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.
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