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.
I greatly appreciate the effort that Dr Curry has continued to put into these articles, it is a commendable exercise. However I would like to make the following observations:
I also find the term ‘denier’ unnecessary and insulting by association. It’s continued use only weakens the argument of the user and I found the presence of it peculiar in her article.
I submitted an FOIA request but can assure Dr Curry this was not for the reasons she proposes. My concern was the reluctance of the institution to provide the data that would permit independent verification of the work undertaken, there was no pre-supposition of the results that verification would establish.
Climate science is clearly a broad church, with many interested parties. We regularly observe every discipline from pure political spin to environmental pressure groups and ivory tower academia falling over them selves to tell everyone else what they should think. The presence of political spin is an unfortunate fact of life on pretty much every subject now days, but far more worrying is the association of scientists with this practice. It is essential that scientists keep the ‘clear blue water’ of objectivity and verifiable fact between themselves and the fetid aspects of political spin and obscure environmentalist agendas if they are to receive trust from the public.
Unfortunately the recent events have, again, illustrated the inability of climate scientists to either recognize their professional responsibilities or act to police their own colleagues actions. I fear that if their actions are indistinguishable from those of the political spin doctor they will be ‘tarred with the same brush’ and at best can expect public disinterest in their opinions.
Of far greater concern than the professional standing of a few climate scientists should be the damage that is being done to science as a whole. Guilt by association should be a real concern to academia and I sincerely hope practical steps are taken quickly before this perception takes root with the public. Those with a real interest in ensuring the longevity and standing of the scientific profession would be, in my opinion, well advised to embrace the openness and transparency espoused in the more progressive areas of the blogosphere – yesterday’s announcement by the Met office seeming to be a step in the right direction. However, it is a truism that for most people ‘perception is reality’ and the perception of many with regard to the current ‘Climategate’ related investigations is ‘whitewash’ – the Abraham Lincoln quote should be heeded.
Josh (00:49:46) :
“Brilliant – I feel inspired. There will be a cartoon shortly, hope it makes it to Bishop Hill.”
Yes it has – brilliant cartoon! Keep them coming.
That is a excellent response. Approx 15 years ago there was a article in the Australian Paper that said Co2 will be traded on the stock market. At that stage I could not believe it. Gas that is found on the periodic table to be traded. I kept thinking what next oxygen??
I hope that your statement hits home. I for one will never believe in the current crop of climate scientists even if they said that the sun was going to come up tomorrow I would instantly be a sceptic.
When the new crop of climate scientists stop being funded by the government and the words change from climate change to global warming then I might put a ear out to see if there results are not fabricated.
Paul Boyce 1:29
…”There is no indication that the decline is going to come to a halt in the near future, let alone be reversed.”…
Can they hide their own decline?
Superbly said! And I’m delighted to see such clear emotion. I know that as reasonable adults we should sit and debate politely but in some cases, and this is one, I believe we should be very angry.
Not just because the essay reeks of the underlying arrogance that the science is settled and it’s all a problem of communication. Nor just because some climatologists have demeaned and debased science.
No, it goes beyond that. This perversion of science into alarmist advocacy, in which many climatologists have been fully complicit, is not just causing a few scared kids and forcing a bit of a change of tax policy. This unproven theory is already killing people through starvation by diverting their food supply into biofuels. It will impoverish the underdeveloped world, causing untold deaths and hardships, by witholding access to exactly the cheap carbon based energy that brought us ‘westerners’ our current living standards. Anger is fully justified.
PaulM (01:04:37)
Paul, my point is that there is no “science police” out there to stop scientific malfeasance. There is only the community of climate scientists themselves. Unless climate scientists break the “White Coat Line” and speak out against people in their discipline, climate science will continue to be a cesspit.
Regarding “your stupidity and your dishonesty and your scientific malfeasance”, that was not aimed at Judith, but at the field in general. Read the CRU emails for an abundance of examples of the above.
Thanks for your comments,
w.
