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! Mr. Eschenback. Unmasked!
Hm. Let’s take a giant step back. Allow that I am willing to agree with you that in every case you have listed, the data have been maliciously and illegally witheld from the public and from scientific colleagues of those you are discussing. Ok? Just so we may be on the same page for a moment.
Now. Throwing out every single stick (sic) of such suspect or discredited data, AND the researchers judged irresponsible in the midst of it all, what is left?
A very large, inevitably convincing mass of data and hard work on the part of thousands of scientists that still adds up to the conclusion you are working at debunking.
You know, I actually wish you all well. To the extent that you can show that parts of the search for truth are defective, you do us all an important service. Please note I write this, sincerely. After all the best scientists I know of are also the most deeply skeptical human beings I have ever met.
Now I return the favor: by questioning YOUR premesis, one just might invite you to ‘clean up your act’ (I’m trying to rob Peter to pay Paul, here, drawing on your own terminology!) and thereby see you to tigher and more convincing arguments.
THAT would help out all of us.
I don’t feel sorry for Jones. Why should I? But I do feel sorry for anyone who stoops to ad-hominem, to insultingly sly wordings, to something other than a sincere search to truly follow the bouncing ball.
If you’d like to show me where I have erred in my argument, as written above, EVEN in the name of the diety! I’d be obliged.
Otherwise your predictability becomes you. But you still have the possibility to do the unexpected, such as providing a substantial rebuttal. Pulling posts you don’t agree with, banning people with whom you don’t see eye to eye simply prove that you’re not man (person?) enough for the fray.
Pity. It is that, which I alluded to in acknowledging that scientists including Jones do get tired of answering the same not-so-bright questions over and over again. One would thing once done, done. But no!
bob, you say:
I have not ever pulled a single post, nor have I ever banned a single person on WUWT. Those are scurrilous lies designed to blacken my name, you slimy little worm, and I’ll thank you to retract them.
You want to disagree with me, fine. You want to lie about me, I cordially invite you to squeeze your lies beyond the Schwarzschild limit until they are sucked into your black hole.
Begone, fool. Shakespeare presciently described you as a leathern-jerkin, crystal-button, knot-pated, agatering, puke-stocking, caddis-garter, smooth-tongue, Spanish pouch. But I think he overvalued you.
Reply: Willis, I’ll grant you some leniency here cuz I know how you get when provoked, but we do try and not insult the other commenters here at WUWT. Next time point out how pissed you are about the false accusations without the name calling. Pretty please? ~ charles the cowering (have you seen Willis when he’s angry?) moderator.
Thank you to the moderator. I also notice that Willis’ claim to not have pulled a single post now applies only to the past. I’d again like to ask that my previous post, now deleted, be restored.
I do appreciate the added remark from the moderator, above.
Leaving aside all of the name calling, I do think it worthwhile again to underscore the false accusation in Willis’ post above. If my response was deemed unworthy of publication, and in it I responded to that falsehood, then perhaps what I should request, if not require, is the removal of Willis’ offensive post above.
But I don’t ask that, just “equal time”. I did not commit the offense of which Willis accused me. End of story.
Underscoring the inherent danger to those who ignore the deep irony in Shakespeare, I happly take my Spanish pouch where it will be wanted! AND continue discussion here, which, when it require balls, I’m much obliged to supply.
Metaphorically speaking, ONLY in this context. 🙂
Reply: Sorry this reply is late. It is beyond our ability to restore most deleted posts unless they are still sitting in the Trash que. Once emptied they are gone. If any of your posts were deleted (none were by me), it would be because you violated policies, went off on a religious appeal, or something else that would have triggered moderation. It would not be because a moderator or poster disagreed with you. The accusation is offensive and if continued, is enough to get you banned. Your implied accusation against Willis, which in my mind you did make no matter how much you attempt to parse the phrasing to imply innocence is also offensive. It is not a moderator’s place to contest your point of view, but I can assure you the Willis is far more informed about what has occurred in Climate Science than are you simply by the points you raise. ~ ctm
Going back to something Smokey offered yesterday, “Don’t just take my word for it, let’s see what the planet has to say: click”
The “click” resolves to this:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Tim-Curtin-_temp-and-co2-chart-ver-2.jpg
I responded by saying I didn’t understand the graphic shown because it has no references, nor appropriate designations of its axes. (Do note, I have seen this plot elsewhere, but in THIS exchange on THIS blog one cannot take the chance of presuming such context, which is why I called Smokey on the point.)
