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.
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
Judith, I salute you!
To Judith Curry,
OUTSTANDING!
And a humble thank you for making this stand, hopefully many will follow the example you have set.
You go girl! (as my once teenage daughters used to say).
Can somebody please warn Australian politicans, BOM, CSIRO, the popular press and perhaps even the ABC. (On second thought, don’t tell the ABC, they might cry).
The big party is over.
Time to open the window and let reality in for a while.
On a more serious note, congratulations Dr Curry.
Well said.
Judith’s principled stand is an admirable one. Pity there aren’t more like her. She just needs to take her logic one step further to see that there really isn’t much science to Warmism. It is more of a Belief system than anything else, which is why it is so easy for them to throw anyone who doesn’t toe the Warmist line under the Climatist bus.
She just needs to make the decision to become a climate realist.
It is one small step, Judith. You are almost there!
Heretic and Hero are close together in my dictionary.
The key players in this struggle are probably the young people in graduate school and the newer PhDs. They will lead climate science ten to thirty years from now. The older folks are calcified and entrenched. I am very optimistic that the younger people “get it” and will lead the reform, but it will take years. For the remainder, probably not.
YOU GO GIRL!!
Dr Curry, I have just one bone to pick with you when you wrote:
QUOTE
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.
UNQUOTE
There I must differ from you.
Climatology is of absolute unimportance.
There is no creditable evidence that humans affect the climate in a significat manner.
Studying the climate may be fascinating.
But important?
Definitely not.
Jolly good show, but the warmists are religionists and are thus essentially unreachable on the basis of appeals to reason.
Dr Curry,
One final comment in support of your brave call.
I agree that it is essential that all persons with any claim to be scientists,
must abandon all religious adherence to dogma.
“The enviro advocacy groups are abandoning the climate change issue for more promising narratives.”
Yes, particularly “biodiversity,” which is largely about land use rights aka “private property” and which can be battled by enviros in the judicial courts rather than in the court of public opinion where their warmist propaganda has been soundly and (almost) thoroughly trounced.
Hence “biodiversity” will be the next big enviro issue, because a retreat to the courts (and a departure from public opinion) is where their authoritarian impulses will find the warmest (not warmist) welcome.
Wonderful. In just 3 paragraphs, she reminds us of the integrity that science had before the powerbrokers moved in and presumed to own it.
Dr. Judith Curry,
Wonderful statement. That expresses well the intellectual high road of independent thinkers.
A key is to champion absolute openness in climate science from: the processing temp/CO2 records & proxies; to the basis in data/methodology/code of published papers; to the detailed daily activities of the IPCC on preps for AR5.
I also sincerely hope you are active in getting the climate science community to handle misconduct within its own profession. I hope the self-correcting process will be totally open.
John
Judith Curry has my utmost admiration; for her clear vision of how science should be debated and for her principled determination for scientists to speak for themselves as individuals free from peer pressure. Her stance may allow many more scientists to speak out, free from juvenile schoolyard bullying from those who stridently advocate government policy of their own choosing.
Three cheers for Judith! I hope her principled example becomes a rallying point for true scientists everywhere. There is power in telling it like it is.
When Dr. Curry first appeared on this site some months ago I was pleasantly surprised by her open and engaging manner when dealing with a great deal of hostility from many on here at that time. She showed the beginnings of her current stance then and this now solidifies her stance as a questioning ( sceptical?) scientist.
Now it remains to see how many of her colleagues realize how gullible they have been in their deference to authority. Dr. Curry has thought this thing through for herself and by trusting her capabilities she has arrived at the correct conclusion , mainly that not much is known about our climate yet and even less about the effect our CO2 has on it.
Today is a good day.
A wonderful piece. Thank you.
But if they abandoned the religion part, they wouldn’t be able to sell indulgences anymore.
Think of the bank accounts!
‘… my actions may turn out to be ineffective, futile, or counterproductive in the short or long run…”
Somehow, I really doubt that will be the outcome. A well struck blow for Science.
I watched a great program on BBC 2 last night about DNA, some scientist’s like the one’s on that program and Judith do actually care about human being’s.
The rest just prove power corrupt’s.
Great woman, great statement. I hope more true scientists will follow her lead.
She nailed it. Enviromentalism is dogma, not science and it has lost the faith of the people.
I have to apologize beforehand about my inability to properly articulate my sentiments, but ……..Did she just call the warmistas a bunch of stooopid losers? Duh-AMMMN! Dr. Curry just b-slapped the [poo] out of her critics! bwahahahhahahahhhaha!
Three cheers for Judith Curry.
Can’t wait for the headlines in the MSM tomorrow and the BBC news tonight.
Some hope, but the pressure sure is building – one day maybe….
Excellent – trouble is, someone (like her) needs to get hold of the politicians, shake them warmly by the throat, and ask them: ‘Are you LISTENING yet..?’
Well Mss Curry if others are prepared to follow your lead and overcome this religion then I would expect a future nomination for a Nobel for the preservation of scientific principals.
Thank You Dr. Curry for being forthright and to the point. Science demands no less.
Robinson says: “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.”
This is more relevant a point than most would think. For Dr. Curry to go from a basically mainstreamer on this issue to criticizing the “religious adherence to consensus dogma” of the mainstream means something far more significant. When she was finally exposed to the visciousness and nonsense that comes from breaking with the consensus view on even minor details, it tool almost no time for her to see that dogma for what it is. Right now The Team and all their ilk and their behavior is their greatest liability. One, they will not change. In fact I expect them to become more extreme and more political over time. Two, the more reasonable skepicism and questions about AGW and AGW alarmism creep in to the main stream medie, and the more existing and up and coming researchers see those questions in context as reasonable, the more they will react to the stench of what The Team is shoveling. There are many scientists of integrity and as Dr. Curry shows, now that the cacophany of alarmism is being questioned, it doesn’t take much for such people to see the lack of integrity that has dominated for so long. And more will stand against it. I remember how psyched many sketics were about Climategate and what it revealed, this is the true payoff though.
Also, lest we forget, thanks Anthony & his hearty crew, the independent blogs, M&M and all the independent scientists & thinkers through the years. We know who you are & we love you . . . in a platonic sense of course: )
John
Dr. Curry:
Homeric (prose included)! Well done.
Brian
Nail it to the Doors of the IPCC
To continue the heretic theme Judith Curry turns on her critics so well, “Martina Luther Curry” nailed a very strong thesis to the church door this morning! Let’s see how the Popes of the IPCC respond, or if they even know they have been gutted.
A truly great blow has been struck for science.
As in all things, the truth requires no support for law for its evidence, no enforcement. It is the truth. The truth comes out. Ultimately what matters in science is not the ideology, it’s not the persons, it’s not the emotions, it is the data, and the ideas flowing from the data, not the data flowing from the ideas. One can advance science as much or more by having an idea that is wrong, that leads to intriguing data that brings up new ideas and new realms of science, as by having ideas that follow the flow of consensus.
Consensus is not useful for exploration, it has always, and likely will always stagnate the research and the thoughts. It leads to dogmatic actions and positions, from which scientists cannot withdraw, for their investment therein leaves them blinded to other potential truths.
It is the exploration of conflicts between ideas and data that science is done, by creating reproducible experiments, falsifiable theories, and engaging in the discourse, noise, and argument that is the very definition of the scientific method.
The truth will out.
Judith really sums up what I think many skeptics are really demanding – honest science. There are right wing politicos that have glommed on to the skeptic position because it fits their agenda, but true skeptics are scientists that have seen science corrupted , that have seen public confidence in science eroded & at the end of the day are searching for the scientific truth free from political influence.
I personally don’t care who is right in this debate (although I think the substantial evidence says the position that any warming will be non-catastrophic), but it is extremely important to me that what ever the course forward may be that it is based on science of the highest integrity. All scientists on this blog (myself included) know that skepticism – questioning everything in your scientific work – both by yourself & by others – is fundamental to advancing knowledge in your subject. That’s all Judith is asking her colleagues for. The fact that those colleagues have become so blinded by the politics of CAGW is evident in their reaction to Judith for this request.
The sooner we can collectively disentangle science & politics, the better off we will all be.
Judith, if you are reading, I solute you as a scientist for having the guts to stand up for honest science!
There are other men and women in science who have spoken out before against similar circumstances and issues. They got their heads chopped off. At the individual level, money and power overwhelms common sense. Always. Judy will likely have to join the ranks of headless individuals before the tide will turn.
But I wonder if Prof. C. has pronounced on the University of Virginia lawsuit. This is the next hard step. Exposing the fraud legally. It is a good first step to admit one’s sins. Fulfillment comes from doing the penance. (Be not afraid. We’ve all been there in one way or another.)
As a life scientist, with a stake in the credibility of the entire scientific enterprise, I thank Dr. Curry for her courage this year, and especially in this post. It is a shame that we should have to applaud her for this, of course, since questioning the data, methods and assumptions supporting any hypothesis is at the root of our how we carry out our investigations, and it should be second nature of all scientists. If mainstream climate science continues its unscientific, consensus by intimidation approach, it endangers the credibility of all of science.
We scientists need to be extraordinarily cognizant of maintaining the trust of the public and one another, since it is so difficult to regain once lost. Dabbling in policy is an excellent way to lose credibility. We should be truth seekers, not policy advocates.
It’s sad this statement is considered radical.
It is simply a statement that says the climate community must adhere to scientific standards. Shouldn’t that have always been the case?
We all owe Judith Curry a profound debt of honor for her unusual courage and commitment to sanity.
