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’m re-posting this comment from Judith’s post. It shouldn’t be glossed over. It’s proof that some of the outrage directed specifically at Judith is warranted.
————————
DJ Meredith (18:50:31) :
From a Nature paper
“There is a robust signal behind the shift to more intense hurricanes,” says Judith Curry, chair of the school of earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1839281,00.html#ixzz0gURMei3j
“There is no conclusive evidence that any observed changes in tropical cyclone genesis, tracks, duration and surge flooding exceed the variability expected from natural causes.” says a team of researchers under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization has published a new review paper in Nature Geoscience (PDF) updating consensus perspectives published in 1998 and 2006. The author team includes prominent scientists from either side of the “hurricane wars” of 2005-2006: Thomas R. Knutson, John L. McBride, Johnny Chan, Kerry Emanuel, Greg Holland, Chris Landsea, Isaac Held, James P. Kossin, A. K. Srivastava and Masato Sugi.
“……Over the last few months, I have been trying to understand how this insane environment for climate research developed….”
–Judith Curry
————————
Let’s not feel too bad for Judith merely because Willis had some pointed words for her. She has had plenty of chances, both here and over at Climate Audit, to realize the failings of climate science, her science, and how we arrived at this point. Still, we are told, by her and others in the mainstream of climate science, that this whole problem is a “lack of effective communication” on the part of the climate science establishment.
We, the uninitiated, simply aren’t getting the message they say. The science is sound, they say. We’re just clouded by our own ignorance and, perhaps, undue influence from nefarious, yet nebulous, entities like “Big Oil”.
As for Willis, I greatly appreciate his mentioning of climate science being in its infancy. This point hasn’t been made often, nor loud, enough.
Judith Curry is wrong to think that communication is the problem. Those of us who know AGW is at best a gross exaggeration also know that the “science” is flawed and that several of the leading practitioners are at best dishonest.
Some of you have had a lot of abuse and false accusations made about you. However if you want to persuade the large groups of “dont knows” and “concerned but not sure” the last thing you do is put up a “rant” such that by Mr Eschenbach.
If I want to read a “rant” I can go to Realclimate – you sadly [sadly because you are right about the “science” of GW] lower yourself to their level. Can you imagine Steve McIntyre writing a “rant” such as the above.
My first and last visit to this site.
Willis, I haven’t gone through your whole article, yet, but this sentence needs to be changed.
When is one of you mainstream climate scientist going to speak out against this kind of malfeasance?
to “when ARE”
The next sentence has the same problem.
Oh, Great Job.
Willis,
You nailed it. These people still fail to understand they have no proven foundation to stand upon (won’t repeat my comments from last thread). However, there is a thread here to pull on, and that is Dr Curry’s repeated comment on uncertainty. I think she understands there is no mathematical or scientific confidence in the numbers – or there may not be when scrutinized.
Invite her to prove the certainty (or at least define the uncertainty)? One way to understand is by doing.
Thank you Willis for articulating so well many of the reservations I had with Dr Curry’s piece. I feel she is in denial about so many of the issues highlighted here (and I hope I can use the phrase “in denial” without offending anybody) and her contribution only serves to focus attention on them.
On a side issue regarding Real Climate, it appears that the king of ad hominem remarks is easily offended. He objects strongly to being referred to as “you people” (comment on “The Guardian Disappoints”), so I hope no-one is ever tempted to use this outrageous phrase when trying to comment on his blog.
Did anyone else catch a pronouncement from the UEA on the BBC this morning to the effect that nothing wrong had been done by their scientists and that people had misunderstood the climategate emails because they lack the ability to understand difficult science. I did not make this up – I caught it about 3 hours ago just as I was on my way out. Sorry I am unable to post a link.
Nick Moon
PT Barnum said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” That’s what the warmists have been banking on for years.
Lincoln said teh bit about fooling all the people all the time etc. The warmists have been hoping they could.
