtouchdown;
If Ms. Curry thinks that a smooth talking Climate Scientist is going to slip by business people>>
Thank you for that. My first incling that things didn’t add up was NOT from looking at the science, but the explanations. Anyone who has read or written a lot of business cases knows an attempt to manage perception in one area while distracting attention from another, most often for no good purpose. My “BS” meter was in the read zone before I got to the science. When I did that, the needle fired itself right through the side of the meter.
homine”m”
John Whitman (04:49:12) :
Chrisz (04:53:07) :
I understand where you are both coming from, chaps, and please don’t forget I myself am a sceptic.
We all accept narratives, scientists not excepted. For a long time, narratives excluding plate tectonics and a bacterial cause for stomach ulcers were accepted. Scientists in large fields of study can’t do much else but trust the word of others who are specialists. I feel it is unfair to blame all scientists if others, whose data they are accepting, may be up to no good.
I accept that Fermat’s last theorem has been proved: but for me, that is only a narrative because I haven’t read the proof and in any case would probably get lost on the first page: heck, I’ll bet it’s even, effectively, a narrative for some PhD mathematicians. And it doesn’t matter if data comes from a relatively not-too-complex area – could even be a simple one, but taken care of by those who are dedicated to, and may jealously guard, its collection and manipulation. It’s impossible not to have to simply trust all sorts of data originating from others. Chemists, engineers, physicists, and so on, probably do that all the time.
Be realistic, guys. Nobody knows everything. Everybody accepts certain things on trust, and couldn’t possibly check everything out. All scientific disciplines have narratives, and some of those are conceivably poppycock. I could quote some I suspect of being so, but then I’d probably get up someone’s nose who thought differently.
But more to the point, I’ll bet you yourselves have ideas about false narratives in fields other than climate science. You may even be blissfully unaware of dodgy narratives in your own field that you are accepting without questioning and investigating. If so, how would you feel if someone came along and accused you of culpable negligence?
I’m sticking with my point: it is conceivable that Dr. Curry is both sincere and competent, and in my current opinion, that is most probably the case. So I’d like to see her being given the benefit of the doubt. Looks like I’m in the minority, unfortunately, but what the heck, I still respect those who beg to differ, so let’s not fall out about it.
Judith Curry (17:24:13) : With regards to trust. Many of you have stated in your comments that you don’t trust me.
I empathize completely with the feelings you must have because of this, Madam.
If it’s any consolation, and speaking from personal experience only – you’ll get over it
Wait! Stop the press! I may revise my thinking that Dr. Curry was honestly trying to take the middle high ground with her original post and subsequent comments. Why? In light of the article in todays Wall St. Jr. which can be found here –
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704188104575083681319834978.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
It essentially asserts the same mistaken view point that the whole problem is poor communications and oversimplification at the IPCC, obfuscating the real issues of malfeasances and outright fraud.
Please tell us all, Dr. Curry, your not a part of some coordinated attempt to misdirect the rank-and-file of the world and put-out-of-sight/mind the manipulated junk science, lack of robust data and abject failure of the GW models involved in this whole mess. Please?
One more article – anywhere – along the same lines of its all about the IPCC’s “image” or it’s just “communication failure” and the not so faint scent of rats will permeate the air.
Oh, and BTW, it doesn’t take a scientist to know a dead rat stinks.
Why do I endorse Willis Eschenbach’s viewpoint on Climategate. Because everything he says or writes is informed by a powerful understanding of scientific method and because he is a natural, to use a sports metaphor. His understanding of scientific method grows from his work and is not overlaid.
Why is Willis Eschenbach so important to climate sceptics at this time? Because he understands that the heart of the Climategate scandal is a matter of scientific method not a matter of science. Phil Jones and similar people have violated scientific method and must be taken to task for that. If they are permitted to claim that it is the science that matters in this debate, not scientific method, then they are off the hook. Of course, the reasons they are off the hook is that they have much of the science locked away and they are not candid in presenting their theories. Climate sceptics’ must stand on scientific method or they are not even full participants in the debate that is taking place.
Willis writes
This is a rather disparate list of grievances. Some brief comments below.
1. Results are routinely exaggerated
Willis provides no evidence of “routine” exaggeration.