Way too often I find my self in the position of being the family skeptic. It is not at all a comfortable role to play. I am fortunate to live among family members who are, by and large, good decent people. It is agonizing to watch them struggle to rationalize the predicament in which they find themselves. The wheels have fallen off their world and they can’t bring themselves to put the blame where it seems to belong. How could the consensus have been wrong? Who could doubt the rightness of trying to save the environment? How could anyone want to take away that warm fuzzy blanket of goodness the little children are being provided with at school?
Intellectual ideas organize themselves into tribal concept groups. (Please forgive my anthropomorphizing of the little beggars… but they do you know.) These fall into sub groups. At the top of the chain we find the division between the reality centered and the sexy dream centered. The realists choose the former and immediately get busy digging, measuring, tasting, sniffing and so on. Dreamers make unchangeable commitments to the latter, fall in love with each other and run off to form a commune. Tyrants recruit from the ranks of the latter.
Interestingly, this is not just true in the world of science and scientists. The really great stories are the ones that hit you in the gut and tell it like it is. The great painters make you know the world through eyes that see the truth a little bit better.
Unfortunately, a great many, maybe even all, of us have to try these concepts on for a while before we are able to judge them for what they truly are. If we invest too heavily in one of them before we discover its lack of real value, the results can be both harmful and disillusioning. In the case of great and powerful movements like the one entered into by Climate Science in the past thirty years, the consequences can be disastrous. The harm can last for decades, or centuries.
This can be mitigated only by those involved most deeply. If the truth comes from the center it will heal the harm. Judith is a true healer. The medicine she offers will be bitter to many but it is the right stuff. She offers reality.
Rod Gill says:
October 26, 2010 at 3:37 am
Rod,
If we get significant global cooling by this time next year, we will know two things:
1) There is more evidence refuting the ‘CO2 is principal driver of global warming’ hypothesis.
2) There is evidence supporting Bastardi’s hypothesis that negative PDO and AMO is a major contributor to global cooling and vice a versa.
If we do not get global cooling, or even global warming, this does not ‘prove’ CO2 is the principal driver of global warming. Nor would it ‘prove’ natural cycles are not responsible for global climate trends. It simply would argue against PDO and AMO being important drivers of global climate trends.
There very well could be other natural processes we know nothing about right now that are the real drivers of global climate.
But right now, given the track record of Bastardi versus the track record of AGW folks, I would bet on Bastardi.
And by the way, thank you Dr. Curry for spelling it out in simple English, how real science should be practiced.
“Nail it to the Doors of the IPCC”
^ This. Exactly.
If we lived in the middle ages she would just about now be tried for heresy in a religious court chaired by IPCC members. There may however be an equivalent modern fate awaiting her with regard to scientific assassination. She is a brave person, and we desperately need more honesty of this kind. There are good people out there who have similar concerns, but are to afraid to speak, maybe this will inspire them to take that step and declare their doubts and concerns. The dam is breaking.
They certainly have lost a major battle, but don’t be lulled into thinking its over. The activists still run the system and so long as they do they will work very hard to implement their plans.
“Quote of the Week”?
Little out with your timescale Mr Watts, multiply by 52 at least.
It takes a REAL woman to tell men when they are being utterly stupid. A real woman does it without tears, tantrums, or pouting, and by sticking to Truth, Justice, and the American Way! [oops, carried away there. sorry] I would say that Judith has stepped (or, perhaps, kick-boxed her way) out of the political ring, and back into science.
Nicely done, Dr. Curry.
Okay, so we have the firewood piled high in the town square, an 8 foot stake planted right in the middle of it, but the sinner is still being implored by the priests to confess her sins, and she’s being right stubborn about it.
Good for her. Hang in there, the Reformation is right around the corner.
I’m starting to come around on Judith. Perhaps she’s not all that bad….
This means abandoning this religious adherence to consensus dogma.
Amen.
Whoa!
We should name this solar minimum after this Georgian.
The South is rising again.
“Take no prisoners, Professor Curry.”
This is Day 305 since British PM Brown said the world would end due to global warming.
It has been 11 months since Climate-gate.
Who was it in Britain that called us idiots? Not enough villages for each one of us.
We be laughing last!
Some comments have alluded to the position taken by Dr. Curry as “coming over to the side”, I do not think that is correct, and is seemingly even damaging to her position overall, regarding the scientific principle. I believe she is following her conscience as a scientist and is allowing the science to take her where it may – as it should. It is unfortunate that there are “sides” in this debacle; it should always have been arguments, theories, and proposals instead of beliefs, dogma and suppression. Dr Curry comes across polite, intelligent and approachable: – we are lucky to have her.
Excellent.
ps typo ‘of a number of a number’ line 4 second para.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. That piece by SciAm was straight out of the gutter.
I respect the fact that Dr Curry will still have the view that human activities have an outsized influence on the planet and its climate, but at least I feel I can talk to her as a scientist in a civilised manner.
TYTYTY, Dr Curry. I believe the tide is turning, slowly, but surely! Bravo!
Thank you, Dr Curry, for having the courage to stand up for science, rather than for consensus politics, and reaching out to us sceptics, most of whom are not inbred closed-minded fanatics.
Climate change is dogma but it is more than that, its part of a grab for political power using the climate as a scare tactic on the public to justify restrictive laws and regulations and high taxes. And it is a fraud to grab wealth by selling credits to buy off climate sin, or else pay a fine. We were to be told, and are now with light bulbs for example, what we can buy with our money and those purchases would have a government stamp of approval. Not approved purchases would be off the market because of a lack of parts, such as cash for clunkers where good cars and usable parts were ordered destroyed, to force us into cars we don’t want and through high taxation to eliminate certain products from the market. And at the cost of free enterprise and jobs.
All this had the total approval of many politicians, the MSM and the movie industry. Worse, it had the approval of some scientists who knew better. They knew better because they hid their work while threatening, shunning opposition and accepting grants for work that was more politically correct than science. When caught with a false claim they changed the claim but always with the same goal.
Climate change was their springboard to exercise total control. Dogma and science, if the mix was in coffee you would not want to drink it.
Scientists such as Dr Curry and those who contribute to this website by article and comment are to be commended for not wandering off the rail of good science and for not allowing themselves to be corrupted.
Examine religious fanaticism throughout history and up to today and you will find especially harsh treatment for apostates.
So Sci Am breaks radio silence, gives Dr Judith Curry a brief hearing and summarily brands her a “heretic”. How is a human being, an individual, a person; endowed with natural curiosity; highly trained and disciplined in the sciences; an individual with honesty and integrity like Dr Curry insulted and labeled a “heretic” for simply telling it like it is?
Climate science has degenerated into a kind of weird amoral cultish religion – backed by pandering politicians and popularized by MSM. It is time for scientists, highly qualified and honest/moral academics to step forward and denounce this nonsense before more damage is done to the practice of legitimate science, world economy, and humanity.
We need more Dr Currys to step forward.
The peer review system was an early victim of the climategate revelations. This position paper comes very close to a first step in restoring my faith in that system. I hold this contingiency and lament: The peer reviewer must have Dr. Curry’s resolve and integrity, be a champion for science, not for a cause, and the reviewer must actually test the hypotheses under review. That is to say, look for errors, flag them, don’t rubber stamp them. The lament is Dr. Curry and others of a similar bent, not being part of the good ol’ boys peer review/rubber stamp system, will not be called on to peer review anything important and so won’t be influential.
So broken is the system it seems from the outside beyond restoration, leading one to infer it may never have operated at a level one expects of such an important process.
Let the hearings begin.
They will redefine entertainment.
Watch the environmental wackos turn on each other.
Kickin’ butt and takin’ names.
With all the complexities at play in our environment, no two scientists should see eye to eye on their understandings of the climate.
The scientists are not the problem as grant funded ramblings are deconstructed at WUWT and elsewhere. The problem is their ethos. Judith Curry has removed herself from the herd on that one: but how many will follow?
That door to the church of global warming is getting plastered with several different thesis documents, they don’t have the time to clean the Pigeon poop off the statue of
the Profit…
thank you, Judith…
Garry says:
October 26, 2010 at 4:43 am
“The enviro advocacy groups are abandoning the climate change issue for more promising narratives.”
Yes, particularly “biodiversity,” which is largely about land use rights aka “private property” and which can be battled by enviros in the judicial courts rather than in the court of public opinion where their warmist propaganda has been soundly and (almost) thoroughly trounced.
Hence “biodiversity” will be the next big enviro issue, because a retreat to the courts (and a departure from public opinion) is where their authoritarian impulses will find the warmest (not warmist) welcome.
————
spot on!
already one WAust farmer was jailed for contempt of court for ignoring the insane ruling that he couldnt make firebreaks or farm his oWN land.
SZULK hes just got out of jail. and more will follow.
Great Judith, the plain truth. I would just love if scientists in my dear home country Brazil was just half as honest as you.
Roberto
http://www.anovaordemmundial.com/
Time to quit playing, kids, with your Wee-Like-Models!. You must realize you went too far. As shown many times here at WUWT, you went too far buddies: Remember when Prof. Khabibulo Abdusamatov, the head of the Pulkovo Observatory, in Saint Petersburg, when asked about your “Global Warming” said: “That’s Hollywood science”?… See what happens now?
Well said and well done. Now it would be nice if a few more good old-fashioned scientists would follow her lead and speak up — in the media, loudly and publicly.
But…but…but… Arianna Huffington said there weren’t two sides to this arguement!
Thank you Dr. Curry. The truth is on your side and the truth will prevail.
Although I am confident that it will happen eventually, it will of course take a long time for good science, commonsense and reason to prevail.
