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.
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.