“Scientific papers” are larded with “may” and “might” and “could possibly”
Why is this a problem if one is dealing with uncertainty?
Advocacy is a common thread in climate science papers
What evidence do you have that is is common? If the science is sound, is advocacy, if clearly demarcated from the science, necessarily a problem? If a scientific investigation concludes that unless we do X, then it is very likely the world will explode in 2014, it is unreasonable for the investigators to suggest we might want to consider doing X?
Codes are routinely concealed, data is not archived
This certainly happens. I’m quite prepared to believe it happens “routinely”. This is not good.
A concerted effort is made to marginalize and censor opposing views
This certainly seems true with regard to MM and will regard to censorship at RC. This is not good. Is a concerted effort made by the majority who hold that AGW is happening and problematic?
I can only add my congratulations to Willis Eschenbach’s essay and invite that he publishes in the correct form in ‘Energy&Environment’!
I trust and value both contributions but have several comments to make that go beyond his and Judy Curry’s contributions but are still a direct response to them. I see both as defensive of ‘pure’ science, with one seeing the IPCC ‘problem’ as communication failure and the other as the careless pursuit of the wrong ‘paradigm’. Willis looks at ‘climate science’ from a more independent, less embedded outsider perspective, Judith has worked within and for the ‘science consenus’. However, there is a broader perspective.
Both contributions remain outside a broader science policy framework, a framework I ould like to briefly add on the basis of my own research into the IPCC and climate scepticism. I will do so with particular interest in the politics of science funding and its links to energy research. I have written a lot about this in the latter half of the 1990s. I want to point out that the political economy context of the IPCC and argue that the role played by government-research science nexus has been ignored.
No mention has been made of the simple fact that international research lobbies (and their supporters in governments, NGOs and at the UN) have become a powerful political actors in the ‘climate game’. Individuals like Judith are bit a small part in a large machine they may not even see. Environmental, energy and climate research lobbies (and their funders the regulators) have come to increasingly rely on environmental threats to attract attention and money.
Also often forgotten is that such threats appeal most o governments when linked to profitable ‘solutions’. This is indeed the case for the IPCC.
The solutions were worked out by its working group 3 (WG III) predate the work of IPCC working group 1 on science and climate modelling. The offerred solutions, or responses as they are offically called, range from ‘clean’ technology and the resurrected nuclear power, to environmental taxation and emission standard setting and ‘carbon’ trading. The same solutions were offered, initally, in the 1970s. All these solution relate to the decarbonisation of energy supply. The required investments are huge. They were and still are sought globally with the support of the IPCC? Why?
During the mid-1990 when I studied the politics of the IPCC and especially its science advisory role under a three year ESRC grant , the advocacy role of the IPCC for these ‘solutions’ became apparent. This role resulted from three factors that are not usually taken into account by ‘pure’ scientists.
First, the mentioned role of WG 3 on ‘responses’ is usually not included in the discussion of the IPCC. Howevr, it was WG 3 which from the very start supplied the science people with extremely ample emission scenarios. E&E has revealed the errors in these scenarios; here is it sufficent to point out that it is they produce the most scary ‘predictions’ of future warming and hence the justification for interventions into energy markets. WG3 consists of government people, energy technology specialists, emission modellers and environmental economists and was probably the real driving force in the IPCC process.
In contrast, the task of WG 1, was largely supportive: to demonstrate a threat large enough to justify major regulatory and technological efforts related to the low carbon economy so fervently desired by so many. This was an ambition that first arose during the limits to growth scare, was supported by the ‘oil crises’ of the 1970s and became a financial necessity when oil prices fell sharply in the late 1980s, just when the IPCC was set up. The rejection of nuclear power by so many also encouraged the search for a problem that would ‘green’ this low carbon source.
Second, scientists tend to ignore the links between the IPCC and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) and its Kyoto Protocol 1987), for these legal promises go a long way towards explaining the pressures on science to ‘deliver’ the policy justification for the desired solutions.This treaty already states in international law, that global warming is man-made and dangerous. Climate remains undefined. The IPCC as advisory body was expected by its Bureau and supportive governments and NGOs, to ‘underpin’ the convention. The Climate treaty remains primarily an attack on carbon fuels.