The situation remains that the proponents of climate alarmism (climate ‘scientists’, politicians, policymakers, consultants, traders, media, assorted hangers-on etc) are all enjoying life in their respective ivory towers far too much to simply rollover and abandon the cause overnight.
Purveyors of pseudoscience will always wriggle and squirm and invent at least 1,001 excuses in order to avoid engaging in open debate because they recognise the inevitability of being shot down in flames. Far better from their point of view to hide behind their barricades, even though they cracking and crumbling, and string it out as long as possible.
Therefore change will be gradual, and I doubt that we will ever see a massive showdown between good science and bad. In the end, it won’t be very exciting but it might be quietly satisfying.
Could this be the beginning of an avalanche?
Judith,
Well said. I can remember when you used to leave cryptic notes on ClimateAudit like “Be skeptical of your skepticism.” I wondered at the time why you couldn’t be skeptical of your faith in AGW. You have grown and it good to see.
It takes courage of the highest order, to abandon the comfort and security of the AGW bedding. One should be fully aware of the painful rejection from CAGW convinced colleagues, friends, family and media. After all, they are trying to save mankind and the very planet itself. No issue or scientific finding can be allowed to disturb this holy mission. Of course secondary to this mission, is the sweet icing of billions of US greenbacks, lavishly spread over the AGW cake.
I am filled with empathy, when I contemplate the road Judith must now travel. As every CAGW skeptic already knows, it is a hard row to hoe.
The only reward (other than the advancement of science) is the satisfaction, each day, of being able, to look, in the mirror and smile at what you see. Best of luck on your journey Judith… and thanks for being brave, when there are so many conformists ready and willing to take your piece of cake. GK
There’s someone you could trust to head the IPCC!
Well received statement.
All we (scientists) want is unbiased objectivity from ourselves and our peers.
In a long, successful career, my big mistakes were made when I “knew” how the answer would turn out — I found what I expected — by overlooking the obvious — and wrote a bad paper/report.
I still literally shudder physically when I think of those blunders — I am embarrassed for myself — though decades later probably no one but me remembers.
Would that some Climate Scientists could feel the same sense of shame and commence to do better for themselves, their profession, and our world.
I wonder how much revenue mags like Sci Am, New Scientist etc will lose over this, and how much they would have retained if they’d played with a straight bat?
I do not think it would be helpful to portray science as having opposite sides, two factions struggling to dominate and suppress the other, rather there should be scientific endeavour to seek scientific truth that resists political interference and ideological pressures.
I think I speak for many when I say that all we have ever wanted is the truth presented without fear or favour, prejudice or ideology. We have been lied to and sold a political narrative, been subjected to substandard science liberally laced with fraudulent misrepresentation for years.
If the planet is warming lets find out why, if the planet is cooling lets find out why, if the climate is being influenced by human activities lets work out by how much or how little but lets finish with the lies and deceit and cynical manipulation and fraud and exaggeration and poisonous dirty tricks.
All we have ever wanted is real scientific truth presented without fear or favour, is that too much to ask? BTW & FWIW Judith Curry is behaving exactly how any normal rational scientist should behave and exactly how the pioneer sceptics have been behaving(and suffering for it) for years. What she is doing should be regarded as the norm not the exception and certainly not in the same league as the early pioneers in the search for scientific truth, having said that I do admire Judith for standing up for the truth and pursuit of real science.
Very welcome statement, most eloquent and concise. Not to mention cutting.
I have just one nit to pick, to wit the statement concerning ‘the high relevance of our field’.
Not that climate science is irrelevant, but the fact that it has achieved such pre-eminence in such a short time is almost entirely due to the ‘religious adherence to consensus dogma’ that Dr. Curry wisely wishes to see disregarded, as pushed by the various organizations she lists whose reputations have been called into question. And who are still pushing the dogma. I think this is going to be difficult bridge to cross for many involved.
Speaking of dogma, when hearing about all of the changes from global warming to climate change to climate disruption, etc., I am tempted to reply along the lines of ‘same dogma, different pile’, or ‘back at the IPCC, the dogma’s really piling up.’
Dr. Curry has taken a courageous stand. Not only has she directly confronted the high priests of CAGW, she has shamed the sheep-scientists who go along to get along.
We should expect to see a wolf pack of climate scientists form to stalk and take her down. I sincerely hope she keeps a public chronicle of the merciless hunt to crush her.
If fanaticism is taken seriously it is very difficult to fight against it, but if considered as it really is : foolish, it soon disappears, as no one wants to be considered a fool.
Go Judith. Good for you.
As for me, all I have ever asked for, is that Science be done according to rigorous scientific methodology…. anything else just becomes politics.
Karl Popper approched these thorny issues and determined good approches for determing knowledge from ideology, truth from bias….. Perhaps more people should read him and relearn.
David Miller who worked with Popper has an interesting Essay… Being an Absolute Skeptic…. http://171.66.122.53/cgi/content/full/284/5420/1625
This was rather surprising, I had respect for her before, but this takes the cake.
The thing to remember, after posting his grievances, the Catholic Church instead of listening simply threw him under the bus…this is Martin Luther. Look at what that did in history. So if they do the same to her, she will become a hero to many people on both sides of the fence really.
I think the issue here is not that there are more (or more powerful) scientists so to speak, but the fact that the way she carries herself and has called them out on their bad science. This is why she is so relevant, and mark my words, just keep paying attention. This is where the movement falls apart, that is when it gets reasoned arguments and does not change. History will judge this similar to Martin Luther who simply wanted to work within the system, but was denied.
Climate-gate was their one chance to clean shop, and they blew it. Put simply, they were given a chance…and instead of fixing science, they decided to continue to pollute it. Now they have people like me to deal with who will spend all sort of free time on making sure science is fixed and maybe those responsible for polluting science like this are thrown under the bus now.
I can forgive them, but they can also work scrubbing toilets for the rest of their lives. I will bear no hard feelings, but any scientists who polluted the process so much can only be trusted that far. Just my two cents.
This was all too apparent when the Pielke’s became targets of the climate Ubermensch. All the rhetoric in the world aimed at two climate moderates for not being alarmists and instead being scientists.
As to the question of “How many shall follow?”, the answer is as many as are fiscally able. I would also like to add that regardless of any “peer reviewing” by the climate Ubermensch, the public at large is awakening daily and more likely to not purchase that “Pet Rock” in spite of climate celebrity endorsement.
There’s a silly thing happening which is getting the the way of everyone’s dogma regardless. The general public has access to information which at one time was reserved to academia. The general public at one time thought they had no right to even entertain the thought of seeing the science behind the policies directly affecting their daily lives which are one and all paid for by themselves and now…
Dr. Judith Curry, all I can add is AMEN!
Could not have put it better at all myself. I dearly wish all scientists held the view that the scientific method, and search for truth was the highest standard to aim for.
Religious dogma and strict adherence to a forced and coerced consensus of any kind has NO place in science, unless it is being studied in psychology.
I’m borrowing this. What a great post for my blog!
Also would like to add that the “?” is the universal symbol of science whereas the “!” is the universal symbol for religion. Always ask yourself first and foremost if what you are seeing is an “?” or an “!”.
We need more closet, sceptical ‘Warmists’ coming out and do some plain speaking.
By the way on the same November issue of Scientific American is the Judith Curry heretic article as well as something quite remarkable title:
“…..when a magazine like the “Scientific American” permits free discussion on climate change it must mean the beginning of the end.”
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2010/10/scientific-american-rediscovers-science.html
Anthony: This could easily be the quote of the year.
Dr. Curry presents a rational, thoughtful and well-reasoned argument, coupled with a principled Winston Churchillesque stance against all odds. She ought to inspire those timid, but otherwise good scientists of like mind to grow a sack (all due respect to the good lady), stand up and be heard as well.
It has been most interesting to watch as climate science (dogma) has slowly morphed over the last year or so. I recall reading the first few posts Dr. Curry made here on WUWT and the reactions to them. Some were openly hostile and did not trust her at all, some were open to the possibility that she was peaking into the closet to see what the strange noises were, and others thought she was really a stealth advocate of CAGW and could not be trusted but left the option open that they might be wrong.
I admit that I had my doubts, but I also wanted to watch and evaluate her responses and the responses of the climate establishment to her comments over time.
Over the last few months I have come to the conclusion that her efforts to effectively engage with the skeptic community was part of her voyage of discovery.
In effect she pulled the covers off the furniture to see if it really was in good repair, only to find the sofa riddled with evidence that the mice had gotten in and made a mess of what was once a fine piece of furniture (science).
She is now busy throwing off the covers on all the furniture in the room and getting out the dust pan and broom to help clean up the mess.
Bravo!
All the non-political skeptical community (too bad that proviso is necessary) ever wanted, was to have a good look at the furniture with the lights on. Some will be in fine repair and just a bit dusty but others obviously have been ruined by the rats and vermin that have infested them these last few decades.
Time now to decide if we buy new furniture to replace the old, or try to refinish and reupholster the old ruined furniture.
As mentioned above, that task will largely fall to Juniors, Seniors and young graduate students in college today. They are in the rather uncertain situation of having to walk the line of dogma while getting their degrees while testing the edges to find a path back to sound science.
One of them, will write a thesis or propose a paper that will pull the safety pin and start the timer on the self destruct mechanism that is inherent in false belief systems.
That sound you hear is the ticking as the clock winds down. It may be months or years in the future, but brave souls like Dr. Curry have stepped into the mine field and are carefully probing for the truth as they work their way back to safe ground.
I can only hope they will be successful and this nightmare of shoddy science mixed with Machiavellian manipulation of people, institutions and the media is showing signs of ending.
