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
I can understand them.
Can you imagine… can you even begin to imagine, how much money is at stage? No wonder they are so frantic now.
” Chip Knappenberger (08:24:41) :
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…”
Of course I want it restored, otherwise I am out a job.”
Chip is at least honest about this.
I have yet to read the NYT piece, but it seems Gavin et al. are still pushing the “swiftboat” angle, though they aren’t saying it directly.
Hey, at least they are predictable.
brazil84 (11:20:46) …I think the problem is that folks like Gavin like to pretend they are not advocates when they really are.
advocates of what, exactly?
From the NYT online article, some typical examples of Post Normal Science qua garden variety Propaganda Operation where the actual state of affairs involving Climate Science’s CO2 CAGW postulate is in fact cynically reversed so as to try to garner the all-important Vote of a relatively uninformed public as crucial to deciding “scientific” matters in the “more inclusive” Post Normal Science schema:
No, it’s instead clear that “good science” would have avoided this largely writ Soap Opera to begin with, which is certainly one thing the objectivity of the Scientific Method is designed to avoid.
[But which also raises the question of whether the Climate Scientists, enc., involved are not in fact cynically detached enough, but are instead deeply personally involved themselves as Soap Opera characters acting in their own – fairly psychoderanged – Soap Opera World, where the Scientific Method obviously doesn’t really apply very much either.]
Re my comment on the grammar of the headline (10:22:17), I see now that I misinterpreted what is intended as two statements:
“Willis makes the NYT” and “Gavin to stop ‘persuading the public’.”
If you changed the comma to a semi-colon, it would be correct.
I know, nits on an elephant, but someone has to scratch them.
/Mr Lynn
Chip Knappenberger (08:24:41)
This is why I couldn’t receive any statement more openly than I do Gavin Schmidt’s that ended the Broder piece: ““Good science,” he said, “is the best revenge.”
To Gavin, I say, let the revenge begin.
Just my two-cents’ worth.
Great! now if you wouldn’t mind telling gavin to share his work so his ( good science) can be proved i also have no doubt there are great climate scientists out there but sadly their work isn’t being used to form policy.
Gavin and pals assume everybody will just take their word about AGW and not ever question how they came to their conclusions, it’s time to prove the work and until it is it will be concidered junk science so it’s in gavins best interest ( to share his work) infact i encourage it but iam not going to hold my breath.
Herman L (09:57:07) :
Given that there are thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers that support AGW (five thousand in IPCC FAR WGI alone), the word “alarmism” does a superior job of accurately reporting the scientific facts than anything the “deniers” have come up with.
We ask for only one peer-reviewed scientific paper that proves AGW. I’m sure among your many thousands of papers, one will not be so difficult to present.
My comment to the piece in the NYT (number 197 in the stack) was this:
>> Good science,” he said, “is the best revenge.”
Maybe these bozos might try that on for size?
After following the climate change debate as an amateur for about six months now, it seems to me that the #1 issue is that NOAA, NASA, and CRU do not release all the data, metadata, and code needed to replicate the results. Has anyone ever started a public petition demanding that they do so? This kind of thing could attract a large number of petitioners quickly, get some mainstream media attention, and could help the public focus on this issue. It seems like if there was ever a time to do it, it’s now.
Well, I’ve got to ask this…
“Ummm…Is this the Willis Eschenbach who works for an OIL COMPANY???
http://www.linkedin.com…”
That’s a quote from the comments section of the NYT article. Seems there’s a CFO of South Pacific Oil with the same name. Uh? Anybody?
REPLY: Willis works for the resort industry in the Pacific, not an oil company – Anthony
Chip,
“My point was that Willis Eschenbach’s point was overly harsh. ”
No, that was not your point. Words mean things, Chip. The meaning of your words was patently clear. The simple fact of the matter is, you responded to Willis’ point by taking it out of context, assigning it a meaning of your own invention, and in doing so completely inverting what Willis said, claiming you ‘couldnt disagree more’ while agreeing completely.