Well trust is earned can’t be bought and can’t be extracted by shouting the loudest. Judith should just do a Mea culpa and begin to treat all of us who hang out here and on other blogs as potential allies not enemies.
Willis you said it all. I hope they would listen
wow that must hurt. I can feel the heat from you from here 🙂 (UK)
Glenn Haldane (01:26:56)
Yeah, you’re probably right about OTT, but I’ve been down so long it looks like up to me. There is a certain schadenfreude in it for me, plus a long history of enduring people calling me names and blowing me off because I’m not part of the establishment and nasty vicious ad hominem attacks and FOI evasions and all of the ugliness that anyone could throw at me. So I am over the top, mea culpa, I’m working on it. As I have said before, I’m a reformed cowboy, I go to the meetings and work on the 12 steps, but sometimes the ranch kid breaks through …
Willis… Why don’t you get off the fence and say what you really mean! 🙂
Excellent exposition, if a tad “robust”. Couldn’t have said it better myself (claim made to a CI of >99.9%).
Amen
Thank you Willis – you said what many of us think but wouldn’t be able to say so well and concise.
This paragraph, at the bottom of your post, is very important:
‘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.’
To which I’d like to add that the very sad truth is that millions of taxpayers’ money from many countries, have been wasted, and decades have been wasted in pursuing a preconceived goal (AGW) rather than the truth.
It is similar to the police deciding beforehand who is the murderer and not looking for any evidence which points to a different culprit.
That is called a stitch-up.
It grieves me that science has become a tool for activists, that scientists have become activists themselves, pushing agendas rather than the truth – and that other scientists, such as Dr Curry, have been complicit and kept quiet while this was going on.
Lets not forget that we’re not talking about the last couple of years – this has been happening over a couple of decades.
And lets not forget how the careers and lives of those scientists have been ruined who tried to stand up and speak out against AGW.
Saying ‘sorry’ and hoping to ‘communicate better’ is no longer sufficient.
Follow Willis’ advice – that is the only way for forward.
There are some excellent points in this post and a few pointers for the future as well. I like the concept of assessing the net benefit vs net loss. This appears to have been lost on people, primarily due to be being buried under the doom and gloom and the need to make everyone feel guilty. The infancy of the science is a very good point and the politicians have ruined the scientific process once again.
This is how you people want things to change?
This ridiculous autistic rage will get you folks nowhere but inside the fringe lunatic conspiracy theory land.
Congratulations, you just slapped Currith and gave RealClimate folks a huge laugh out of you. Now all the people can point to this post to show how crazy you bunch really are.
For —– sake, you really don’t have a clue, do you?
[Sorry, pottymouth may be standard operating practice at RC, but it isn’t here… clean it up… -The Night Watch]
Will, you appear to be an irreconcilable.
Your precondition for the restoration of trust invokes scenarios not very different from the public humiliation of professors by the Red Guards during China’s Cultural Revolution – a notice listing their crimes hung round their neck, head pushed down into a microphone, mumbling a forced confession to a baying crowd. It didn’t work in China and the culture of the revolutionaries was more loathed by the common man than the culture which went before. Your appeal for such an approach is unlikely to find fertile soil in the populations of Europe or the United States, though it may find a sympathetic ear in some corners of the blogosphere.
In our culture, when there’s a form of delinquency that has no sanction, and spinning, over-claiming and sleight of hand in the presentation of science is one such area, then a process of truth and reconciliation is invoked, the faults are acknowledged, a promise made to do better in future, and the delinquents and aggrieved are reconciled. It may leave a bad taste in the mouth, but it is functional, it brings closure and enables all involved to move on.
At some point this will happen between climate science and the general public, the debate will then move on leaving behind the irreconcilables who want to fight old wars to the death.
I’m open to any reasonable proposal for truth and reconciliation.