The interests supporting the decarbonisation agenda have grown much stronger since and have accept ‘alarmist’ predictions of dnagerous ,man-made warming on trust. By now they are, probaly, quite capable of keeping the show on the road, largely at the tax payer expense. Just listen to people like Siemens, the windfarm lobby, WWF, investment banks and many others,
Worries about unintended consequences of this global effort, including the Copenhagen debacle, show that the world recession may not be strong enough to prevent futher attemps at implementing this alleged third industrial revolution. Science and engineering lobbies, as well as regulators, have much to gain. If climate change fails as justification, other threats may have to be used. Ocean acidification and peak oil spring to mind.
Third, and as already hinted at, any analysis of the ‘pure’ science debate neglects important links between the IPCC advisory role and energy sector interests and ambitions. When the oil prices collapsed in the late 1980s, there were many vested interests and even more R&D ambitions that supported state intervention in favour of renewables, nuclear power, energy efficiency, and natural gas. Worries about unintended consequences and the world recession may now threaten this agenda.
To explain my analysis a little more and oint nout its relevance here:
I studied the IPCC as a senior research fellow from inside the energy policy research community at the Science and Technology Policy Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex.
In my analysis the climate treaty and subsequent negotiations were not primarily science based (though much good science was funded on the way), but involved major efforts to develop and promote low carbon fuels. The motives for this effort can be debated. Many people believed and still believe that ‘saving the planet’ from dangerous warming is the primary objective.
Such a threat is indeed needed as long as hydrocarbons and coal remain very competitive and supportive of rapid economic growth. While regulation and ‘stimulation’ can ensure that carbon has a high enough price to encourage ‘decarbonisation’, the question now is, can we still afford it? The UN and UK governments seem to think so. Were they to change their mind, science may again be needed, but this time to test the veracity of the warming threat.
Having followed the science debates since the late 1980s and would agree with John Christy (made recently in ‘Nature’) that ‘scientists’ ignorance of the climate system is enormous’ and with Willis Eschenbach that well-meaning and thoughful people like Judity Curry should stop ‘trying to pass off garbage as science’ [ though I would not put it as strongly: they shoud examine their paradigm more closely and check the reasons for being so well funded to provide needed answers.]
I am not sure whether his solution, for climate scientists to police their own back yard, is realistic. I would go for demanding a different public funding system for science and a dissociation of policy-making from science still in the basic research phase, that is attemting to prevent the misuse of science by policy-makers so called. This would include much weaker links between government bodies, for example energy, environment and foreign ministries, and basic climate research bodies like CRU or even the UK Royal Society.
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Editor, Energy&Environment
Hull University, Departmetn of Geography
sonja.b-c@hull.ac.uk
Dr. Curry,
Thank you for having the toughness to stand in the middle. It is indeed a hazardous position to be in.
My hope is that what I call ‘AGW’, the theory that CO2 is going to cause a climate catastrophe, will be seen for what it is- another in a long series of apocalyptic predictions that will never actually happen.
The problem is that the claims of AGW resonate deeply within many people, and so an AGW social movement has formed, that is as powerful as it is reactionary in its defense of the ‘truth’ of AGW theory. This social movement is deeply intertwined with the science, unfortunately.
There is a logical step that skeptics have taken: junk claims and bad behavior are a result of junk evidence.
In other words, the reason the AGW community is so angry and unable to discuss problems of data quality, failures of normal scientific method, the extreme nature of AGW predictions about climate, is that to do so would force those who have invested a great deal of emotional and social capital in AGW to lose the only valuable aspect of the theory: its predictions of CO2 caused apocalypse.
No apocalypse means no need for crisis management- no great world treaties, no sweeping AGW social moveement policies, no need for imposed technology changes, etc. Not to mention the money those who have promoted various aspects of AGW have at stake.
Your efforts are an important step by someone deeply involved in the science to unwind some of this, and I encourage you to stand firm, and to continue to keep an open and critical view.
And consider the logical steps before you.
@xyzlatin (00:22:32)
‘Therefore, you probably have not experienced having to keep a room unlit because that week you could not afford the new lighbulbs mandated by the Government on your AGW theory…’
Careful not to provide too much credit there xyz.
AGW hasn’t reached the dizzying academic heights of a ‘theory’.
Based upon my understanding of the scientific method, Anthropogenic Global Warming remains, as it always has been, an ‘unsubstantiated hypothesis’.