Looking a little farther one discovers this, instead:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php
Here, it becomes clear the data have been mis-stated. I leave it to others to reflect on what, to what purpose, by whom, and under what motives that is the case.
What else IS the case is the sad lack of intellectual honesty in this particular exchange, seen to by the twisting of factual presentation to suit a particular viewpoint. That is not what science is about.
I have to make this more than an oblique reply to Mr. Eschenbach, too. I am a scientist by training, as I wrote earlier. My experience as a practicing geologist has been in the field of engineering applications, with experience in heavy industry and construction from Montana (usually in the dead of winter, it seemed!) to Algeria to Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and the likes of Irian Jaya.
If it does not go without saying, all of that includes very strong encounters. With “the planet” as Smokey puts it, getting her word in, and not, very frequently, just “edgewise”. Montana in winter?
And with lots of people getting their words and ends in. Including some rough-cut construction stiffs, I might say. Whose bark was sometimes no worse than their bite. Willis?
Lord help me! Sometimes things just get crazy-irresistable. Anybody care to guess what the highest point is on Tuvalu?
Before giving the answer, here’s an intriguing bit to think about:
http://www.tuvaluislands.com/
(Sorry, but I don’t know the trick to make a link appear in this post as a single word, click.)
Answer: 4.5 meters or 15 feet.
The seas are rising…not only does rust never sleep.
Dear Judith, Athony and Willis,
this string gets a bit hard to read and the update is not up-to-date.
(There are one more reply each from Judith and Willis not mentioned yet)
However, perhaps it might be time for some kind of summary on what you both can aggree on and which topics need to be addressed.
Is there a way to “re-sort” the heading article to include some of the answers?
Being sceptical myself I somehow miss a clear answer from Judith about the question to take a firm stand on cases of proven wrong-doing or alarmistic conclusions based on dubious data.
For example what do you mean by:
” Yes there are the now obvious issues with the hockey stick type analysis”
I know what some sceptics means by that: That there is a strong indication of fraud by Mann and his coworkers.
(Publishing reconstructions while knowing that there are issues with the data and the method, f. e. the Abanneh-thesis and the “censored”-directory discussed at CA)
If you have a similar stand, you should use your “medium fry status” to call openly for his head!
All the best wishes,
LoN
Going back to something Smokey offered yesterday, “Don’t just take my word for it, let’s see what the planet has to say: click”
The “click” resolves to this:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Tim-Curtin-_temp-and-co2-chart-ver-2.jpg
I responded by saying I didn’t understand the graphic shown because it has no references, nor appropriate designations of its axes. (Do note, I have seen this plot elsewhere, but in THIS exchange on THIS blog one cannot take the chance of presuming such context, which is why I called Smokey on the point.)
Looking a little farther one discovers this, instead:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php
Here, it becomes clear the data have been mis-stated. I leave it to others to reflect on what, to what purpose, by whom, and under what motives that is the case.
What else IS the case is the sad lack of intellectual honesty in this particular exchange, seen to by the twisting of factual presentation to suit a particular viewpoint. That is not what science is about.
I have to make this more than an oblique reply to Mr. Eschenbach, too. I am a scientist by training, as I wrote earlier. My experience as a practicing geologist has been in the field of engineering applications, with experience in heavy industry and construction from Montana (usually in the dead of winter, it seemed!) to Algeria to Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and the likes of Irian Jaya.
If it does not go without saying, all of that includes very strong encounters. With “the planet” as Smokey puts it, getting her word in, and not, very frequently, just “edgewise”. Montana in winter?
And with lots of people getting their words and ends in. Including some rough-cut construction stiffs, I might say. Whose bark was sometimes no worse than their bite.
bob (06:05:13),
Wrong as usual, this time about Tuvalu: click
And both bob/dog/god and Lambert’s pseudo-science deltoid blog are flat wrong about the presumed role of CO2 as being a significant cause of naturally rising global temperature. It’s not:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
Only the scientific illiterati believe that rising CO2 is a primary cause of naturally rising temperatures. They are wrong of course, CO2 is insignificant. But their cognitive dissonance makes them blind to reality.
Gee, Smokey, what did I — SAY — that was wrong? The only factual item in my post was the elevation of the highest point on Tuvalu. Did I get that wrong? If so, where may I look for correction?
Then you link to a number of graphical presentations that show an unequivocal correlation between rising temperature and rising CO2. That data seem to contradict your claim that CO2 does not affect global temperatures.