I very much agree with the gist of Willis Eschenbach’s post, but I must point out that, at times, the rhetoric goes way over the top. The tone should have been firm but cordial. Instead, the tone at times comes off as unnecessarily defensive. Given that skeptics have enjoyed a string of recent successes, and some degree of long-overdue MSM attention, this is the time for skeptics to be confident and assertive, not sullen or defensive.
Eschenbach wrote,
“When I heard that, I was astounded. But in addition to being astounded, I was naive. Looking back, I was incredibly naive.”
I can relate! Clearly, we are all less naive now, but based on the tone of your piece, I fear you remain a bit naive. Science has, since the beginning, been done by flawed human beings, not supermen. Pride, overconfidence, herd mentality, ad hominem, etc. and even corruption has always been a problem in all human endeavors, and science is no exception. These flaws must be exposed, but it must be done in a way that make it possible for your colleagues to make amends. Some of them are demagogic hacks, but bear in mind, some of them are real scientists whose main flaw is that they are (in their own way) as naive as you once were.
I think you get this, based on your comment @ur momisugly 02:16:59, but based on some of the other comments here, the point bears repeating.
Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. 1989.
NUMBER: 609
AUTHOR: Abraham Lincoln (1809–65)
QUOTATION: You may fool all 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 the time.
ATTRIBUTION: Attributed to ABRAHAM
LINCOLN.—Alexander K. McClure, “Abe” Lincoln’s Yarns and Stories, p. 184 (1904).
Many quotation books have also attributed this to Lincoln, and the sources given have varied. According to Roy P. Basler, ed., The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, vol. 3, p. 81 (1953), “Tradition has come to attribute to the Clinton [Illinois] speeches [September 2, 1858] one of Lincoln’s most famous utterances—‘You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.’” But he goes on to say that the epigram and any references to it have not been located in surviving Lincoln documents.
This remark has also been attributed to P. T. Barnum.
http://www.bartleby.com/73/609.html
From:
Respectfully Quoted
A Dictionary of Quotations Requested from the Congressional Research Service
Edited by Suzy Platt
The 2,100 entries in this eminently researched collection form the constellation of collected wisdom in American political debate. In fulfilling decades of requests from Members of Congress for citation of quotations, the Library of Congress compiled the most frequently asked questions of the legislature for the edification of every citizen.
http://www.bartleby.com/73/
Willis Eschenbach may be preaching to the choir here, but he has lost me as a reader for exactly the reasons that he seems to ignore anyone who fits into his ‘evil scientist’ category.
It is not reasonable to confuse groupthink with evil intent – doing so will only make it easier for those holding the middle ground to dismiss you as a fool who is making wild and unsupportable claims to justify your own personal agenda.
I guess I have to add “gee Willis, why not tell us what you really think!”.
I detect years of a hard fought battle, one the rest of us sadly had no idea was waging.
Willis, that was wonderful. You hit the nail right on the head, and expressed all the anger, disappointment, and mistrust that so many are feeling right now. Ms. Curry is still trying to spin the alarmist machine, no matter what pretty words she speaks, and you called her on it.
Well done.
Willis Eschenbach (03:01:08) :
Despite this, the AGW mantra is that “climate change will hit the poor the hardest”, meaning the poor in the tropics. So they can justify slowing development and driving up energy costs by saying they are helping the poor … as if slowing development and making energy expensive could ever help the poor.
I always find it useful to start by postulating the exact opposite of what they say. A bit Hegelian, I know, but then most of them are into that sort of thing anyway. Strangely, the antithesis often yields the truth and the synthesis is not necessary. Maybe Schopenhauer was right about Hegel. Besides, they can come up with “the common enemy of mankind is man.” Perhaps they need a ‘common enema.’
Well said – this is a *brilliant* summation of the whole debate.
Willis I don’t do anger (publicly) and nor should you, it may draw those who agree with you to salute you but those who don’t will see you, whether true of false, as unreasonable.