My point is that the field is much larger than it would be if it were just scientific curiosity driving it forward. To use someone else’s phrase, it’s a snowball, sucking up vast amounts of cash which could otherwise be spent more usefully elsewhere. Of course, I’m making the assumption here that a lot of this money is wasted. Anyone who’s read Watts for long enough will surely agree with me that it is!
I wanted to comment on an aspect of all of this that doesn’t seem to be emphasized in these two essays and the responses: the issues of verifiability and scientific ethics that are so disturbing in climate science are really part of a broader social problem, especially in hierarchical structures such as academic science and academe in general, but also in government and corporate life, as the essay comparing climategate to the fall of Enron suggests. We live in an era that has been characterized as “post-modern,” which seems to mean that we can all adopt whatever worldview works for us: in particular, it’s easy to see in many areas of human endeavor that what used to be called ethical behavior has become optional. Corporations, politicians, academics all espouse the highest ethics in public but “everybody” knows they would be fools to actually conduct their lives in this way. This is exactly the dichotomy you see in the climategate emails – public rectitude and private corruption. Postmodernism is the new flavor, but it’s as old as the hills. I’m an academic, and you can see the same problems in most academic departments: circling the wagons, cleaving to a politically favored point of view despite the evidence – and as economic factors increase competition for academic and scientific positions, the result under the current system is not greater quality, but more academics and scientists who are willing to shade the result – to advocate – to cheat in one way or another. When the time comes for an investigation, the university or other academic authority acts to favor it’s own best interest – that’s how administrators stay in power. Medical science is so completely infiltrated by the pharmaceuticals that a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine recently wrote a book about the fact the most medical research, as well as the conclusions of many authorities in medical science, cannot be trusted. In short, we have a serious problem – in our gradual move toward openness and pluralism over the last century, we are in the process of throwing the baby out with the bathwater; pluralism and the rejection of other “isms” such as racism, sexism, and so on, have been a tremendous benefit to society, but the adoption of “situational morality” as a broadly accepted standard is very dangerous. I remember the comment about the Watergate conspirators that the scandal was ultimately quite profitable for many of them because they became widely sought after speakers – nobody seemed too concerned about how they acquired their notoriety. Dishonesty and professional malfeasance have always been with us, but they were once publicly condemned: we had better understand the road we are following – if unethical behavior becomes an acceptable choice in polite society, our civilization will be greatly weakened, and not just by unnecessary economic restrictions.
Re: Michael Larkin (Feb 26 07:02),
But more to the point, I’ll bet you yourselves have ideas about false narratives in fields other than climate science. You may even be blissfully unaware of dodgy narratives in your own field that you are accepting without questioning and investigating. If so, how would you feel if someone came along and accused you of culpable negligence?
I’m sticking with my point: it is conceivable that Dr. Curry is both sincere and competent, and in my current opinion, that is most probably the case. So I’d like to see her being given the benefit of the doubt. Looks like I’m in the minority, unfortunately, but what the heck, I still respect those who beg to differ, so let’s not fall out about it.
I agree with you about narratives in science, theories in all disciplines go off and after a while, sometimes a long while, a correction sets in. If there were not so much politics going on based on the climate narrative, one could have the forbearance to give benefits of doubt.
Even while the climate projections are more and more proven false there does not seem to be a budge in the politics that are pushing western societies to commit economic immolation, will impoverish and destroy millions of third world people, and enrich an elite. There is no budge just because most mainstream climate scientists like Dr Curry support the narrative in some way.
Scientists have to speak up loud and clear that the science is not settled, the time table for the fall of the sky, if it is falling because of CO2, can be pushed off to next century, and there is no need for rushing drastic cap and trade pyramid schemes.
Unfortunately the inertia seems to be very great and it seems that only nature will be able to stop the AGW bus with a few more north hemisphere cold winters.
Ah sorry I didn’t realize this was Willis, my bad.
Judith Curry (17:24:13) : As has been said above, it is not you who is not trusted, it is the field of climate science. It is not internally audited, or the amateur auditors would not find the errors that they do. Moreover, it is not a simple error here and there, errors are pervasive, and always bias in only one direction. That last in itself is grounds for a serious lack of trust. Then when one looks at the manipulation of data worldwide, the same mismanagement of data occurs in New Zealand as in the US, ie. circa 1965 becomes a hinge point, temps prior are lowered, and thereafter raised. Who could not imagine a global conspiracy for these manipulations. The other choice is the original/raw data is mangled. Pick one.