I concur that Broder’s choice of quotes was slanted against Willis, but even he provided enough of that context for you to understand that Willis’ point was that the rehabilitation of trust in ‘climate science’ needs to come from proper scientific practice rather than enhanced propaganda efforts.
You were sloppy and biased in your analysis of Willis’ position, arriving at a conlcusion that was absolutely 100% wrong. And in true ‘climate science’ fashion, you refuse to admit that you were wrong, and instead tell a lie to spin your way out of it.
Once again, you are part of the problem. No one is going to trust climate ‘scientists’ until you people start doing better work, gather sufficient data and explore the uncertainties before drawing conclusions, and develop sufficient humility to admit when you are wrong.
That was Willis’ point, and both your misinterpretation of it and your response to be called on that minsinterpretation prove that point.
JJ
Fantastic job Willis. Thx!
Way to hold their feet to the fire, Willis!
Also….observe the religious overtones of John Holdren’s remarks where he actually uses the “H” word.
What a shady, shady character.
As days go by, and Holdren, Gore, and other Elders of the International Church of the CAGW get more desperate for their cause and pleads to convert people to their faith…expect the propaganda, rhetoric, and sophistry to increase.
It is almost entertaining to listen to their newspeak:
John Holdren to the NYT: “We have to do a better job of explaining that there is always more to learn, always uncertainties to be addressed,” said John P. Holdren, an environmental scientist and the White House science adviser. “But we also need to remind people that the occasions where a large consensus is overturned by a scientific HERETIC are very, very rare.”
Wow. The Inquisition is alive and well.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Chip Knappenberger (08:24:41), you haven’t done your homework. You should read my article in full before you comment on it. You say:
Chip, you are practicing more of the selective quoting that AGW supporters are famous for. My obvious point, so obvious that even the NYT got it, was that I don’t want trust to be restored by climate scientists using public relations tricks and by learning to disguise bad science as real science. I want trust to be restored by climate scientists doing good science. Do you really have that much difficulty understanding what everyone else finds obvious?
To assist you, I will requote what I just quoted above, from the article you didn’t bother to read:
I note, as you do, that Gavin calls for half of the same thing, to do good science … which might be meaningful if he were not one of the chief culprits, up to his ears as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the CRU emails, and proprietor of a blog which ruthlessly censors scientific dissent.
Of course, neither you nor Gavin want to touch the other half of what you need to do, which is to call out the miscreants in your midst. Since Gavin is one of the miscreants, of course, that’s his excuse for not doing so, but … what’s your excuse?
For the NYT to quote him approvingly is understandable. For you to do so is unconscionable. As to your “two cents worth”, you have overvalued your opinion.
Ed ……..Don’t you get it? We don’t give a weeks stay at Teri about where the logic comes from, who works for who, who is a scientist or not, whether man is causing global warming. The first issue and only issue is the falsification and
perjury in the name of Science.
Attaboy Willis E. !!
And WRT Gavin’s statement, where he is quoted as saying:
”It’s a perfect storm that has allowed the nutters to control the agenda.”
Gavin’s above is a perfect encapsulation of the arrogant and unbending attitude that principals in the politically-correct AGW church continue to hold on to; especially those who have a vested financial interest in maintaining a high level of climate alarmism.
Good and objective science will indeed be the best revenge, but as demonstrated by this thread, Al Gore’s recent OpEd in the NYT, and a host of other events:
The battle is very far from being over.
But (hopefully) one of Winston Churchill’s famous sayings applies:
“This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end.
But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning”.
However long the struggle might still go on, here’s hoping objective science wins a clear victory in the end. . . .
“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.”
( that is my job )?
Maybe Dr. Curry and others are getting off the reservation and need to be brought back into line.
At least the article is saying the emails were an “unauthorized release” instead of calling them “hacked”. I guess that’s progress after a fashion.
