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.
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.