Like the turning tide, at first the signs are subtle, but as in a night club fire, soon we should see a rush for the door as the less perceptive and or more timid souls wake up and realize the room is on fire, and that smokey smell they ignored for so long was a quiet fire in the walls bringing down their temple.
Larry
“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.”
When you can timely & accurately predict ice ages, warming periods and their effects to the various regions then yes it is very relevant. Until then weather is much more relevant than climate.
As to the rest I agree and glad to see she has the courage to stand up, speak her mind and take on her attackers. That has to be the politest way I’ve ever heard someone say “put up or shut up”. 🙂
Make no mistake, this issue is no different than what happened to Juan Williams. He found out who are the intolerant ones are. This is purely a political matter, not science.
I think I would mark this as the tipping point. I know a lot of comments have been posted saying this same thing, but to me, this is it. This is the response from a true career scientist who understands the value of intellectual debate over the enforced consensus. It is the pinprick that should make any who are left in these academic institutions with a shred of scientist left in them stop and take notice that real science is being lost to politics because of belief in dogma. The situation is obvious to any real scientist, a major scientific publication has publicly called out a rational intellectual, and that individual has soundly and publicly demolished the publication’s integrity as well as clearly exposed the politics of CAGW.
How can it not be more obvious?
Judith WAS a “believer.”
Judith then broke free from consensus thinking and called for debate and openness.
Judith is now called a heretic.
Judith’s display of real integrity in the face of nonsensical mudslinging is put in public view.
Only a blind believer would fail to question their convictions after seeing such a display.
So, there are winners and losers in Science?
How are things in Greenland?
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland.html
Not much talk on this on this website, I wonder why?
Actually, no I don’t wonder why.
Should we talk about what we should start doing now or wait for the next inning of the Beaufort Grye versus the Arctic Multi-year Ice game?
Last year wasnt too good for the mukti-year Ice.
And I predict Ice extent will be back to record lows within 2 months.
Looks like my last post got eaten by the spam filter —
On a side note, I have also noted that several of my friends that used to be hard core advocates regarding global warming, have suddenly gone silent the last month or so and are no longer talking about it.
I suspect like happens in large companies, they will be quiet observers for a while then re-enter the game trying to sell the notion that they doubted the consensus all along but just could not find the info they were looking for to confirm their suspicions.
Some will use Dr. Curry’s open stance as a get out of jail free card and rally around her as the decision point where they knew their suspicions were justified. Unfortunately it will just be substituting one appeal to authority for another but at least it will get the crowd moving in the right direction.
Larry
“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?”
It is good to know that Dr. Curry recognizes that climate junk-science is really only about politics and money. I wish she were a bit more straight forward about it, but it’s a start.
Well said indeed.
Especially this week, after
(a) President Klaus’ cogent remarks.
(b) the chance discovery of a covert symposium of active warmists in Portugal. Whatever they were doing, it wasn’t science
(c) the interesting post today on how people retreat from their positions.
Plus of course more of Willis’ “citizen scientist” posts. (I thought him rather unfair in his criticism of you (JC) in your initial move detaching you from the AGW camp).
Keep it up!
Someone once said “there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents…”
Welcome aboard, Judith Curry!
Dr. Judith Curry
Welcome aboard!
Please see Mr. Watts in supply to pick up your flak jacket and helmet.
I guess you could say her karma ran over their dogma.
This open letter reminds me of the 1950’s McCarthy hearings when someone finally asked him when enough was enough. Dr Curry is an avowed Warmist, so it takes a special courage to ask her brethren to end the insanity and get back to science. I recall when Steve McIntyre first went to Georgia to speak to her class, and was met by a cold resistance, even by Curry. I thought at the time that Steve was wasting his breath, but time has shown his wisdom in reaching out to the other side. Without that dialogue (which is the reason Steve stated he went), Dr Curry probably never writes this letter. So, as I appreciate Dr Curry’s courage, I also appreciate the quest for open and respectful dialogue espoused by Steve and Anthony over the years.
Well said. Her wording was civil yet frank, honest and correct on all points. As one who has lost a lot of faith in science, especially medical and sociological “studies” and anything which relies on meta-analysis, I find it reassuring that some people understand the problem. I still trust my doctor over “alternative health” peddlers and still support science as a practice but I am disgusted by the nature of science as a culture and an institution. It now smells like every other human institution. Bring on the robot scientists ASAP.
And by robots I mean intelligent machines – not computerized models and video games.
While many of us may have gloated and breathed a sigh of relief when we saw the climategate revelations, however much we suspected it before hand, seeing the evidence still brought tears to my eyes. What kind of people could do this to science? They could not love science like I do and sacrifice its integrity like that. Judith Curry is helping to restore faith in scientists. Web sites like this one, which aren’t afraid of ideas which don’t fit their orthodoxy help restore the faith as well. All the good that had been happening in science, with the increased transparency, openness and access made possible by the internet, make climategate, the whitewashes and the politicization of climate science seem all the more tragic.
These are exciting times for the field of climate science, I look forward to future developments, wherever, the evidence may lead. We’ve got an interesting solar minimum, oceans instrumented as never before, and modelers working like heck to improve their understanding. What more could we want, except higher standards of peer review and more open access publication?
KPO says: “It is unfortunate that there are “sides” in this debacle”
My point exactly. Dr. Curry isn’ a skeptic in the perjorative sense The Team and their ilk use that label; she’s a skeptic in the way all scientists are skeptics. However, since she has broken from orthodoxy, she must be punished by the true believers. Their attitude toward all people who don’t swallow the entire dogma of alarmism will eventually alienate everyone but the true believers, the basket cases. And the more people who leave The Team, the more pressure they are under, the more histrionic their cries will become, and the sooner they reach critical mass and then fizzle under the weight of their own ridiculousness.
Three cheers for Judith Curry. Is science too much to ask? Of course not. The politicization of climate science has been one of the uglier chapters in human history. Everyone, keep up the fight, as Judith notes, they are losing.
Ot-but pertinent the Merapi Volcano in Indonesia jut had a major eruption.
They do not know how extensive it is or when it will stop. This could be a cooling
event-just in time for a cold winter. Plume to FL 600. It is just starting.
We humans are but dust in the wind to the planet…
From Eruptions blog:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/24670#comments
bob says:
October 26, 2010 at 9:22 am
So, there are winners and losers in Science?
No, but unfortunately for the Warmistas, when Science wins, they lose.
If you cherry pick, you can always find some places where there’s some ice melting, and where it’s a bit warmer than normal. That isn’t science, though. It would be even more of a leap to say that our C02 is causing it. I wonder why Warmists do that all the time?
Acyually, no I don’t wonder why.
I would add my personal kudos to Dr. Curry to those of the many previous commenters. I must acknowledge that I share the sadness expressed by some, that these seemingly obvious statements should generate, should merit, and indeed should demand so much approbation and support. In a world where science was functioning as it is meant to function, the essence of Dr. Curry’s statements and positions might provide the basis for a rather hackneyed and cliched commencement address to a group of fresh faced undergrads matriculating from some midlevel university. That they now demonstrate a highly commendable level of personal courage and integrity because of the career threatening enmity and vilification that they have so predictably generated, is all too clear evidence of the damage to the human prospect that has already been done by this climate folly, even absent consideration of the financial and social devastation the supposed “solutions” to CAGW promise, and indeed almost guarantee.
Even though the lofty principles of the philosophy of Science have rarely been fully implemented, the near universal recognition of the necessity to adhere to them as closely as possible to achieve the advancement of human knowledge, has made Science a key driver of the incredible human progress of the last few centuries.
The malignant narcissism that allows the alarmist crowd to consider the principles of Science to be subservient to their own lofty insights and goals, and to treat those who question their views as not only illegitimate, but evil, will in the end do more damage to human progress than the worst climatic disasters they can project. By undermining the credibility of, not just their own but all science, they make finding and implementing solutions to the many real problems that beset the world much more difficult.
Even in the highly unlikely event that future events should prove them to have been entirely correct in their theories, the damage done by the methods they’ve embraced should guarantee them greater levels of disdain than what they have so often visited upon anyone who had the temerity to question their certainty.
I didn’t see this elsewhere. But I took this poll and let them know how I feel about Dr Curry and the AGW hoax:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=taking-the-temperature-climate-chan-2010-10-25
Richard A. says:
October 26, 2010 at 5:37 am
I’m wondering if we can’t appeal to Hasbro to put together a climate science game—something similar to, say, Risk for the lost souls of The Team. Indeed, we’ll call it Climate Science so they’ll recognize it immediately (later and more advanced versions could include Global Warming, then Global Climate Disruption)! The whole world is at their disposal in this game–they can screw things up all they want—model away, dear players. The game will feature loaded dice that take a player from gullible student to pre-eminent scientist raking in all sorts of grants, accolades, and honors. The game will include a pile of randomly drawn cards that benefit their careers, establish their dogma, or set them back (the Judith Curry card is my favorite); cards that let them imagine traveling to all the paradisical resorts for their hob-knobbing. The game will include special squares that, should you land on them, let you establish tenure at prestigious universities along with your own censored blog. Of course there will be mechanisms to block other players, especially anyone that would dare choose the skeptic token. My, but what an exciting time they’d have! This game could sell… well… dozens, at least! I’ll personally gift a set to The Team.
Friends:
I commend everyone to read all of the excellent article by Judith Curry and the very many comments that it has attracted.
The article can be read at:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/25/heresy-and-the-creation-of-monsters/
I posted the following comment.
Richard
Dr Curry:
I write to thank you for your honest and sincere post in the article which heads this thread.
