The WUWT rebuttal piece “Judith I love ya but you’re way wrong” written by Willis Eschenbach has made it all the way to the NYT. There’s also an interesting quote from Gavin Schmidt.
“Climate scientists are paid to do climate science,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a senior climatologist with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies. “Their job is not persuading the public.”
From the RealClimate About page, first sentence:
“RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.”
Note to Gavin: We’ll all be missing your daily work on RealClimate now. What’s the end date? 😉
=========================================
Excerpts of: Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate
By JOHN M. BRODER
WASHINGTON — For months, climate scientists have taken a vicious beating in the media and on the Internet, accused of hiding data, covering up errors and suppressing alternate views. Their response until now has been largely to assert the legitimacy of the vast body of climate science and to mock their critics as cranks and know-nothings.
But the volume of criticism and the depth of doubt have only grown, and many scientists now realize they are facing a crisis of public confidence and have to fight back. Tentatively and grudgingly, they are beginning to engage their critics, admit mistakes, open up their data and reshape the way they conduct their work.
The unauthorized release last fall of hundreds of e-mail messages from a major climate research center in England, and more recent revelations of a handful of errors in a supposedly authoritative United Nations report on climate change, have created what a number of top scientists say is a major breach of faith in their research. They say the uproar threatens to undermine decades of work and has badly damaged public trust in the scientific enterprise.
The e-mail episode, called “climategate” by critics, revealed arrogance and what one top climate researcher called “tribalism” among some scientists. The correspondence appears to show efforts to limit publication of contrary opinion and to evade Freedom of Information Act requests. The content of the messages opened some well-known scientists to charges of concealing temperature data from rival researchers and manipulating results to conform to precooked conclusions.
“I have obviously written some very awful e-mails,” Phil Jones, the British climate scientist at the center of the controversy, confessed to a special committee of Parliament on Monday.
…
Climate scientists have been shaken by the criticism and are beginning to look for ways to recover their reputation. They are learning a little humility and trying to make sure they avoid crossing a line into policy advocacy.
“It’s clear that the climate science community was just not prepared for the scale and ferocity of the attacks and they simply have not responded swiftly and appropriately,” said Peter C. Frumhoff, an ecologist and chief scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “We need to acknowledge the errors and help turn attention from what’s happening in the blogosphere to what’s happening in the atmosphere.”
A number of institutions are beginning efforts to improve the quality of their science and to make their work more transparent. The official British climate agency is undertaking a complete review of its temperature data and will make its records and analysis fully public for the first time, allowing outside scrutiny of methods and conclusions. The United Nations panel on climate change will accept external oversight of its research practices, also for the first time.
Two universities are investigating the work of top climate scientists to determine whether they have violated academic standards and undermined faith in science. The National Academy of Sciences is preparing to publish a nontechnical paper outlining what is known — and not known — about changes to the global climate. And a vigorous debate is under way among climate scientists on how to make their work more transparent and regain public confidence.
Some critics think these are merely cosmetic efforts that do not address the real problem, however.
“I’ll let you in on a very dark, ugly secret — I don’t want trust in climate science to be restored,” Willis Eschenbach, an engineer and climate contrarian who posts frequently on climate skeptic blogs, wrote in response to one climate scientist’s proposal to share more research. “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.”
“The solution,” he concluded, “is for you to stop trying to pass off garbage as science.”
…….
read the rest at Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate in the New York Times
paid. . . job
Gavin just means the RC team does it as a hobby, because it is so much fun and so relaxing.
Now, arguably that should mean the IPCC “lead author” climate scientists should quit the IPCC, because they are getting paid by their home organizations to take part, and certainly persuading the public is its goal.
Why does the author make it sounds like climate scientists admit all their errors and want to correct it…? They don’t.
All anyone needs to know about the Times piece is captured in a single, upside-down sentence:
The battle is asymmetric, in the sense that scientists feel compelled to support their findings with careful observation and replicable analysis, while their critics are free to make sweeping statements condemning their work as fraudulent.
Blecch!
Gavin is rightfully upset about the weather. The 1998 El Nino confused a lot of people into believing that the world was warming rapidly. But recent years haven’t cooperated, and the cold winters at GISS and UEA couldn’t have come at a worse time. Not to mention Obama’s early snow evacuation from Copenhagen.
“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”
– Albert Einstein
“The gods too are fond of a joke.”
– Aristotle
Gavin A. Schmidt:
“What is new is this paranoia…”
“…allowed the nutters to control the agenda.”
“Good science,” he said, “is the best revenge.”
paranoia, nutters…. revenge??? – welcome to the mad world of Science!
I am impressed. They couldn’t use a more appropriate part of Willis’ letter. (congrats)
Not at all surprised about some statements showing they still don’t get it.
My favoured one is always that sceptics have to prove something.
Old Georg Christoph Lichtenberg comes to mind:”You don’t need to be a chicken, to smell if an egg stinks.”
But isn’t it great to read the Schmidts will start doing ‘good’ science finally?
It’s about time.
In this rare instance I’ll have to agree with Gavin – “Good science,” he said, “is the best revenge.”
The irony is that is exactly what skeptics have been saying for years.
Although Our Gav is clearly nothing but a political agitator, the possibility that he is being coerced exists.
Andrew
kwik (08:37:11) :
The same way the MWP, LIA, RWP, and Holocene Optimum avoided the southern hemisphere. /sarcoff
Chip Knappenberger (08:24:41) : ,
You say this:
“As a climate scientist, I couldn’t disagree with any statement more so than I do with Willis Eschenbach’s “I’ll let you in on a very dark, ugly secret — I don’t want trust in climate science to be restored…” ”
And then immediately proceed to agree with Willis’ point:
“Public trust needs to be won back through good scientific practices.”
