Dr. Judith Curry on the PBS debacle

A completely off-topic comment merely to alert fellow skeptics to the presently disabled condition of JoanneNova.com.au. The site presently says “This Account Has Been Suspended.”
It may be just a temporary glitch, perhaps not, but it was not a scheduled outage to the knowledge of regular readers.
Let’s hope warmist activity has nothing to do with this incident. The site was the target of a hack a month ago, certainly a sign that she is making progress.
Presumably fans can watch for an explanatory tweet at http://twitter.com/JoanneNova

I see there are the usual hateful comments over there claiming that this site is only successful because Anthony “tells his audience what it wants to hear”.
Why oh why is it that these same people get away with such claims yet run a mile when offered the chance to debate publicly? Do they think sceptics have some kind of magic powers to sway audiences? It’s not as if rhetoric is an unknown tactic to the alarmists. They even run screaming from me on my own campus when I offer to have it out in a public debate and I’m just a lowly humanities/computing PhD student…..

As I type this, 8 minutes ago Jo tweeted an explanation, and it turns out it was another hack.
Wishing her blog a speedy recovery.

But Judy, there is no debate. Things were settled long ago. Al said so. And since then no one from the warmist side has had the courage and conviction to open it back up for debate, certainly not Muller, not Mann, nor any of the folks in Colorado, or East Anglia or wherever else they choose to hide.

It’s difficult to know how anyone could have been more reasonable and considered in their statements than Anthony Watts was in that interview. I thought it was a text book example of how to calmly present a rational argument to an unbelieving audience, and as such AW was an ideal spokesperson for the show.

Before everyone starts thanking Dr Curry for her kind comments toward Anthony, I would urge everyone to think carefully about what she said.
On the one hand, she endorsed him as being front and centre in the public debate, but on the other hand she excluded him, and deliberately so, as a “scientist”. This is an egregious comment in my opinion, not because is excludes Anthony’s observations regarding science, but because it by default excludes the opinions of anyone not defined by Dr Curry as being a scientist.
This is utter cr@p for the simple reason that the bulk of the issues surrounding the CAGW debate are well within the grasp of common people. The CAGW meme isn’t failing because the person in the street rejects out of hand some esoteric aspect of quantum physics that only a tiny select priesthood understands. The person in the street rejects the CAGW meme because they find out that Briffa’s 1000 year reconstruction is based 50% on a single tree that doesn’t even match local temperature measurements. Because they find out that Michael Mann used Tiljander data even though he knew it was upside down. Because they find out that Jones used a “trick” to hide the fact that the prescious tree ring data that is supposedly accurate for 1000 years actually goes the opposite direction of the temperature record for nearly half the instrumental record. Because it takes virtually no education at all to compare different versions of the GISS temperature record and see that the oldest records have been adjusted downward for no apparent reason. Because it doesn’t take a degree to look at the graphs of Total Cyclone Energy and conclude that extreme weather events are declining, not increasing. It takes very little education to look at sea ice extent and see that it is declining in the arctic and increasing in the antarctic.
In fact Dr Curry, the truth of the matter is that the vast bulk of climate science is well within the grasp of most people. “Scientists” like yourself lose all credibility with me when you define the opinions of the rest of us to the trash heap out of hand.
The fact of the matter Dr Curry is that there are very FEW aspects of “science” as it applies to the climate debate that CAN’T be understood by someone with just the basics in calculus, physics and statistics. That you attempt to reserve valid discussion of these things to yourself and your science priesthood is pretentious, arrogant and self serving in the extreme.
What the alarmists fear most from the discussion of climate science is not that Anthony Watts may have some valid points. What they fear is that the common person will cease drinking whichever flavour of cool-aid they happen to be most comfortable with handed out by what ever priest has been blessed with that task in whatever forum they happen to be most comfortable with, and instead spend a few hours getting themselves up to speed on the facts which are easily found in forums such as WUWT and verified in any number of ways with very little effort.
By attempting to define climate science as something out of the grasp of the common person Dr Curry while at the same time spinning a slightly different view (lukewarmist) you are revealing what you believe. That you are simply a sect within the priesthood, and the rest of us the great unwashed.

