Dr. Judith Curry was recently called a heretic by Scientific American due to her views on climate science and public policy. Here, in a post at he new blog, she shows her resolve to maintain her independence from consensus thinking and to ignore the slings and arrows.
She takes no prisoners with this missive where she asks a very direct and effective question:
Let me preface my statement by saying that at this point, I am pretty much immune to criticisms from my peers regarding my behavior and public outreach on this topic (I respond to any and all criticisms of my arguments that are specifically addressed to me.) If you think that I am a big part of the cause of the problems you are facing, I suggest that you think about this more carefully. I am doing my best to return some sanity to this situation and restore science to a higher position than the dogma of consensus. You may not like it, and my actions may turn out to be ineffective, futile, or counterproductive in the short or long run, by whatever standards this whole episode ends up getting judged. But this is my carefully considered choice on what it means to be a scientist and to behave with personal and professional integrity.
Let me ask you this. So how are things going for you lately? A year ago, the climate establishment was on top of the world, masters of the universe. Now we have a situation where there have been major challenges to the reputations of a number of scientists, the IPCC, professional societies, and other institutions of science. The spillover has been a loss of public trust in climate science and some have argued, even more broadly in science. The IPCC and the UNFCCC are regarded by many as impediments to sane and politically viable energy policies. The enviro advocacy groups are abandoning the climate change issue for more promising narratives. In the U.S., the prospect of the Republicans winning the House of Representatives raises the specter of hearings on the integrity of climate science and reductions in federal funding for climate research.
What happened? Did the skeptics and the oil companies and the libertarian think tanks win? No, you lost. All in the name of supporting policies that I don’t think many of you fully understand. What I want is for the climate science community to shift gears and get back to doing science, and return to an environment where debate over the science is the spice of academic life. And because of the high relevance of our field, we need to figure out how to provide the best possible scientific information and assessment of uncertainties. This means abandoning this religious adherence to consensus dogma.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.