You remain convinced that AGW is a real problem and I remain convinced that it is not. The real world will reveal to what degrees each of us is right and wrong. But that reality is separate from the disparagement you can expect from zealots on both sides of the ‘climate war’.
As a ‘heretic’ you can expect treatment similar to that which has been given to ‘unbelievers’ like me for years. And that treatment is why so very many people who have tried to put their ‘heads above the parapet’ have rapidly climbed down.
Science is about seeking the best ‘truth’ we can uncover about the world. It is not about defending a position, but requires the gleaning of new data and assessing the variety of possible interpretations of all available data.
Unfortunately, much of science – especially climate science – has become subservient to political and monetary influences. And, sadly, this has induced a few climate scientists to abandon any attempt at assessing the variety of possible interpretations of all available data. Instead, that minority (who pretend to be a majority) of scientists have attempted to force acceptance of a single view. And, as the ‘Climategate’ emails prove, they have often used nefarious means to force that acceptance; i.e. subverting the peer review process, attacking journals and journal editors, manipulating which research findings will or will not be included in IPCC reports, etc..
It is easy to see this as being a corruption of science, but I do not think it is.
There has always been a minority of scientists who have behaved improperly. Indeed, some of the best scientists have behaved improperly in attempts to advocate their view (e.g. Michael Faraday fabricated data). But that does not mean the generality of scientists or the bulk of the practice of science is corrupt.
As I see it, the problem with climate science is two-fold.
(a)
Politicians have seen the AGW hypothesis as a useful tool so established the IPCC to promote that hypothesis while throwing money at research which supports the hypothesis. But climate science which is independent of the hypothesis has received little or no funding.
(b)
The mass media have a need for good ‘stories’ and assertions of impending doom are good ‘stories’ so worst case scenarios are presented to the public as being probable outcomes with resulting public concern.
Politicians respond to public concern so these two effects provide positive feedback to each other.
In your article you say:
“When I first started reading the CRU emails, my reaction was a visceral one. While my colleagues seemed focused on protecting the reputations of the scientists involved and assuring people that the “science hadn’t changed,” I immediately realized that this could bring down the IPCC. I became concerned about the integrity of our entire field: both the actual integrity and its public perception.”
I reached the same conclusion long before then. I addressed a side-meeting organised by Fred Singer at an IPCC Meeting I attended in London in 2001. In that address I said;
“When ‘the chickens come home to roost’ the politicians and the media won’t say, “It was all our fault”. They will say, “It was the scientists’ fault”, and that’s me, and I object”.
Richard
Maybe Dr. Curry dug out this report? ;
http://notrickszone.com/2010/10/25/rahmstorfschellnhuber-confirm-no-anthropogenic-climate-change/
hohoho!!!!!
Actually “warmists” were not specifically who Judith was addressing her question to but rather the “climate establishment” and their approaches. Judith has no problem with “warmists” per se, only dogmatism. I agree with her on every point and salute her efforts to bring sanity back to the discussion and put science ahead of everything.
I can see that ‘the lady is not for turning’.
We need more like her. – Resolute and seeking only the truth.
Doug
I’d offer a word of caution. From her blog:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/09/15/doubt/#more-63
“A considerable amount of climate skepticism has been fueled by big business, attempting to protect their personal financial interests (e.g. the Koch brothers, ExxonMobil). True, but so what?”
True? I hear this a lot, but never see any proof. However, we do know of people who would profit from cap and trade and new regulations concerning emissions, and yes, oil companies would profit from this too.
Here is another response from her in a comment.
http://judithcurry.com/2010/09/15/doubt/#comment-798
“Paul, your email supports my suspicion that much of what separates the spectrum of warmists from skeptics or deniers is not the science, but rather the politicization of the issue.”
Note the use of “denier” even though she has stated that these terms do not help the discussion.
The politicization is certainly an issue, but it’s not why I am a skeptic. I was pro-AGW until I wanted to post some facts that supported my position. I could not find any. Politics cannot alter that.
Judith Curry believes that the science is sound. That it’s politics that have created skeptics. I think another comment on WUWT said that Curry believes that only 1% of what skeptics have to say is significant with an upper bound of 10%.
The last thing we need is for her to position herself as representative of skeptics whether she likes it or not. The MSM tend to pick who they want and label them as whatever they want.
In short, she is not for the truth. She is for the de-politicization of climate change. Bravo on that. But she does not respect skeptics positions. She also believes that scientists should be more open about the uncertainties and that grandiose statements doesn’t help anything. Great! But that doesn’t change the fact that she is pro AGW all the way and that her reasoning is that exaggerated statements get politicized, not that they can’t be true.
I wonder if anybody from the Climate Establishment will reply? Judith makes a near-explicit challenge that can’t be left hanging unanswered.
Their previous tactics of ad hom attacks on JC’s sanity and motives haven’t gained them any new converts…and have alienated many previously undecided observers. Apart from the obvious headbangers, I doubt they will pursue that line again.
So what can they say –
Back to restating the consensus? She’s closed that door pretty well.
Release some new revelation that conclusively proves their point? Unlikely..they’d have used that a year ago.
Ignore it, but clean up their act? An outside chance
Foaming at the mouth and ranting? Certainly some expected.
Any other ideas?
Thank you for this statement Dr. Curry
I really want people to start doing science on this whole issue, instead of just saying that CO2 caused warming, and using every extreme weather event as proof of global warming. The politicians need to stop preaching religiously about something they know little about, and the scientists need to do their job and actually run experiments to see what the effect of increasing CO2 is.
bob says:
October 26, 2010 at 9:22 am
“So, there are winners and losers in Science?
How are things in Greenland?
Not much talk on this on this website, I wonder why?”
========================================================
Bob, given the fact the Norse used to farm Greenland and the world somehow managed to escape catastrophe, tells us what we need to know about Greenland. There really isn’t much to talk about regarding Greenland. Unless you’ve more particular insight you’d wish to share?
bob says:
“How are things in Greenland?”
Let’s take a look, shall we?
Dr Curry is a giant in her field. Most of the climate establishment’s promoters will wind up in the dust bin with the eugenics promoters of the last century.
Dr. Mann still won’t release his data and methods, but it looks like the time will come when no one cares anymore. His failure to allow replication testing was my first big red flag; it told me that his work should not be trusted and the work of those who associated with him could not be trusted either. Nothing I have seen in recent years changes this opinion.
Cassandra King says:
October 26, 2010 at 8:28 am
Cassandra, it has ever been just that in science. Newton, Einstein, Bohr, etc all took sides against each other or some other view. They fort in the lecture theatre, in the journals and in the university and sometimes it got very hot and took many years but science always prevailed. So it will be in climate science not matter what the outcome.
“Now it remains to see how many of her colleagues realize how gullible they have been in their deference to authority. ”
I think that scientists in general, when asked about the whole global warming thing, basically said to themselves, “I’m an expert in X. If I said something about X, I would be giving the correct answer as best we know. I can only presume that the expert in Climate Science is the same. As a result, I will defer to their expertise and in a show of scientific solidarity, declare it to be accurate and true beyond question.”
The problem being that their assumption was not correct. The whole field is biased and is looking for proof of what is assumed to exist, rather than merely investigating.
The blog is a great read.
I particularly enjoyed this passage:
Monster creation
“There are some parallels between the “McIntyre monster” and the “Curry monster.” The monster status derives from our challenges to the IPCC science and the issue of uncertainty. While the McIntyre monster is far more prominent in the public debate, the Curry monster seems far more irksome to community insiders. The CRU emails provide ample evidence of the McIntyre monster, and in the wake of the CRU emails I saw a discussion at RealClimate about the unbridled power of Steve McIntyre. Evidence of the Curry monster is provided by this statement in Lemonick’s article: “What scientists worry is that such exposure means Curry has the power to do damage to a consensus on climate change that has been building for the past 20 years.” This sense of McIntyre and myself as having “power” seems absurd to me (and probably to Steve), but it seems real to some people.
“Well, who created these “monsters?” Big oil and the right-wing ideologues? Wrong. It was the media, climate activists, and the RealClimate wing of the blogosphere (note, the relative importance of each is different for McIntyre versus myself). I wonder if the climate activists will ever learn, or if they will follow the pied piper of the merchants of doubt meme into oblivion.”
The climate activists will eventually pick something else to scream about; like having realised that they’ve wasted a good portion of their lives worshiping a false God.
“This means abandoning this religious adherence to consensus dogma.”
Like believing in Darwinism and Evolution, perhaps. What’s the difference? I haven’t a clue whether the theory of evolution is correct or not but we non-scientists are assured, by some, that we must believe in evolution because that’s the scientific consensus. It seems to me that Darwin began with complete hostility to his theory then began to win over more and more adherents until the majority of scientists and the scientific establishment adopted it and anybody who disagreed was seen as some sort of a crank. No doubt the proponents of Darwinism are as enthusiastic about Darwinism as the believers in global warming are enthusiastic about their belief. And no doubt the believers in Darwinism label the sceptics as cranks, rogues and other such labels. And no doubt the believers in Darwinism tell us that the debate is over. And how much time would a non-believer get in the academic world? He’d probably be shunned like a climate sceptic. Maybe there’s a gene which makes people in the majority (whether it’s global warming or Darwinism) scorn the sceptics of their beliefs. It strikes me that some of the people who comment on this blog are as guilty in their own way of such strident attitudes as they think they see in the behaviour of climate alarmists.
Nor do I see what’s particularly “religious” about holding a particular dogma. There are plenty of examples in history of people holding very fixed ideological views without being in the least bit religious: Robespierre, Marx and Lenin to name a few. So could people drop all this “religious” nonsense? (I doubt it; it seems to make the people who use the word “religious” feel particularly smug.)