The Tuvalu News article is interesting. Obviously Tuvalu has plenty on its plate. In addition to sea level rise. Of course, as the first sentence of the article points out, climate change is not drowning the atoll. Right now. Journalistic historic present tense and all; the future? Bets are on…
…whether or not it will matter to Tuvalu, seeing its cluster of other nasty stuff that may well do it in long before. Which is not the best outcome I, for one, would hope for. But those problems have not to do, for now, with global warming, but with power politics and with how the fragile oceanic environment is limited in supporting intense contemporary human development.
A question to the moderator, first though that I may have double-posted again. This was not my intention, but at one point a post I wrote seemed unusually delayed in appearing after moderation so I wondered what had gone amiss.
But now I see from my email subscription that others have been posting. And yet I don’t see their posts when I return and refresh Watt’s Up, here.
Is there anything odd going on? Or might I just be more patient to wait for the gears to turn? Thanks—
bob (07:35:46),
The WUWT archives are your friend… if you really want to learn about sea level impacts on atolls like Tuvalu: click
And regarding your comment: “you link to a number of graphical presentations that show an unequivocal correlation between rising temperature and rising CO2.”
Why should I waste my time explaining that correlation is not causation? As anyone can see from the Vostok graph, and from the more recent time series graphs, rising temperature precedes rising CO2. Effect cannot precede cause. Rising temperature causes CO2 to subsequently rise, once again falsifying the CO2=CAGW conjecture.
You really need to get up to speed on these subjects. Start by reading the WUWT archives before commenting on any particular issue. You will save yourself a lot of needless embarrassment.
Smokey, no one SAID the correlation amounted to causation, but you did earlier say and imply that the graphs you referenced would undercut the notion that CO2 and warming might somehow be linked.
Not that the graphs are news, mind you, but glancing again at them one migh wonder what you mean. The correlation is unmistakable.
I leave causation to you, and would be very interested to hear how you account for the correlation. There must be some factor at work to account for that. What is it?
I don’t mind replying in this sort of discussion, but I have to point out that at each exchange you have re-framed the argument, and by so doing have avoided making a connection over the question in play. That makes it difficult, and frustrating, to go forward thinking this is a discussion.
Instead it look as if you wish to repeat what you believe to be true, no matter what anyone may point out as elements that don’t fit.
Where do we go from there?
Smokey, I hope you are not going to be deceived by the old “…anyone can see from the…graphs, rising temperature precedes rising CO2.”
One may take any two graphs of changing conditions, and present them arbitrarily to show that one element “leads” or “lags” the other. Suppose we graph the introduction of skateboards vs time and the incidence of injuries typical in skateboard mishaps.
All you have to do is slide one or the other graph up or down on the y-axis (assuming the x-axis is time) and you can make it appear that the injuries “lead” the rise in skateboard use! Silly, too.
You are right that correlation is not causation. But have you noticed, in this case you make my point for me? By arguing that the graphs show temperature leading CO2 you implicitly agree that there IS a cause and effect relationship, or that at the least the likelyhood of that is great.
I don’t think that is so – I don’t see causation in the correlation shown by the graphs. Nor do I think that rising world temperature “leads” (or lags) CO2. Nor, in the last, that rising temperature somehow is what is driving rising CO2. Not only do all the data and the most savvy interpretations of those observations come to a different conclusion, I have to add this: we are in a serious enough pickle as it is, in the face of warming that is amplified by human-generated factors. If it were the reverse, I for one would despair.
Think about that for a minute.
I’d ask your courtesy in addressing me by my actual screen-name as shown with the post. Just asking. Remember, the Diety is looking over all of our shoulders, here! I have implicitly promised the moderator to avoid bringing religion into the fray, but it’s worth it to remind that at base, the values contained in the deepest religious thinking throughout the ages culminate, in my view, in the very kind of enlightened discussion we seek to have. And in the possibility that our sciences may help us out in that.
Willis Eschenbach (03:15:20),
Spot on.
Point taken, Charles, but when a self-described dog calls me a coward, it tends to angrify my blood mightily. However, my apologies for disturbing the decorum, it was un-called for.
He lied about me by saying that I deleted posts because I was too cowardly to face his oh-so-awesome attacks, and I called him a worm. It appears you find the latter more offensive than the former, so following your instructions I will certainly be less forthright in future about his sterling qualities and his noble ancestry.
I find this attack particularly vile because I have already spoken out on the issue of censorship above. I said that realclimate was an unscientific site because they practice censorship of opposing scientific views. For dog to now lie in order to accuse me of the same thing is despicable. You say we try not to “insult the other commenters” here. How is that not a much more serious insult that anything I might have said.