Anthony,
It would seem that this PBS kabuki has given you an opportunity. I hope you take advantage of it.
The Ombudsman wrings his hands over their lapse in “editorial integrity” – which they define as having aired an interview with you. There is a huge failure in editorial integrity present here, but has nothing to do with you. PBS needs to be called on it, and the massive attention that this event is currently receiving gives you a window of opportunity to do that.
The problem of editorial integrity here is that PBS lied about Richard Muller. They said on the program, and Ombudsman Michael Getler repeated in his “Mea Culpa” essay, the following:
“Physicist Richard Muller had long been among those who denied that climate change was happening, but he made big news last month when he broke with his allies and published an op-ed in the New York Times saying not only was he no longer a skeptic but that “I’m now going a step further.
That statement is a lie.
Richard Muller has never denied that climate change was happening, let alone for a long time. We have quotes from him promoting global warming in the late 1900’s and the first decade of this century. We have quotes of him supporting Algore’s methods. We know that he and his daughter have a consulting business promoting “solutions” to global warming problems. We all know this stuff, but we have become jaded to Muller’s mischaracterization of himself as a “sceptic” because it is difficult to do anything about it. Muller fabricates by equivocating on the term “sceptic”, which makes it hard to render his lies actionable.
PBS has done something different. In repeating Muller’s lies, they embellish. They make statements of fact that are not true. They say that Muller “… had long been among those who denied that climate change was happening, …”. Muller’s faux sceptic period was a little over a year. That is not long by any measure relevant to this topic. He has never denied that climate change was happening. PBS made those things up. They took his equivocations, and turned them into plainly stated lies.
These are the sort of issues that an Ombudsman should be addressing as violations of integrity, not whether they should have interviewed an author of peer reviewed scientific publications and prominent voice on the topic.
Call them on it.

Jim Clarke says:
September 22, 2012 at 8:26 am
“Secondly, the university scientist is somewhat myopic, concentrating in there(sic) area of study with little time to develop a complete understanding of the overall science.”
The difference between “climate science” and climatology right there.
Insightful post. Thx.

Anthony,
Much like the goings on in the Middle-East, you insulted their prophet by speaking heresy and you did not come across as Rasputin or Charlie Manson (which BTW, some of their own, Hanson, Gore, etc.do fit that image.) Your calm demeanor and point-on narrative connects with us “commoners” which invades the believer’s already marked territory. Thus, they launched a terrorist attack in an attempt to intimidate not only you, but anyone of their flock who might dare stray off the reservation.
I wonder if anyone else noticed the similarities of the emails PBS posted, as though all were written from some back-channel template circulated among the “true” believers? The obligatory “97% of scientists” and “thoroughly debunked” (or discredited) shows up in almost every email, leading one to believe they were written by a single person or a very small group of guerrilla fighters. I believe the “15,000 people” figure is a red herring.
In my book, Anthony, you are the perfect “voice” of skepticism. The term “scientist” is earned. I have yet to see it posted on anyone’s sheepskin. It is something earned through hard work, perseverance and dedication to one’s avocation. You have slogged in the trenches and earned that distinction, much to the consternation of those megalomaniacs who seem to believe their PhD automatically entitles them to be so-called (pun intended.)
Keep up the good work. You have tons of support from us skeptical commoners! The war is being won, one battle at a time.

Dr Currie’s and the PBS ombudsman’s point appears to be , Mr Watts is not a member of the priesthood of CAWG and thus is not qualified to speak to the theology? How is this relevant to science?

Anthony does not ‘speak for me’ nor did I appoint him as my representative nor as my delegate. It happens I agree with everything he said in the interview. The fact that PBS chooses to refer to a ‘spokesperson’ for [some group they create in their minds] does not change reality.
There are not ‘two sides’ to truth, even if one speaks from a different paradigm. The sum of knowledge is the only basis from which we can speak. Partial knowledge creates partiality in view.
I and many other share Anthony’s view on the issue of the temperature record and quite a lot of other things. There are no doubt things we do not agree on which matters not at all when discussion turns to the temperature record on which he is an acknowledged expert.
This whole ‘scientist’ qualification/naming hogwash is nothing other than priestcraft. For CAGW supporters it means there are those who are annointed with the Holy Spirit of Climate and those who have not gone through the prescribed rituals and initiations. That is how those who have attacked Anthony on PBS see it – he is not one of the ‘very elect’.
Interesting from the perspective that there appear to be hundreds, nay thousands, who will blindly accept anything from a climate priest but not from a truth-speaking man. That is the very definition of fanaticism.

Add my two cents worth to the Ivory Tower “clique” comment. If it weren’t for lowly mothers speaking out against the scientific “consensus” on autism, they would still be accusing mothers of being “cold” towards their children. Judith owes you an apology and needs to come down out of the Ivory Tower. She’s not all that (no scientist is and they would do well to remember that), and as soon as she realizes it, we can finally make headway on this issue.
I’m a special educator. And I’m not all that. If my “pet theory” doesn’t work to improve learning rate, I try something else. And if that doesn’t work I try something else. What I have discovered is that off the shelf, bells and whistles, expensive curriculum touted by the publishers as being the best of the best, isn’t always the case. In fact, it seldom is the case, even though their own “PhD’ed” research on curriculum they are paid to promote appears to prove their case. Now where have we heard that before?
Judith, you should be thanking folks like Anthony who bring fresh eyes to research. Dismissing his ability to do so speaks ill of you.