Scientist getting back to actual science? Great advice, Judith. I hope the horde follows it, but I have my doubts. Kudos to you for your new blog. I enjoy reading the real science that is discussed there…
Thank you Dr. Curry – from a PhD in Earth Sciences who has been shocked and dismayed at the warping of climate science into climate politics, and as you say “a loss of public trust in climate science and … even more broadly in science”. It is time to get back to doing real science – no deleting data points that don’t support your argument, no dismissing reasonable questions about results or requests for data. This is not the way of real science – which should always be questioning and skeptical.
Alba says:
October 26, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Though Darwin postulated the “struggle for survival” as the origin of evolution, this was a “struggle for money” and it provoked the involution of science. 🙂
James Sexton,
For a particular insight, you may find this of interest.
From the site http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland.html
“Greenland climate in 2010 is marked by record-setting high air temperatures, ice loss by melting, and marine-terminating glacier area loss. Summer seasonal average (June-August) air temperatures around Greenland were 0.6 to 2.4°C above the 1971-2000 baseline and were highest in the west. A combination of a warm and dry 2009-2010 winter and the very warm summer resulted in the highest melt rate since at least 1958 and an area and duration of ice sheet melting that was above any previous year on record since at least 1978. The largest recorded glacier area loss observed in Greenland occurred this summer at Petermann Glacier, where 290 km2 of ice broke away. The rate of area loss in marine-terminating glaciers this year (419 km2) was 3.4 times that of the previous 8 years, when regular observations are available. There is now clear evidence that the ice area loss rate of the past decade (averaging 120 km2/year) is greater than loss rates pre-2000. ”
Lots of warmth and lots of melting.
And what are they growing in Greenland now as opposed to what the Norse grew there?
Iceberg lettuce perhaps?
Are the old Norse farms occupied or not?
And Smokey, I’m talking about right now in the present, ice core data does not tell me what is going on right now.
Admitting that I didn’t read all 147 comments, I detect a broad sense of self satisfaction (not undeserved considering the battles of the past decades). However, I missed any sense of self reflection in answer to Dr. Curry’s call for a return to the science of discovery, debate, and passion for the truth. While there is no comparison in my mind concerning which side of this battle of dogmas was most extreme, there is little doubt that many among us “want our side to win” this debate. Just wanting an outcome, can cloud our perception of what we see in our observations and research.
The best compliment any of us can pay to Dr. Curry is gratitude for an invitation to join her in setting aside our goal line dance and join her in the middle, not for or against any conclusions, but rather, in pursuit of answers. I think the best possible outcome of this experience would be to see scholars, academics, scientists, and their institutions take a pass on political and commercial interests that offer grants in exchange for pre-determined results.
Judith Curry:
Not a chance. The Hockey Team are going to fight harder and dirtier because they have nothing to lose by capitulating to such a reasonable demand. The environmentalist funds and think tanks will not accept loss of power and influence without screaming about a fossil-fuel funded conspiracy taking over America.
There is a theory that early on, Bernie Madoff realised that his failing hedge fund was going to send him to jail as a Ponzi scheme whatever happened. He decided to carry on and enjoy it for as long as possible.
The best hope for a return to climate sanity is, unfortunately, for the incoming Republicans to defund large parts of (climate) science in the name of austerity. That will suit some people more than others. Maybe then, the universities who have participated in this panic will realise that they cannot sustain the high profile scientific misconduct of Mann, Bradley, Hughes and the rest, and remain viable.
The universities will protest about political interference in academia, but until they discover how to print their own money, they’re going to have to face reality like the rest of us.
Greenland? Did someone mention Greenland ?
Dr Curry contributes strongly to the necessary task of the day – restoring public confidence in science. It has been severely dented by continual hype over any weather oddity, by the hockey stick fiasco, by Climategate, by reckless overuse of the precautionary principle, by understandable public suspicion about possible links between climate alarmism and funding, and in more senior voters by memories of the global cooling drama in the 1970s.
An aside: I (protestant but not creationist) agree with Alba at 1.01 pm:
“[I do not] see what’s particularly “religious” about holding a particular dogma. There are plenty of examples in history of people holding very fixed ideological views without being in the least bit religious: Robespierre, Marx and Lenin to name a few. So could people drop all this “religious” nonsense? (I doubt it; it seems to make the people who use the word “religious” feel particularly smug.)”
Amen. Fellow climate sceptics, please stop banging on about religious nuts. It is highly discriminatory towards us religious nuts.
re Darwinism
Just to say that it is, and remains, no more than a Theory. Because it cannot make any predictions about what direction evolution will occur, it is just about impossible to test. And so does not become a Law or anything. Nor attract vast quantities of taxpayer funding.
In UK its most active proponent (Dawkins) uses it as a way to debunk all religions, so it can hardly be said to be one itself.
But as a way of explaining past events and the fossil record, it is far more convincing to me than the postulate of there being a ‘Grand Designer’, which is the only other kid on the block. William of Ockham would have approved…one fewer entity to worry about.
But it’s always been about the solution: A powerful global government with control over all aspects of business and life.
The actual problem that requires the solution is not that important.
bob says:
October 26, 2010 at 1:28 pm
“James Sexton,
For a particular insight, you may find this of interest.
…………..
Are the old Norse farms occupied or not?”
=======================================================
Bob, most are not, in that most are under ice. Only recently, have some become rediscovered because of the receding ice. In spite of the re-occurring meme of “unprecedented” this or that, its not. Bob, just google Greenland and see what they say about their climate and the cyclic nature of their land.
bob,
Why are you obsessed with weather?
Aren’t we supposed to be stressing over climate?
Simon Hopkinson says:
October 26, 2010 at 3:56 am
I implore you to read the entire blog post at her site…
Simon,
I took your advice and read the whole article and I think that I agree with you. All that us ‘sceptics’ want is honesty and access to the data. Either she is really smart and jumping ship early or is actually a real scientist. I think after reading the full article I will give her the benefit of the doubt and say welcome back to the real world Judith. No-one is perfect and I’m sure there is good future in science still ahead of you.
Phil
Who named it Greenland anyway?
It hasn’t been very green since the Viking colonists failed.
John
Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy is shooting off about climate doomsday. I respond to his post in the linked article.
“So I’ll be clear: climate change is real. The average temperature of the Earth is increasing. This is almost certainly due to mankind’s influence on the environment.” – Phil Plait, Bad Astronomy
Evidence please.
“No doubt you’ve heard the puerile political propaganda from the denialists.” – Phil Plait, Bad Astronomy
The above statement by Phil Plait is PURELY POLITICAL. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF CLAIMS he supports or alleges are true. As such it’s worse than irrelevant, it shows that an other wise fine scientist is stooping to crass politics to make his point and that is really unacceptable from someone promoting science and science education.
Please “Stick to the Actual Science Claims Please Phil Plait”
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/10/26/stick-to-the-actual-science-claims-please-phil-plait
pwl
Too bad about Plait. I actually watched the first 2 episodes of “Bad Universe”, and was thinking, “This is the kind of guy who is going to dismantle the AGW junk science”. Unfortunately, I had that completely backward. Apparently he’s decided to create a series to give himself “street cred” while he promotes an otherwise untenable position.
Vorlath says:
October 26, 2010 at 11:29 am
I’d offer a word of caution. From her blog:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/09/15/doubt/#more-63
“A considerable amount of climate skepticism has been fueled by big business, attempting to protect their personal financial interests (e.g. the Koch brothers, ExxonMobil). True, but so what?”
Yes Vorlath, I’m not going to join this congratulatory rush here. Dr Curry is a committed warmist who has rubbished skeptical views and this is just what we call in Australia “having a bob each way(bet)”. [trimmed, Robt]
I think this is just another attempt to rubbish skeptical views. We might see some abandonment of the “consensus” talk but after a while we’ll be told “we had another look at the evidence and it was worse than we thought, we’re doomed unless we DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW!”
If the Koch brothers and Exxon are funding skepticism then they are heroes defending civilization against magical thinking barbarians
James Sexton says:
Bob, most are not, in that most are under ice. Only recently, have some become rediscovered because of the receding ice. In spite of the re-occurring meme of “unprecedented” this or that, its not. Bob, just google Greenland and see what they say about their climate and the cyclic nature of their land.
So, tell me how you know that the farms are under the ice.
Show me evidence of just one farm under the ice.
There are dozens of Viking farm locations that are not under the ice, just google and you will find them.
and Code Tech, ice caps receding would be climate change, not weather.
Thank you, Judith Curry. There is no such thing as ‘climate science’ and no ‘climate scientists’. There are only guesses and quasi-religious belief that we have all sinned and must be punished. A repeat of the Middle Ages.
***CTM*** in 2nd sentence, please correct
from: Here, in a post at he new blog, she shows here resolve
to: Here, in a post at her new blog, she shows HER[] resolve
[Fixed, thanks. ~dbs]
I have a list of heros & villains in the Great Climate Scam – which will surely be marked by future historians as the looniest of all western millennial loonytune hysterias. I’ve haven’t written it out – it’s just something I keep in my head.
There are the villains – mostly middling scientists and/or mid-level bureaucrats, who through political connections & talent for self-promotion, have kept almost the entire world chasing its tail for the last 15 years or so; the EcoLobby, for whom AGW has been the biggest windfall in its sad, sorry history; and of course the pin-head pundits who have built entire careers by attaching themselves remora-like to this great white whale (some of them are still using phrases like “Saving the Earth” – I kid you not).
