Dr. Judith Curry was recently called a heretic by Scientific American due to her views on climate science and public policy. Here, in a post at he new blog, she shows her resolve to maintain her independence from consensus thinking and to ignore the slings and arrows.
She takes no prisoners with this missive where she asks a very direct and effective question:
Let me preface my statement by saying that at this point, I am pretty much immune to criticisms from my peers regarding my behavior and public outreach on this topic (I respond to any and all criticisms of my arguments that are specifically addressed to me.) If you think that I am a big part of the cause of the problems you are facing, I suggest that you think about this more carefully. I am doing my best to return some sanity to this situation and restore science to a higher position than the dogma of consensus. You may not like it, and my actions may turn out to be ineffective, futile, or counterproductive in the short or long run, by whatever standards this whole episode ends up getting judged. But this is my carefully considered choice on what it means to be a scientist and to behave with personal and professional integrity.
Let me ask you this. So how are things going for you lately? A year ago, the climate establishment was on top of the world, masters of the universe. Now we have a situation where there have been major challenges to the reputations of a number of scientists, the IPCC, professional societies, and other institutions of science. The spillover has been a loss of public trust in climate science and some have argued, even more broadly in science. The IPCC and the UNFCCC are regarded by many as impediments to sane and politically viable energy policies. The enviro advocacy groups are abandoning the climate change issue for more promising narratives. In the U.S., the prospect of the Republicans winning the House of Representatives raises the specter of hearings on the integrity of climate science and reductions in federal funding for climate research.
What happened? Did the skeptics and the oil companies and the libertarian think tanks win? No, you lost. All in the name of supporting policies that I don’t think many of you fully understand. What I want is for the climate science community to shift gears and get back to doing science, and return to an environment where debate over the science is the spice of academic life. And because of the high relevance of our field, we need to figure out how to provide the best possible scientific information and assessment of uncertainties. This means abandoning this religious adherence to consensus dogma.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
WOW
Judith Curry
I am a science graduate. I love science. I learnt science meant the truth.
Uphold the truth and many will follow you and the truth will finally prevail.
You are my hero.
Wonderful – this is how adversarial nature of this whole subject can be set aside, and sensible, scientific exploration can resume. Well done Judy.
Typo second sent[e]nce, sixth word- you call Dr Curry a ‘he’… reinstate the errant ‘r’ double time! 🙂
Good for Judy! She does have integrity. That’s way more than can be said about The Team.
A lady of great integrity who has bravely stuck her head over the parapet over what she thinks of “Consensus Advocacy” – because whatever a consensus is – it is not science.
The wording is short, sharp and to the point.
Considering the situation we were all in just a year ago, the situation now is truly remarkable. Can “Climatescience” recover from the world seeing it as a sham? – Yes if Judith Curry and those like her keep up the demand for proper scientific standards rather than the glib politically inspired advocacy we have come to expect from “Climatescience” – which is not proper science at all.
Sorry, meant to type “Judith” not “Judy”
“personal and professional integrity”
Pretty much says it all.
Judith, thank you for your integrity and devotion to science. As an Engineer baffled by the supposed “scientific consensus” for science, maths and statistics that I simply disagree with (maybe I have too much sceptical common sense, but that’s the way Engineers are trained!) but I would love to get your version of the Global Warming hypothesis. The scientific method requires that a hypothesis is falsifiable, it can be proven wrong. Otherwise it is a matter of faith.
What in your opinion would prove CO2 as the driver of warming as being an invalid hypothesis? What would prove the opposing hypothesis, that 80%+ of warming and cooling in the last 100+years is from natural cycles (PDO, AMO, AO, solar etc.) wrong?
Personally I like Joe Bastardis’ idea that the negative PDO and AMO plus small solar cycle should cause significant global cooling by this time next year. If true, CO2 is not the driver, but if we get significant warming by this time next year then natural cycles are not the driver. What is significant is another matter, maybe 1C?
Hoping you get to read and answer this and thank you again for the courage to resist groupthink.
I am awaiting the congratulations to pour in at Climate Progress
A great post by Prof Dr Curry.
When my teen-aged son got into ‘situations’ he didn’t like – I always asked – was it ‘murder’ or ‘suicide’? That is – was it done TO him or did he do it to himself?
I think that this ‘debate’ isn’t really a debate at all – that would imply an open and reasoned exchange of information and data and ultimately, changing views.
I’m not holding my breath ……
It was a good read over breakfast this morning. I’ve seen her position slowly morph over the last few years from conciliatory towards sceptics to near contempt for alarmists.