Your citing of the story of the boy who cried wolf is interesting, because I’ve always felt that in emphasizing the bad effect of telling lies, what is usually overlooked is the equally bad effects of being lied to. The boy in the story suffers negative consequences for his repeated lies, but his community suffers also, because his lies have harmed their ability to respond appropriately to a real emergency. In the real world those community consequences are even greater because the resulting lack of trust is never limited to the original liar. Every time we are deceived by someone we thought trustworthy, it becomes more difficult to really trust anyone again, even those who might still be deserving of that trust.
Unfortunately, deception and betrayal has become so pervasive and accepted in all areas of modern life, that placing trust in anyone or anything has become such an insane leap of faith, that fewer and fewer people are willing to make it.
The trouble is when everybody reaches the point that they move through their days with the view that each person they encounter is just another used car salesman trying to rip them off, the thin veneer of civilization disintegrates and we descend into a dog eat dog state of nature. Without the implicit perception, even if unfounded, that most people are trustworthy until proven otherwise modern life becomes untenable.
For all the talk of catastrophic “tipping points” we’ve been exposed to in this sham, this is one I fear we may have already passed.
Yes.
Willis, may I suggest you write an open letter to George Monbiot at the Guardian slamming him for his obstruction and smearing?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/22/you-tell-us
This is a superb and comprehensive refutation. I never became interested in climate science until AGW was used as an excuse to surround some land I once owned by a huge wind farm. I have since sold ( more like gave away ) the land and moved from NZ to Australia as the cost of fighting this became too great. Ironically it now looks like the wind farm will either be dramatically scaled back or cancelled altogether. The affected community has for over 4 years suffered greatly and I am still involved helping out close friends who will be ruined if this travesty goes ahead. However, the victims are conflicted as some are still believers , or at least until climategate, in AGW. Once I did my research on this matter 5 years ago I became a confirmed skeptic and endured a considerable amount of abuse for my position. How things have changed!! Not that it stopped one warmist cretin who emailed me the other day offering to beat me with sticks. Visit this website which I run and you will see why,
http://www.palmerston-north.info
(smirk)
My final submission to the Board of Enquiry into this wind farm, which reconvenes in two weeks, takes apart Salinger, expert witness to the enquiry and manipulator of the NZ temperature record to show a distinct warming bias.
Thank you, Willis — and thank you Anthony or Mods for recognising a brilliant comment and taking it mainline.
(And thank you, Judith Curry, for the setup which inspired this brilliant piece…)
Quote:
“and for goodness sakes, get a clue about humility.”
Very true. It’s a lesson that many smart people in the climate science field (or any field) would do well to ponder.
Yes, you may be very intelligent.
You’ll be more right, more often about more things than most other people put together.
We respect you for that.
But you are NOT infallible. When an error is pointed out to you, have the good grace to stand corrected.
What a brilliant dissection and analysis, and articulation of true scientific principles in the process.
Bravo.
“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.”
So peer review is false, seems rather extreme.
Luis Diaz
The PHd’s name is Judith Curry
and autism is not a curse or an insult.
But trollism is the mark of an infantile mind that never left kindergarten bullying.
Anyone can shit in Library but why?
I think Willis is over shouting himself. I do understand the sentiment and he is perfectly right in a lot of points. (Realclimate is censored for instance, I experienced that myself) but I think he should catch the reaching hand. Judith is a perfectly reasonable person in search of truth and we need those on both sides of the debate. I think there is particularly something worthwhile in the suggestion of the blogosphere debate. At the same time we don’t have the correct tools and rules for that at this moment. I agree with Willis however on the communication part. Climate science at this point has more then a communicational problem.
A good post. Judith Curry is not the only one who has got the wrong end of the stick over what needs to be done. Here in the UK, the Met Office’s Vicky Pope is another who is saying, in effect, not “Is there the possibility that we’re wrong on catastrophic climate change?” but “How are we failing to communicate the seriousness of catastrophic climate change?” The core problem is being framed as a failure to communicate rather than a need to question assumptions and a challenge to the way climate science has been conducted. This is echoed by government ministers here such as Ed Miliband, who have no doubts about catastrophic climate change and have been spending huge sums of money in a vain (and very expensive) attempt to win over a growing sceptical majority of the public.