On the Hero side I reserve my greatest admiration for those who have actually risked something tangible (being an “intellectual dare-devil” doesn’t count – sorry, Liberal Arts baccalaureates), such as the Pielke’s, who have endured endless mud-slinging from their own colleagues – and not for rejecting AGW in toto, but merely for suggesting that parts of it could be more solid.
And then there is Dr. Curry. Appears to be 40-something, which means not quite mid-career, probably not tenured, and certainly not invulnerable to flaming & mud-slinging by outraged peers & colleagues. I’ve watched with interest for several years as she first made attempts to engage the skeptical camp (first at CA, I believe, and often to not very polite comments, shame on us), getting bolder by degrees. And then the CRU scandal – I’m guessing this must have been the proverbial last straw, outrage & courage now strong enough that she does a complete about-face. Certainly, there is less risk now than this time last year, but still – this woman is risking her career. I’m not sure I’d have the cajones.
And what about Steve Mac (and Anthony, Lucia, Jeff ID, et al)? He’s in a class by himself, and I mean that literally, not as an admiring metaphor: Curious, brilliant, financially & intellectually independent, and extremely critical & thorough. He has shown academic & government researchers how science ought to be done, if only they would pay attention.
So warm regards to Dr. Judith Curry – FWIW, you are currently tops on my AGW Heros list.
I loved her…………………..comment about potential congressional hearings. Bring them on! I can’t wait.
“All in the name of supporting policies that I don’t think many of you fully understand.”
They understand it well enough to conceal their motives. They understand it well enough to carefully craft the message to disguise its full implications; and make it seem harmless and acceptable to utilize science against the population by aiming to make electricity and fuel far more expensive, unreliable, and harder to obtain.
I find the Doctor to be generous towards her colleagues, to a fault.
O M G that is one of the most powerful narratives, ever.
This woman is to be feared…by both sides of the debate!
A true skeptic….the way ALL scientists should be.
Did you hear that Michael, Gavin, and James?
She is not an ideologue, like you. She is a true scientist.
Maybe you could step out of your frail narcissistic shells and learn a couple of things from her.
Let the REAL debate begin!
This will be the Science Olympics if there ever was one.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
“Latimer Alder says:
October 26, 2010 at 1:56 pm”
Yes it is still just a theory however, if we examine some current features of, on the surface, unrelated animals, there is some interesting findings. Here is an example; if you examine the vocal nerve in a fish it is connected to the lower part of the brain, in a small arc of bout an inch, all the way down to the vocal cords. Now, if one examines a Griaffe, the vocal nerve starts at a similar point in the brain however, in this case, the nerve extends all the way down, almost, the full length of the neck, then does a “U turn” all the way back to the vocal cords. Also, evidence of hind legs in whales.
The dam is burst, flood coming down river.True believers in the consensus of the unbreakable dam are going to be swept away.Listen the rumble ….That nonsense spouted, it is nice to see an honest appeal to return to the scientific method especially if you style yourself a climate scientist.I am happy to be proven wrong in my initial cynism of Dr Curry.
bob says:
October 26, 2010 at 1:28 pm
James Sexton,
For a particular insight, you may find this of interest.
From the site http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland.html
“Greenland climate in 2010 is marked by record-setting high air temperatures, ice loss by melting, and marine-terminating glacier area loss. Summer seasonal average (June-August) air temperatures around Greenland were 0.6 to 2.4°C above the 1971-2000 baseline and were highest in the west. A combination of a warm and dry 2009-2010 winter and the very warm summer resulted in the highest melt rate since at least 1958 and an area and duration of ice sheet melting that was above any previous year on record since at least 1978. The largest recorded glacier area loss observed in Greenland occurred this summer at Petermann Glacier, where 290 km2 of ice broke away. The rate of area loss in marine-terminating glaciers this year (419 km2) was 3.4 times that of the previous 8 years, when regular observations are available. There is now clear evidence that the ice area loss rate of the past decade (averaging 120 km2/year) is greater than loss rates pre-2000. ”
Lots of warmth and lots of melting.
And Smokey, I’m talking about right now in the present, ice core data does not tell me what is going on right now.
===============================
Maybe you should research a noisy, disruptive little Atlantic bugger called the AMO.
It might answer some of your questions on what is happening “right now.”
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
R. Gates says:
October 26, 2010 at 11:08 am
Actually “warmists” were not specifically who Judith was addressing her question to but rather the “climate establishment” and their approaches. Judith has no problem with “warmists” per se, only dogmatism. I agree with her on every point and salute her efforts to bring sanity back to the discussion and put science ahead of everything.
=========================
One thing, though…in this case…it just so happens that the “climate establishment” are indeed overwhelmingly towing the IPCC party line.
But hey…you and I can agree on one thing [call the press!] that we both salute her for the appeal to reason.
Let the debate begin! If there ever was a Scientific Olympics, it is now.
We’ll see if your side, which by sheer size and political power, acts as the hosting country, will allow a level playing field.
I doubt they will.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
bob says:
October 26, 2010 at 3:52 pm
James Sexton says:
“So, tell me how you know that the farms are under the ice.”
========================================================
Bob, take a little time and try to think for yourself. Within the last couple of years, artifacts have been uncovered by the recent receding of ice. Unless you are of the belief this would be the very last ones to be uncovered, we can assume there are more. Further, there is anecdotal and written evidence there are more.
Bob, I’d give you the links to get you started on the path, but some of this, you’re actually going to have to read a book or two. It’s all out there in front of you. You have to decide whether you want to put the time into it or not. If you do choose to do so, you’ll find the historical evidence is in direct conflict with the narrative of climate science today.
You said, “…I’m talking about right now in the present, ice core data does not tell me what is going on right now.” Bob, it is impossible to consider the climate today without contexting it to the climate of the past. If one attempts to do so, it is meaningless. Hottest evuh! Yeh? Explain the migrations of mankind. For a tip, though, mankind hates the cold. It doesn’t serve him well.
@Patrick davis
re evolution
‘Yes it is still just a theory however, if we examine some current features of, on the surface, unrelated animals, there is some interesting findings’
I agree entirely. And you highlight some things which I find to be good evidence that the theory is likely true.
But the point I was trying to make is that evolution is not a predictive tool. It does not make forecasts capable of verification or not. It does not say ..‘evolution will mean that in a thousand generations the toe of the long toed sloth will have changed by amount x’. Which you could then go and measure. It is essentially a tool for explaining what has happened, not what will happen. And so it stays a Theory, not a Law.
I’d also note that IMHO if there hadn’t already been some alternative theories of how we got to where we are – what Dawkins calls ‘The God Delusion’ – then the Theory of Evolution would not be seen as such big potatoes. It is the contrast and disconnect between the thousands of years of religious tradition and belief and the simplicity of the evolution theory that causes passions to run so high. Nothing in the inherent, rather dull theory.
AGW theory however is only of any real interest because it tries to tell us what willhappen. The evidential basis is pretty weak and involves a few quite remarkable leaps of faith. And though it seems to be overwhelmed with doom and gloom predictions for our distant future, it is remarkably poor at making short term verifiable predictions testable within a reasonably practical timescale.
Which is why, in my mind, it too will never be much better than a theory. And one, that will, I submit, have a very much shorter lifespan than the Theory of Evolution.
The tide grows stronger.
Karl Popper has not lived in vain, back in the “stone age” i.e. the 1960ies he was accused of being everything evil (positivist etc.) given his disdain for “scientific marxism” etc. A professor of mine pointed out, that biologic science was very difficult, because you assumed that only one (or at max two) parameters changed when comparing two different populations. Some of us learned that, more did not, hence the poor quality of many papers and periodicals in biologic science. (I don’t consider the Lancet i.a. a reliable source anymore – a major “come to Jesus moment”)
The recent climate debacle™ is very much a case in point. Being naive I would like to see a sequence like this, 1) What are the data as far back as we can defend them, 2) Are there any deviations from the pattern – if any – seen? 3) What correlations – if any – can we extract from the data?
That is not what we have seen lately, rather we have seen a repetition of the 18th century certainty, which authors like Holberg and Molliere rightly made fun of.
1. whatever we do will have (some) influence on our environment.
2. is that influence of identifiable significance – i.a. does it extend above the background “noise”
3. if the answer to 2) is “yes” then the next question is – to what extent?
4. using the cover of “science” to promote your particular bias is about as bad as it gets.
5. history is VERY full of situations, where our prejudices obscure our ability to do a rational analysis of the available data. (google infection and peptic ulcer).
The “climate discussion” over the past few years has been a prime example of “seeing what you want to see, not what is there.
I wish everybody, who tries to save science from the “political preachers” every bit of good luck, they will need it.
Hejde
One should never confuse the academically enlightened with facts that may pollute the purity of their prejudices.
Dr Curry is a brave and smart woman. Very few seem to be willing to bring sense back to the discussion. I applaud her efforts.
Thanks to you Dr Curry for speaking out about the shortcomings of the IPCC. I hope others hiding in the dark will follow in your path into the light.
The ad hominem attack on you, Dr. Curry, by the author of Scientific American article branding you a heretic is a manifestation of political correctness. As long as one supports the party line, they can avoid the political correctness police. When you seem to support ideas that do not reflect the truth as seen by the political elitists, you find yourself being branded a heretic. This situation reflects a political elitism of the AGW movement that borders on a secular religion. It is not climate science that really matters to the elites, but it is desire to control people, especially by discrediting them. Thought police anyone? I hope that your wish for the scientific community to work together on climate science comes true. It is surely needed. Wouldn’t be nice if scientific studies could cease to be agenda item in some politicians hunger for power?
bravo!!
Heh! Attagirl! (oops, sexist pig!)