BTW, anyone can join the Union of Concerned Scientists. You are not required to have any scientific credentials at all, just send a check and you’re in.
MartinGAtkins (11:53:39) :
We ask for only one peer-reviewed scientific paper that proves AGW. I’m sure among your many thousands of papers, one will not be so difficult to present.
Climate science is too complex a discipline to operate by the “one paper” approach. (And If you don’t believe me, then please find a climate scientist who does and ask Anthony Watts here to post it.)
But since you ask, here are reference links to the five thousand:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-references.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-references.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-references.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch4s4-references.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-references.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-references.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-references.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-references.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-references.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-references.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch11s11-references.html
So, where is your reference list?
Ed Murphy (12:16:13)
OMG, not an OIL COMPANY!!!
In fact, both Anthony and the NYT commenter are correct, I did both those jobs in the past. It’s all part of my motto, which is “Retire early … and often”. Right now I’m retired once again, so I’m sure the workers union or someone can attack my scientific work because I’m not employed at all. Of course, I’ll come out of retirement in a second for adventure and big bucks … or for increasing hunger for that matter. Always open for suggestions.
Because I have retired early and often, I have also made my living as a psychotherapist, a commercial fisherman (yes, the Bering Sea is as cold as it looks on TV), a musician, a well driller, a commercial artist, a shipyard manager on a 100 acre South Pacific island, an international consultant in village level use of renewable energy, and dozens more. Heck, let’s cut to the chase, I just put my CV online here, it’s a journal of a life played for for fun and played for keeps.
One advantage of having done all of those jobs is that it makes the ad hominem nature of such attacks obvious. The right hates me because I’ve worked as a musician and a renewable energy consultant and I support Obama, the left hates me because I’ve worked for a fuel distribution company and as a commercial fisherman, and none of them seem to notice that it doesn’t make the slightest difference to my scientific ideas — those are either right or wrong, regardless of what kind of work I’ve done.
Thanks for asking, though, gives me a chance to once again slay the hydra-headed ad hominem monster …
Herman L (12:36:15),
Quoting the IPCC’s propaganda, eh? The very first page of your very first link lists Arrhenius’ 1896 paper, with his ultra-high climate sensitivity number — which Arrhenius recanted in his 1906 paper, bringing down his [still much too high] sensitivity estimate to 1.6°C. I’ve got news for you: on balance, a 1.6° warmer world would be beneficial, not catastrophic. More CO2 is good, since we’ll never see it double from here. There isn’t enough fossil fuel in the world to cause that.
But the 1906 paper is omitted. So your list is nothing but cherry-picked propaganda. No wonder Lord Monckton wipes the floor with alarmists like Gavin Schmidt, and Al Gore won’t ever debate anyone. They only have half the information — the wrong half.
The alarmist contingent is wrong not because I say they’re wrong, but because our planet says they’re wrong: click
That one graph trumps every IPCC political appointee with their marching orders to spoon feed the public alarming scare stories. And I have plenty more charts and graphs just like it. Just ask.
Re: NickB. (Mar 3 08:55),
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
Summary for Policymakers
by Vincent Gray
The absence of any form of validation still applies today to all computer models of the climate, and the IPCC wriggle out of it by outlawing the use of the word “prediction” from all its publications. It should be emphasised that the IPCC do not make “predictions”, but provide only “projections”. It is the politicians and the activists who convert these, wrongly, into “predictions.”, not the scientists.
An unfortunate result of this deficiency is that without a validation process there cannot be any scientific or practical measure of accuracy. There is therefore no justified claim for the reliability of any of the “projections’
http://www.pensee-unique.fr/GrayCritique.pdf
Just like to add my “two cents” on Chip’s comments. I thought when I originally read WIllis’ article that if one were so minded one could quote mine a really damning looking line from it. Kudos to NYT for putting enough context in to get the point, but sure as night follows day someone had to pull a line out of context. And then when called on it try to defend. A climate scientist, of course. And they think the problem is one of presentation …