Charles, you have to understand that it is not just me who is insulted here. He is saying that WUWT is just like realclimate, that we censor opposing views. And that to me is much more important than the insult to me personally. That is a vile and untruthful attack on the integrity of the site itself.
You say my claim “not to have pulled a single post now applies only to the past?” What does that mean? Should I have claimed it about the future?
Let me be clear here. I have never pulled a single post, period. Not yours, not anyones. Your posts are far too trivial and full of obvious error to pull in any case. Not only have I never pulled one of your posts, I have never wanted to pull one. You serve as a perfect example of the foolishness and swell-headed self importance of the AGW crowd, I would not erase a word of them. They serve as signposts for the unwary, as examples of beliefs to avoid.
Bob, you accused me of being too cowardly to face you and of deleting your post. You said:
I say again, sir, that is a lie and a scurrilous false accusation. I have never done either of those. Ask the moderator. OK, I can’t call you names, so I’ll call you the truth. You, sir, are a liar who makes false accusations in a vain attempt to blacken both my name and the name of WUWT.
Yes you did, your quote above proves it, you repeated it in this post, and now you not only are lying about me, you are lying about what you said.
That’s all I will say on the subject. Lie all you want, dog. People here see you for what you are.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
Re this statement:
Prof Jones today said it was not ’standard practice’ in climate science to release data and methodology for scientific findings so that other scientists could check and challenge the research.
Jones is incorrect. In the U.S., funding agencies expect that datasets be archived and publicly available. Most journal editors and funding agencies expect a scientist to honor requests for information required to reproduce their research.
Many papers and datasets never get challenged in this way. The important ones should be challenged in this way.
I don’t think there are too many scientists prepared to defend Jones’ not making the data and metadata available to Warwick Hughes when he made the original request
If Willis is game, and if there is sufficient interest, i am prepared to go another round of dueling essays, or a discussion of some sort, relative to what was learned, refinements to our thinking on this, etc. Willis and/or Anthony could email me to discuss if they are interested.
Judith Curry (11:42:38)
Judith, you are da’ bomb! Many thanks.
A couple minor caveats. You have it backwards when you say:
The issue is not how few scientists are prepared to defend Jones’ actions. The problem is how few scientists are prepared to condemn Jones’ actions. Edmund Burke is alleged to have said:
Unfortunately, mainstream climate scientists (with certain exceptions such as yourself) have taken “do nothing” to the status of an art form.
Also, you say:
I fear that you have mistaken hype for reality. Nature and Science Magazines, as well as the National Science Foundation, all have policies regarding archiving. Unfortunately, far too often they have all refused to enforce them, even when requested. I know because I’ve personally tried to get Science to enforce theirs, and I’ve been blown off. Steve McIntyre has a host of threads on this, see here, here, and here. I’m surprised that you are unaware of the huge problems in this area. The rude truth is that when Jones said that not sharing data in climate science was the norm, he was (uncharacteristically) actually telling the truth.
I would love to take this discussion further, as (like you) my chosen field is climate science. The current state of climate science is a tragedy for us both, and whatever we can do to heal that should be done.
I see signs of a huge shift in the field, however. There is a growing realisation that politicised science is worthless. I see an increase in people saying “hey, the science isn’t settled, we don’t really know all that we claimed to know.”
And finally, I see more and more climate scientists turning a skeptical eye on the world again, and turning the heat down on their credulity. They’re not turning into skeptics, don’t mistake me … they’re just re-igniting the honest skepticism that is the hallmark of every true scientist. As Reagan used to say, “Trust … but verify”.
So yes, I’d love to continue this discussion. I have some ideas on how to do that, I’ll email Anthony in a couple days with a proposal.
Many thanks for continuing to shrug off the nonsense that a public forum inevitably provides, and for continuing to concentrate on the real issues. Your post and my reply have made the world news, and for that you deserve more credit than I.
My best to you,
w.
Willis, one point. I am prepared to condemn certain practices that are unethical or counterproductive to science. I am prepared to critique an individual piece of research, or even an entire assessment report. However, I am not prepared to denounce individual scientists. It is inappropriate for any of us (particularly someone like myself, in a position of responsibility receiving a government paycheck) to play judge and jury in this matter in a public forum, especially with such a complex situation. In any event, I am personally unwilling to spend all the time it would take to undertake such an investigation to make a responsible judgement. Official investigations are underway. While an individual may or may not be satisfied with the outcome in the end, these investigations are the appropriate way to proceed with regards to the allegations made against these individuals. For the record, I agree with the Institute of Physics statement.