I just noticed that Judith will be at this event in Purdue University, Indiana USA:
———
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – Leading national climate change experts will highlight a Purdue University panel discussion next week to explore the challenges and relationships among climate scientists, public officials and the media.
Beyond Climategate: What Role for Science and the Media in the Making of Climate Policy? will feature panelists Judith Curry, a professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology; Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder; and Andrew Revkin, creator of the blog “Dot Earth” and a former environmental reporter for The New York Times.
The event is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. Nov. 3 in the Shively Club at Ross-Ade Pavilion, 850 Beering Drive. The discussion, organized by the Purdue Climate Change Research Center, is free and open to the public.
More information is available online at http://www.purdue.edu/climate/beyondclimategate
http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=44357#middle
Judith “Mm. Curry” wrote: “a loss of public trust in climate science and some have argued, even more broadly in science.”
Science has become the laughing stock. I heard this one in the grocery store:
There’s a job opening for a scientist, and they come out of the woodwork. The first applicant is asked “How much is 2 + 2?”
“4” answered the first scientist.
“Thank you. If we have further questions, we’ll call you.”
They called in the next scientist and asked “How much is 2 + 2?”
“What do you want it to be?”
“Excellent! Welcome to the firm.”
I was too embarrassed to tell them I’m a scientist. I used to lead with that as a conversation starter. Now I avoid mentioning it at happy hours and social functions. I just don’t want the ridicule.
It should be pointed out that Curry has no love for skeptics.
It’s not like she’s joined the team.
In fact, she is highly critical of skeptics and global warmers, alike. Her only calling is to science itself, which is why she hates the way climate science has become a very unscientific fascist cult which is being used as an alibi by western politicians, megalomaniacs, and all those who seek to restrict our freedoms, to bleed us white with taxes, and dictate how we should live our lives.
Here is an interesting question for those thinking that carbon dioxide is a problem…
I measured the evaporation rate of my 50m2 swimming pool
I was amazed to find that 2500 litres evaporated in one week (no discharge, clear blue skies all week, 31-34 C max. in the day, temp. of pool 25-26C.)
Compare this to the tank of patrol (gas) I use in one month. (40 litres)
What worries me is that in order to to survive, humans are creating many shallow waters that are easily prone for such high evaporation. (higher temp=
>> higher vapor pressure)
e.g. for irrigation, for consumption, for hydro power (electricity- China!), for recreation and for land creation.
Add to this all the water vapor from burning fuels (including jet & rocket fuel)
the countless water cooling plants in every factory (including those for nuclear energy), oiling, cooking, bathing etc. etc.
Now if I look at the fact that H2O accounts for most of the greenhouse effect,
why would anyone think that the odd 100 ppm’s of CO2 that were added to the atmosphere since 1960 are much more relevant than all that extra water vapor being added to the atmosphere due to human activities? Even if it (the water vapor) ultimately does condense, the heat (40.7 kJ per mole = 18 g) has to go somewhere, my guess is ca. 50% to earth and 50% to space.
What do you think?
James,
You have evidence that a few artifacts have been recovered from the receding ice, but there are dozens of farm locations that have never been under any ice.
Smokey posts a graph that shows that Greenland is now warmer than it was during the Medieval Warm Period, leading me to believe that the chances of finding any more farm sites as the ice recedes to be minimal.
Roughly 20 percent of Greenland is not under the ice cap, you know that right, and parts of it are actually, like in the summer, like GREEN.
And the AMO, that’s pretty much neutral right now, isn’t it?
So that’s not doing much to greenland now.
At least the Iceberg lettuce is green anyway. But the strawberries, they are red.
Do some research.
bob,
You keep cherry-picking only the MWP. Why? There are at least a dozen times during the Holocene (the past 10,000 +/- years), such as the Roman Warm Period, the Minoan optimum, and the Holocene Climate Optimum, when the temperature was warmer than now. Sometimes much warmer.
The current temperature is normal. It has happened over and over again. Unless you can show that “this time it’s different”, backed up with solid evidence, then this time it’s not any different than the past dozen times the temperature has exceeded the current temperature.
If there’s a flaw in my logic please point it out.
bob says:
No, bob. We do not have anything even REMOTELY approaching a significant historical record, which would be required to determine if ice caps are receding or not.
What we have is the last few years, which show ice caps increasing, or remaining pretty close to the same. Sucks to be someone who believes otherwise, because it sucks to be wrong. Right?
D. King,
You are so right. I wrote a letter to the editor about sunspot influence on our global warming, hurricanes, and glaciers.
The paper had to pull comments off the blog and someone dumped cigarette butts in my driveway. The paper won’t print my research letters anymore.
I sent a letter to the USA Today, today, taking on our nations’ NOAA warm weather predictions. Another wasted email.
Rocky H,
Not quite, James brought up the Medieval Warm Period in regard to the Vikings presence in Greenland.
And you are right, there are many periods during the Quaternary that were warmer than today.
And recent research shows that the Ross Ice shelf has come and gone many times in that period with associated changes in sea level. Nothing wrong with your logic, just assuming that a similar change in temperature to previous natural ones doesn’t come with some serious consequences. Just a question of whether it will continue to warm or not.
Code Tech, we have much more than a few years of data,
http://www.livescience.com/environment/080129-baffin-ice.html
But then I realize if I pick just one point to support my argument, I’m cherry picking, but I’m not into spaming the site.
That’s just one example of what is out there.
bob says:
October 27, 2010 at 11:38 am
===============================================
The AMO is neutral? Huh….funny thing it has been raging positive this year.
Record high Atlantic SSTs.
Check out the orange up around Greenland from last May.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1480
Ocean warmy. Ice melty.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
A strong, courageous stance. It’s a worry, though, when strength and courage amongst scientists are the the exception rather than the rule. Thank you.
I always use the word “consensus” very carefully because it implies unanimity, not just general agreement. I liked how Judith Curry used the phrase “the dogma of consensus,” partly because it avoids what I consider the misuse and abuse of the word by the people pushing their global warming agenda, and partly because it expresses a truth, that this is a dogma, a religious belief enshrined as a tenet, a principle, a fundamental(ist) doctrine for believers.
Well put, Judith Curry.
You have posted a fairly dishonest graph. Look at the gaps in the x-axis. On the left you have 9.3 to 8.4 tya while on the right you have 0.7 to 0.3 tya. So the x-axis is log-scale. Yet there is a linear trend-line fit to the data. This over-weights recent observations and under-weights older observations. It also hides the magnitude of the current incline.
AMO looks pretty neutral to me, others may get different mileage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amo_timeseries_1856-present.svg
Maud Kipz says:
“This [graph] over-weights recent observations and under-weights older observations.”
So there were even more times when the temperature exceeded today’s? Thanks for noticing that.
Here are more graphs showing the same thing:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
click6
click7
click8
click9
click10
Got more if you want ’em, Maud. Just ask.
Hey Smokey,
In number three they graft the Hadcrut series onto a local Greenland temperature reconstruction.
Can you tell me what is wrong with that?
ROTFLMAO
bob,
Nothing is wrong with that — unless it’s done deviously, like Mann & Osborne did it.
But hey, if you get heartburn looking at that one chart, then study the other nine instead. You might learn something: that it’s obvious to even the most casual, unbiased observer that the Holocene has gone through multiple times that were warmer than now. Natural climate variability, me boy, that’s all you’re seeing.
You don’t get it Smokey, the scales of the Hadcrut do not match the scales of the Greenland data, so you can’t graft the series together.
I looked at all the graphs, they are all local temperature series and say little to nothing about global temperatures. Several of them stop at 1950, none of them show the current temperatures and none of them have the resolution to display the current temperatures.
And just because there is natural variability now and in the past doesn’t in the least prove in any way that there isn’t man made changes going on in the present.
Smokey,
My only concern was with a time-series plot where the x-axis was on a log-scale. That is objectively a bad thing, because it overstates variability for older events and understates variability for more recent events. Fitting a linear trend-line to it is also going to be misleading as the trend for the untransformed x-axis may be radically different in direction and magnitude.
Some of you follow-up graphs had this same problem. One tried to fit a polynomial to the log-scale x-axis.
The problem would be the same if the y-axis were giving rabbit population or Chevrolet sales figures.
Stick with linear-scale x-axes and then we can have a discussion about what the graphs actually mean.
Maud, I happen to agree with you that using a log scale, and similar alarmist tricks [like beginning the y-axis at an arbitrary, non-zero number] is ‘objectively a bad thing.’
For example:
click1 [bad] vs clickA [good]
click2 [bad anomaly graph] vs clickB [honest anomaly graph]
The actual fluctuations [when not dishonestly magnified by a small y-axis range] are tiny, entirely natural, and well within the planet’s past parameters during the Holocene.
Prof Richard Lindzen clearly explains the situation:
Astonishing but true. And much of the hysterical panic can be attributed to dishonest charts that jimmy with the y-axis. So let’s start using charts like clickA and clickB from now on, and dispense with scary looking charts like click1 and click2 that make a big deal out of natural temperature variability of a few tenths of a degree.
I like Judith Curry, but I don’t know if she agrees with me on where I found clear (scientific) answers lacking. For example, the amount of water vapor in the air is quted between 0.5 and 1 %. There is no precise answer to the figure? How can we possible talk about an increase of CO2 by 0.01% being relevant if it is already certain that water is a much stronger greenhouse gas than water? I refer to my previous comment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/26/quote-of-the-week-judith-curry-asks-warmists-how-are-things-going-for-you-lately/#comment-517102
If you want to see my whole point of view you can look at my own blog, that puts all my reasons for doubts clearly together,
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
God bless you all!