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.
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.