Judith Curry (13:13:16)
I say again, for evil to triumph all that is necessary is for good scientists to do nothing.
You say this is a “complex situation”,, but it is often bozo simple. If Lonnie Thompson is not archiving his data, it does not require an investigation or a rocket scientist to figure it out. It is not complex at all. Either it is or it is not archived. You can find out from your desk.
And when Michael Mann claims that asking for his data is “intimidation”, when Phil Jones refuses to share data because someone will “try to find fault with it”, silence is inexcusable. Judith, no one but you can clean up your back yard. You keep saying you want trust, but you are unwilling as a group to name and shame those in your midst who are grossly abusing the public trust.
So don’t be surprised if your silence is seen as complicity … because it is. Don’t be surprised if it is not possible to regain trust, because as long as Michael Mann and Phil Jones are accepted and even lauded by the climate science community, we won’t trust you.
You call for “investigations” as though that is the magic wand, but we have two investigative whitewashes going on now. Do you truly think that the investigations of CRU and of Michael Mann will inspire more trust? Because if so, I have bad news for you. They are shabby, corrupt imitations of investigations that have decreased, not increased but decreased, the public trust in climate science.
And once again, we have the same situation. Here’s how it works. You won’t speak out, you say silence is the best policy, you want an investigation.
Then the investigation is a whitewash and your response is … silence.
You see the problem?
However, you are free to maintain your silence. I’m just letting you know the consequences of your doing nothing. Google “complicity of silence” if you have questions.
Finally, you say:
If you truly believe this, perhaps you would be good enough to publicly point this out to folks like James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt, who spend half their taxpayer paid time playing judge and jury in a public forum about a complex situation. In fact, since most of the AGW alarmist climate scientists are on public grants, could you ask them to shut up as well?
Because you guys seem to be very happy to make loud, strident, public pronouncements, you’re more than willing to play judge and jury about complex things like climate a hundred years from now, and horrible fantasies of the future, and what “could” or “might” or “possibly would” happen … in fact, you’re overjoyed to publicly play judge and jury about everything but the malfeasance and chicanery in climate science.
Either talk about it all or stay schtumm about it all, but I’ll thank you kindly not to play both sides of the street. That does not increase trust. You’re like James Hansen calling a press conference to announce that he’s being muzzled …
Thanks,
w.
Willis, science isn’t about the person (the scientist), but its about the data, the argument (hypothesis), the model, etc. The process of science is eventually self correcting, and the institutions that support science should make the self correction process as efficient as possible. There is little to gain by attacking individual scientists. I am prepared to listen to a scientific argument from a blogger, a criminal, a housewife, or whoever, its about the argument and not about the person.
Re: Judith not condemning Mann, Hansen, et al.
When I think warranted, I readily disagree with my colleagues in special education issues. As I should. But not with flailing about. I don’t get my knickers in a twist and accuse them of some flaw in their professionalism or state that they should be court martialed. I just use plain language and I do it in writing. Permanent record. Sometimes the decision I make is clear. They see blue, I see yellow. Mostly, I usually say that I don’t have enough information to see their blue. Which leads me to suggest that further study or assessment is warranted.
What amazes me is the degree to which others get upset when I don’t agree with them, or am not ready to agree with them. Worse, they accuse me of not valuing their opinion, even though I do. In fact, I want a strong argument from their side so that I can reason with the best of knowledge and assessments.
I would agree with Curry on this point. She seems to be saying, give me your best argument, and your best foot forward in giving it, from both sides. If I disagree with the opposing view, that does not make them a bad scientist (even if your “best foot forward” manners are atrocious). It could turn out that the opposing theory will prove to be incorrect. That happens. Lots. It has happened to my own theories. It would be the height of hubris for Curry to think that if the AGW theory is proven incorrect, its proponents must be court martialed.
If the other camp wants to have a slice of hubris, let them. I don’t see any in Curry. I see a calm approach to a scientific disagreement. It would be wonderful if we all had that attitude.
On the other hand, if investigations demonstrate that peer-review interference has occurred, and raw data dumps into the garbage has been shown, at the very least, someone should be demoted to cleaning up the lab after 6:00.
Mann has publications extant in which the statistical methods employed are wrong.
Why haven’t those publications been retracted?