What this looks like, and will be taken as, is an attack on Dr. Judy Curry, most of what she said yesterday I don’t agree with especially the now constant meme of “big oil” being behind the sceptics. She admitted she was a sceptic until AR4 came along, but you and I know there is no room for sceptics in the climate science community unless they are already distinguished scientists.
I don’t recollect Lindzen, Pielke(s), Christy et al raging at Mann’s chicanery, so it’s a little disingenuous of us to call Curry, a junior climatologist for not doing so, if she had she wouldn’t be here now talking to us.
You should also give her credit for bringing Steve Mc to her undergrads, she’s as brave as anyone could be in the circumstances.
You may be angry, but you have made some telling points in your article above that will be lost to the neutrals because of the strident tone.
Remember I’m on your side, I’m a sceptic, and want the science to convince me one way or the other, and I want the more erudite people, like yourself to put the case for me. It is only in films that lawyers lose their temper in the courtroom, in real life they take a cold stiletto to the arguments put before them and dispassionately dismember them. You can do that, and I promise you it will be much more effective.
The story of The Boy who cried Wolf is most usually interpreted to mean: No one believes a liar even when he is telling the truth.
However, it should be remembered that it is a boy who has been sent out to look after his sheep near a forest where there are wolves.
His safety depends on the villages coming to his aid and to protect the flock should a wolf appear.
The villagers are adults and the owners of the flock. They are also responsible for the boy. They have warned him of the wolf and no may even have exagerated “for effect”.
The boy has a right to expect that the adults will protect him.
His false alarms are not unusual in children.
The real moral is that those weho have a duty of care have a responsibility to respond each and every time as if the alarm is real no matter how many false alarms there are.
If they are concerned that this boy raises the alarm too often or for frivolous reasosn then he should not be entrusted with the care of the flock.
The real moral is one that every emergency services worker would identify with.
If the story were really to illustrate the moral that liars are never eblieved even when telling the truth, then doubtless it would not be a boy telling lies but someone who would normally be expected to be responsible and truthful.
I don’t think this is as good a tale for the climate debate as one would like.
The alarmists would argue from it for the precautionary principle.
Always dangeorus to rely on such stories.
Fantastic post Willis, wish I could write like that.
Can’t do anything other than offer thanks, and support, and link to this article wherever I can. And, of course, send it to every decent but misled and overly credulous enviro-scientist on the planet.
One of those posts that makes you say to yourself: “Bugger, I wish I wrote that!”
Dr Curry lost me when she mentioned a “vast climate denial machine” funded by Big Oil. Using the language of groups she is attempting to “reform” indicated where her true beliefs lay. And to say that the Alarmists need to better communicate is patent nonsense. They waged one of the biggest public campaigns ever to get thier point of view across. They hired some of the slickest PR firms, not to mention some of Hollywoods biggest guns to “communicate thier poiint of view. From The Day After Tommorow to the Discovery Channel, to the New York Times, mags such as Nature and Scientific American, the Alarmists pretty much had the entire MSM and blogesphere to themselves.
Could it be the disingenuous nature of the entire Climate Alarmists industry in general that has so soured the average voter? It’s not the means of communication that is wrong, but the content.
Ranting might feel good, but it really doesn’t achieve much.
Willis seems to be proposing a doctrine of collective responsibility and guilt-by-association for all climate scientists. He implies a standard of expected behaviour that we don’t apply to any other group or profession. Who would expect a doctor in Georgia to be personally responsible for the mistakes or malfeasance of a doctor in Norfolk? Or an architect, or an engineer, or even a politician?
Mann’s, Jones’ et al’s colleagues and peers should have been examining and criticising their work and their behaviour more closely. And hopefully attitudes will begin to change now. But it’s unrealistic and unreasonable to expect other scientists to stage some kind of public denunciation, or to hold them as culpable for not doing so. When science has corrected itself in the past it generally hasn’t been with any kind of cathartic denunciation of the guilty. And when careers and livelihoods are at stake even the guilty are entitled to something more than mob (or blog) justice.