I’m guessing she’ll have trouble publishing in journals and getting grants from now on.
Mods, look closely at the first paragraph where I believe there are 2 typos or extra words:
Please correct “at he new blog” to “at her new blog”
Please correct “shows here resolve” to “shows resolve” (the “here” isn’t needed)
Then delete this post.
Thanks.
[Working on it. Thank you, Robt]
Please come to the UK Judith, this is what we are up against. This was Mr milibands response to “An Inconvenient Truth”
Mr Milliband said
‘The debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over, as demonstrated by the publication of today’s report by the IPCC’ [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. ‘Our energies should now be channelled into how we respond in an innovative and positive way in moving to a low carbon future. I was struck by the visual evidence the film provides, making clear that the changing climate is already having an impact on our world today, from Mount Kilimanjaro to the Himalayan mountains
And because of the high relevance of our field…
Mmm… did the error begin here?
“high relevance” is big words in a world still reeling from the global financial crisis; fighting more than one war of guns, and many of health and just basic survival.
Did those who boarded the climate express and discover its floors were paved with gold and its air rarefied; found at every whistle stop crowds waiting to be saved, and at every mainline stop the powerful waiting to shake their hands and heap honours on them, become disoriented to the point where any sense of proportion they may have begun with was lost, so that even to themselves they began to sound like sages?
Ego is a very strong thing. It seems probable to me that this happened; and then even trained minds lost their sense of proportion and accepted ─ or at least did not dispute ─ the fraudulent few who before them had seen the power to be gained by promoting fear; and of course a fix, albeit an expensive one.
The leap from being a scientist, one of the many disciplines necessary to civilisation, to being a player in a field of “high relevance” became easy when the world viewed you with awe… and ego did the rest.
May we have a little humility here?
p.s. This is not a criticism of Judy’s storyline. It is an extension.
Well said.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it warmistas. (But mind all that CO2…)
Bravo. Principle-based approaches have genuine power.
Moderator – some typos in the intro paragraph:
“Here, in a post at he new blog, she shows here resolve to” should read “Here, in a post at her new blog, she shows her resolve to…”
Nicely put, but you can not do again “the science” with the same people. Germany underwent thorough denazification after WWII and something similar is needed here, in charge of individual countries.
For the time being, we have to start voting in another generation of politicians than present kids of flowers from 60ties.
I’m really glad Judy got her own blog! If she had not done so, it would have been difficult for her to communicate and distribute her response to Lemonick and the underhanded climate high priests that summoned him to the vestry. No doubt Anthony would have granted her a platform on WUWT but then Judy would have to endure the battle while being outflanked by still-angry sceptics.
On balance, I think Judy has now firmly established her position as a sceptic. Not necessarily of ALL of the “tenets” of AGW dogma YET, but it’s reasonable to presume that this will come with time. Judy recognises that in the past she substituted IPCC thinking for her own judgement on areas where she had not sufficient knowledge to make her own determination. This is a perfectly fair and reasonable thing to do. In fact it’s inevitable – many of us defer to Willis, or to Steve or Anthony in the absence of our own expertise, knowing/believing we can trust their judgement – and in climate sciences there is too much to know and not enough time to consume that knowledge. But knowing there are things you don’t know, and acknowledging that there are things you don’t even know that you don’t know, are markers of a sceptic. And Judy gets it.
The quoted portion of Judy’s blog entry, above, is a joy to read. For anyone who is still angry with Judy for her historical alarmism, I implore you to read the entire blog post at her site, recognise it for the honest truth that it represents of her journey from alarmist to sceptic, and to please consider finally accepting Judy as a true, appropriately sceptical, climate scientist.
Thank you.
So there’s still hope. But will JC be crucified by the climate pharisees? Or will she win the day? Let’s give her all our scientifically-based support.
What a breath of fresh air!
The next thing of course is that impartial scientists who follow Ms Curry’s example may well start asking for silly things like “evidence” & “proof”, other than what comes out of a rather expensive taxpayer funded X-Box360 Lara Croft fantasy world! The impudence of it all!
Well done Judith Currey – your integrity is an inspiration to us all.
Dr. Judith Curry said The spillover has been a loss of public trust in climate science and some have argued, even more broadly in science.
Absolutely right.
I no longer trust any so called scientific discovery in any field of research, nor do I trust most of the MSN to explain it.
We need more facts and trusted people to explain those facts with full reasons based on good and validated research.
It it were for Al Gore, he would reply “I feel fine!”.
Please check him in a presentation given days ago in Portugal (video at the end of the post):
http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2010/10/not-so-fine-mr-gore.html
Ecotretas