The climate science community is not able to police itself well enough to cause the retraction of those publications? What would it take to get those publications retracted? Why aren’t the scientific journals acting to protect their reputation? Why aren’t other climate scientists publicly and privately calling for their retraction? And more to the point, why have other climate scientists been acquiescent for so many years about it?
Judith Curry (17:27:08) : edit
You are correct that science isn’t about the person.
But scientific malfeasance (e.g. hiding data, refusing to reveal codes, stacking the peer-review deck, journals violating their own archiving policies) is most definitely about the person.
You refute the science by logic and math and the like.
But if someone in the scientific community is violating scientific norms of transparency and honesty, how on earth is that not about the person? And how can it be fought without naming and shaming the person?
When Ralph Cicerone chairs an AAAS meeting on transparency and no one brings up his own shameful record on the subject, people following the story here on the outside either shake their heads, or curse, or bust out laughing. You don’t seem to understand that as long as the climate science community allows that to go on, nobody will trust you … nor should they.
And you will not be able to fight that with more or better science as you propose above. As you point out, from a scientific point of view it doesn’t matter if someone is a blogger or a housewife.
But it does matter if “scientists” hide their data, lie about it, and refuse to share it when asked. It matters greatly.
There’s at least one characteristic of academic science institutions that I haven’t seen adequately vetted in this discussion. It’s called the “old boys network.” Sparring with the network gets you nowhere (or at least it is a struggle to get far). It doesn’t matter if your work is right or wrong, if you don’t kowtow to the powers that be, it’s just plain difficult. Sparring against the network can be a miserable uphill battle. The odds are against the tilter.
The revelations of crugate are of no surprise to me. They’re a classic example the old boys network ingrained in the climate sciences. Most outsiders have no idea the network exists. The insiders may not want to admit it exists and/or are comfortable with the understanding that is simply how things work. Now that outsiders have their own venue, an established academic institution is exposed for the world to see, and there are new pressures coming from the outside. A paradigm shift (imo long overdue) might be required of the hallowed halls.
I have a strong suspicion that Judith knows of what I speak. Back in the day when women were more scarce in geoscience fields, we were surprised at how some women acted just like the “old boys.” It didn’t take us long to figure out that that is just the way the system works. I’m not saying that Judith is “an old boy” necessarily, but I wanted to make the point that as women have made their mark in science, they have also integrated into “the network.” The network tends to be exclusive. The club rules however, are never spoken.
As I was reading Judith’s open letter on climate science, I kept thinking back to the statements I had just heard from Lisa Jackson (head of the USEPA) as she testified to the Senate EPW Committee about how the science of AGW is settled. Being quite dismayed, I kept asking Dr. Curry (in my head) as I read, “so do you think the science settled?” Lo and behold, Judith thinks not. If only other scientists were so forthright with their doubts. It might go a long way towards healing the wounds that have been inflicted on people like Ellis.
A well known climate scientist has been quoted as saying: “It’s a perfect storm that has allowed the nutters to control the agenda.” Hopefully he never said that, but given the fact he hasn’t refuted the quote, I must condemn his statement. When a scientist appears to have no qualms in painting a diverse group of individuals who disagree with him with a broad a derogatory brush, in my mind, he has proven he has lost his objectivity. In my view, the old boys network allows that to happen.
Judith, you say above regarding publicly discussing scientific malfeasance:
I replied saying:
In my peripatetic wandering of the web, I just came across a press release about a new study. ABC news paints it as:
Methane Bubbles in Arctic Seas Stir Global Warming Fears
Gas Escapes from Permafrost, Threatens to Increase Climate Change
They quote a co-leader of the study as saying:
So I went to read the study in Science (subscription required). It says nothing of the sort. In fact, it specifically says:
In other words, we just started studying this, so we don’t know whether permafrost is gaining or losing its ability to cap the methane.
So Natalia Shakhova has no problem playing judge and jury on this complex issue. Not only that, she is happy to spread fear about the permafrost “losing its ability” to hold back eeeevil climate change, despite the fact that the study actually says nothing of the sort.
Looks like she’s another disciple of Stephen Schneider, who said:
Natalia has balanced honesty and effectiveness so far in favour of the latter that she is making stuff up, but that’s ok because the cause is noble and it makes her more effective …
And you want us to trust mainstream climate science??? Judith, we are sick to the heart of alarmist pronouncements from “scientists”, which seem to be becoming more and more strident as belief in AGW declines. Folks who do this are not helping the cause of AGW.
Now, of course this isn’t your fault. But it is certainly a huge problem. Unfortunately, in the culture of mainstream climate science, as far as I can see it is looked upon as a virtue.