It may be a political reality that the majority of people don’t have the time or the qualifications to understand the science, so they use trust as a proxy for deciding what to believe. But it’s a deeply unscientific way to behave. For someone like Willis who invokes Science two or three times per every paragraph to claim that all climate science is tainted based on this guilt-by-association strikes me as hypocrisy. Every building-block in the AGW edifice stands on its own scientific merits. The only scientific way to win the argument is to take each one and examine its flaws and demonstrate why it’s unusable. Anything else is political posturing.
Brilliant rebuttal. It is exactly this silence regarding good scientific practices that everyone should be ashamed of.
As for why the silence, even if we assume that many of the climate scientists would like to speak out, the “old boys club” which can ruin your career by making you unpublishable would go a long way toward coercing their fellows. And this is why there needs to be an overhaul of the publishing system, especially when there is a very small group of “peers” that are allowed to review and spike articles.
As for the UN, they should just cut it out and let science work.
Not a lot to add, either to what Willis wrote, or to the comments. Except perhaps to draw attention to this line:
“Advocacy is a common thread in climate science papers. ”
No kidding. I’ve read countless “peer reviewed” (or were they “pal reviewed”?) papers which contain obligatory and often dissonant references to AGW, when the results of the papers themselves are either ambiguous, or simply irrelevant to the issue of AGW. It is as if you do not get published unless you either advocate for AGW, or at least put a caveat in your paper so that it cannot be used by someone who might be advocating against AGW.
It has become all about “the narrative,” truth be damned.
Judith Curry is everything a true scientist should not be.
A true scientist is in awe of the data gathered when it disproves their theory.
A true scientist does not conspire with others to alter the data to fit their theory.
A true scientist is not afflicted by the sin of extreme personal pride and the resultant worship of the material resources they can accumulate.
In short I am dismayed that one of the band of quasiscientists who supported everything that went before Climategate now suggests that it was only their presentation that was wrong and is only sorry that a better house of cards was not presented.
Keith Davies
Oh, my. Point our finger at a popular scapegoat. We can now feel better about ourselves, eh?
Dave Williams (03:20:26) :
Wow, I put my first posting on this site and now I’m ready to leave forever.
Name-calling, insults, pottymouth and everything that I’m NOT looking for in a site that I thought was about science is missing here… at least on this particular topic.
Seriously, couldn’t it be that there is some credibility to the AGW theory as well as the “it is all natural” camp? Humans are modifying the face of the earth, pumping enormous amounts of various chemicals (some more harmful than others) and many seem not willing to accept any responsibility whatsoever for the impact that humans are probably having on the earth.
I can only say how unimpressed I am by the closemindedness exhibited thus far. It’s like listening to Sheldon on The Big Bang Theory… geez.
——————-
Reply:
This thread wasn’t about the particulars of climate science (there are ample threads prior to this one that takes it apart and examines it in detail–even man’s realistic impact). No, this thread was a response to Judith Curry’s request that we need to turn the blogosphere into a tool to restore the IPCC to it’s rightful place of authority. However, I see precious little of her post that discusses of the one thing that would TRULY rebuild trust in the IPCC, and that would be to adhere to the scientific method, not the post-normal scientific approach climateology has become.
You may think that a lot of folks here have a lot to scream about, and you’d be right. For many of us, our commone belief is that climate scientists have been anything but scientists–they’ve been politicized advocates instead. I could add a list of grievances here but to me one of the most telling aspects of their obfuscation is the denial of FOI requests. That would be a start; FOI denials are both illegal and counterproductive.
So stick around, Dave; I can guarantee this issue isn’t going away. And now that the public has pretty much seen how egregious and shoddy the IPCC’s “science” really is with “gate de jour”, the perpetrators will not go quietly in the night nor will the public take all the deceptions lightly. Indeed, it promises to get even uglier.
But resolving the problem will not happen by avoiding it.