Bart Verheggen (02:16:53)
I can see you don’t get out much …
The term “denier” was chosen by the AGW supporters specifically because of its association with Holocaust Deniers. This was made explicit most recently by the comments of Congressman Bernie Saunders. It is an emotionally loaded word. Its use has been protested over and over by people to whom it is applied. It is in no means the opposite of the term alarmist, which has no such negative historical associations.
Its use should be avoided for a couple of reasons.
First, we’ve said over and over that it is a nasty term, so it should be avoided simply as a matter of common politeness. Calling a group of people by a name that they have said they object strongly to is not a good thing, no matter why they object.
Second, if you use it, you’ll get your vote cancelled by the people you are describing. Look at what happened to Judith, who only tried to use it to make a distinction between deniers and sceptics. People fastened on that and threw out the rest of her reasonable and reasoned points.
RichieRich (07:36:44)
Richie, if at this point in the history of climate science you need evidence for routine exaggeration of results, I fear that either you need far more help than I can give you, or you are a troll.
In either case I will leave you to slumber, secure and undisturbed in your prejudices.
Ref – Judith Curry (17:24:13) :
“Science is science, we all value science and need to preserve its integrity. But we are all human, and trust and irrationality play a role in our thinking and discourse. Does this help scientific progress? No. But but we need to recognize their importance in human interactions. Two examples here: allegedly “rational” skeptics here go ballistic over the “d” word and reject all of my arguments because of the “d” word. Look in the mirror, I have certainly forced myself to confront my own biases and prejudice in not rejecting others arguments, otherwise i wouldn’t spend any time here at all.
“With regards to trust. Many of you have stated in your comments that you don’t trust me. Trust is obviously not irrelevant here. Trust is part of the reason that Willis and I can carry on a relatively civil conversation about this topic.”…
_________________________
Think of a blog as an open air market. Some are very small and only open infrequently. Some like WUWT are capable of getting quite a crowd at any time of day and on any day of the week. There’s a lot of noise and commotion.
Most are there for a genuine purpose but not beyond having a little fun at any vendor’s expense. Some are there to just have fun, they don’t have any money and it’s just the fun they’re after. They tend to strike up a discussion with their own kind and chat about anything but the subject at hand. Some are hecklers and trouble makers. Some are just passing through and rarely say anything to anyone. Some come looking for new views and ideas. Some don’t like anything new, and only want the same day in and day out.
The ones that address the issue head on. That take what you say and think about it. That ask penetrating questions or clarification on a point or two. That compliment you –sometimes; or tell you you you’re wrong but don’t cut you to pieces — usually; are the ones that you should be responding to.
The noise of the “mob” is not indicative of anything except the size of the blog and it’s popularity. As you have in this case: listen to all, ignore the noise and provocations, focus on the reasonable and those who are listening.
Well done Doctor! Hope to e-see and e-hear you again at WUWT.
John Hewitt (07:30:34) :
PS definitely not coming back!
Your Loss.
RichieRich (07:36:44) : edit
Here’s a typical example of what I’m talking about, from “Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications”, James Hansen et al., Science Ragazine.
Sure, there is a possibility that we could get to a point where large sea level change is practically impossible to avoid. And there is the possibility that I could be practically certain to win the lottery. But by the time we have stacked up all those qualifiers, we’re way out into the realm of speculation and not science.
This is not a way to deal with uncertainty as you suggest. It is a way to camouflage alarmism as science.
I’ve read the above article, Judith Curry’s earlier post, and ALL of the comments. There’s something I think anyone working with or relying on climate research data should remember, the immortal words of Ronald Reagan: “Trust, but verify”. There’s been too much trust, and too little verification, of climate “science”. The CRU hasn’t helped by withholding their data (as have others).
[snip – As I asked before, please take general climate science discussions elsewhere. Thanks. – w.]
@Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (07:48:15)
Thank you for that dissertation and for trying to pull it into
a broader perspective (WG3 “responses” and policies based on it).
Anthony and/or Willis, just curious,
do you have any comments on her text?