It is exactly that sort of duplicitous, politicized, tribalistic advocacy that has earned ‘climate science’ its bad name. You are part of the problem.
JJ
Ah, Gavin Schmidt. Whenever he appears as a topic, I like to check to see if he’s done anything to remedy the horrible state of documentation for his “code” Model E. Hmmm…let me check…. Nope…
“paranoia combined with a spell of cold weather in the United States…”
Schmidt relies on Times’ readers ignorance of exceptional cold and snow across Europe and Asia that the Times, by coincidence, failed to report in anything like a responsible way.
When the next strong hurricane season crops up (as it may this summer), do you suppose that the Times will manage to give that weather some coverage?
Give me a break. Sometimes I wonder if Dr. Schmidt is capable of speaking truthfully.
As best I can remember, some of the Climategate hacked/leaked E-mails discussed the reasons for establishing the RealClimate blog in the first place–specifically, to give the AGW team the means to rapidly counter criticisms of their work. To me it’s obvious that the intended audience was the “internet public”, not climate scientists. After all, climate scientists have their infallible “peer review”. And now Gavin has the gall to say Their [climate scientists] job is not persuading the public.
My questions to Dr. Schmidt are: If the RealClimate Blog is not about engaging the public, why have it at all? And would you please provide a job description for your position as a senior RealClimate honcho?
Squidly (08:32:30) :
Some of the most serious allegations against Dr. Jones, director of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, and other researchers have been debunked
Debunked? What is debunked?
———————————–
AGW types seem to want to redefine language as much as they do science.
In this case the word “debunked” means “a totally unconvincing/absurd excuse was blurted out by the panicked accused or one of their mates”.
Hey, why not check the CRU data here, I stuck it on my site, if you find it does not match your local weather data then let me know on mark@knowyourplanet.com
http://www.knowyourplanet.com/climate-data
Its pretty simple I say, judge for yourself if you believe the papers!
First of all-We need to hear from Willis that he in fact wrote what they quoted him saying. I know of no instance where the print media correctly quoted anyone (in the instances where and I knew the person who said it and asked them). The NYT is irrelevant, like CO2. This is a global problem and your excellence’s effect: Willis, Anthony, and the rest of you good bhoys, is global in scope. Take the fight to the NYT but they, and the rest of media in general, are entering an age they’ve yet to understand; where the masses no longer feed from the troughs they fill. It is India that has removed themselves from the IPCC. The world is listening! It is the world that is (not) at stake!
Jean Demesure (08:13:17) :
Gavin Schmidt’s duplicity is hopeless. What always amazes me is he still find ears to listen to his double talk.
*****************************************
And what angers me is that my taxes pay his salary. Grrrrr!
“Scientists must continually earn the public’s trust or we risk descending into a new Dark Age where ideology trumps reason,” Dr. Pachauri said in an e-mail message.
How ironic, since it is precisely CAGW pseudo-science which threatens the very thing he portends – “a new Dark Age where ideology trumps reason”.
It is indeed refreshing to hear Schmidty refer to us as “nutters” now instead of deniers.
The truce was nice while it lasted.
In the real world we have Dr. Floyd Ferris’ counterpart, Dr. Gavin Schmidt saying that, “Good science is the best revenge.”
Right. That’d be a first.
There are more serious concerns to address than the minor impact mankind has on climatic variations. Right now climate scientist don’t need to be doing a better job, they need to start doing their job and quit adjusting temperature records to come up with an imaginary warming trend; quit advocating the breaking of laws to further an agenda.
There you go, quick word with the Guardian and “deniers” is replaced with “nutters”. Looks as though Judith didn’t get the point over either.
Herman L (07:55:02) :
support their findings with careful observation and replicable analysis,
You just have to be jocking with us!
It is exactly the lack of being replicable that this is all about.
Did you not watch the UK parliamentary Committee and the Statements to the Committee by the Scientific Oragnisations?
@-Chip Knappenberger
PS. And as far as Willis Eschenbach’s statement that “The solution is for you to stop trying to pass off garbage as science.” He seems to be directing this at climate scientists, but hopefully he means that it should include arm chair climate scientists as well–on both sides of the issue.
—-
Chip, are you saying that Willis should also blame the messengers, the so-called “arm chair climate scientists”? The burden is ENTIRELY upon climate scientists to earn a reputation of trustworthiness. The arm chair scientists did not hide behind FOIA requests to avoid transparency. The arm chair scientists did not create GCMs to support a non-falsifiable theory. The arm chair scientists did not collude to stop publication of dissenting research articles in prestigious journals.
Climate science is still in a Kuhnian pre-Normal phase, and it is doubtful that it will ever move beyond that phase unless you and your colleagues show the rest of us that you’re passionately engaged not in advocacy but in the scientific enterprise.
I’m truly saddened to see NASA devalued like this.
As a l kid I dreamed of working there – pushing the boundaries of science and exploration – working with the greatest minds on the planet.
I see only one nutter in this narrative, and I fear the long term damage he is doing to NASA will only be clear in years to come.
How did it come to this?
I fully agree with Gavin’s last quote, that good science is the best revenge. Let’s take a look at this in action, from the recently released NASA FOIA files part 4 is a series of emails detailing a trouncing by 3 scathing reviews of a paper written by Gavin Schmidt et al submitted not once but twice to BAMS (the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) and ultimately rejected outright. Followed by this are emails regarding a blog posting at climatedepot.com in 2009 stating “prominent scientist appalled by Gavin Schmidt’s lack of knowledge”. Looks like Gavin better just stick to “persuading the public” at his blog rather than being “paid to do climate science”.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/03/good-science-gets-its-revenge.html
I see the Climategate E-mails are now the result of an “unauthorized release” rather than “theft” or “hacking”. I suppose that’s progress of sorts.