It’s very noticeable that in the comments on the Curry blog thread, almost those trying to discredit Anthony and this blog do so under a pseudonym, and resort entirely to ad hominem attacks, with no attempt to provide any evidence for their assertions. Supporters of WUWT do try to do cite references, and do so politely.
Par for the course; but as we all know, only desperate people lacking the support of evidence for their cause behave in this manner.

Further Dr Curry, the ultimate debate is not about the science.
Seriously.
This arrogant self serving petulant attempt by those such as yourselves to exclude the rest of us from the debate by defining us as “non scientists” fails to include the MOST important part of the debate which has NOTHING to do with science.
It has to do with economics.
The question we must answer, when all is said and done, is which is better for humanity, mitigation or adaptation?
OK miss high and mighty “scientist”, go ahead and dispute me on that. Think you can hold your own in a debate with me on the intersection of science and economics?
I dare you and your arrogant cohorts to even try. The only way that the whole lot of you can score a single point in the debate is to do what you arrogantly try to accomplish, which is to define the debate in terms which allow only you to claim expertise.
There’s the truth of it Dr Curry. You and your ilk can barely hold your own in a discussion of the science with well informed laymen. When it comes to the big picture, which includes who starves to death and who doesn’t based on what actions we do or do not take, you are collectively so far out of your league that you are complete jokes. You are worse than jokes. You suck on the hind teat of society as if the milk were free and only you are entitled to drink it while carefully explaining to the great unwashed that only you know what to do with the milk.
Its my milk you arrogant snob.
Gonna take my dare?

jim @ 9:55 AM illustrates a nice point. Not only is Muller a false skeptic, but PBS is pushing a false narrative; the trend is toward skepticism about climate catastrophe. The astro-turfed petition that the ombudsman received is a symptom of the consciousness of the falseness of the narrative. I don’t think it was outrage over a ‘non-scientist’ at all.
========================

katabasis1 says:
September 22, 2012 at 7:45 am
The mythology of the global warmists is that even permitting non-alarmists to have air time is dangerous because it gives people the impression that there is no consensus, and that it gives us respect we don’t deserve.
On this I claim bunk. If our evidence is so bad, then publicly shredding it would discredit us, not give us more credit.
I never shrink from debating a young earth creationist, or a truther, or any of the weird conspiracy theorists out there. Precisely because their so called evidence is easy to discredit. Once people see both sides, and see who is able to defend their evidence, then they will make up their own minds.
The fact that the warmists refuse to debate at all, tells you all you need to know about how much confidence they have in their “evidence:.

The most cogent comment in the interview was Watt’s “noble cause corruption.” If you’ve had any experience in science or in R&D you’ll know (for me remember) the temptation to fudge just a little because the “work” is that important.

On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not.
Pretty much everyone has picked up on Judith’s faux pas, and she is entitled to her opinion, and she does go on to qualify her opinion, which is appropriate. Most of us just don’t happen to agree with her.
But there is a bigger reality: there is no appropriate spokesperson for climate science, just as there is none for any other scientific discipline. Science isn’t an agenda, its a philosophical process. There is supposition, there is inference, there is information, there is conjecture, observation and experiment, but there is no agenda. There may be spokespeople who may represent certain methodologies of science, there are spokespeople who may represent certain financing of science, there are spokespeople who may represent viewpoints concerning the use of the results of science, but there are no spokespersons for climate science, itself.
This is the heart of the argument missed by damned near everybody, most especially those labelling themselves “climate scientists”. Climate science isn’t an orthodoxy; its an unorganised, at times as chaotic-as-its-subject, multi-disciplinary train of research assembling data and testing hypotheses, from which ,eventually, some meaningful conclusions may be drawn. Eventually.
The absurd, fall-on-their-sword behavior of PBS management, especially that of their has-no-clue-what-his-job-is ombudsman, demonstrates how far from this reality modern mainstream media has strayed. The job of sceptics is huge: first, to return modern society to the tenets of rational thought, then, to teach a couple of generations how to think again.

” On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not.”
This is exactly the problem with “climate science”, and by the way, other branches of science as well, if one is not in lock step with “consensus” opinion or accepted theory, they are NOT to be included in the discussion. But then, this has always been the case and at least one is no longer burned at the stake for opposition views. However, Anthony, beware of people with torches and pitchforks approaching your home.

Mike says:
September 22, 2012 at 7:58 am
But Judy, there is no debate.

More importantly, and I believe, more accurately: “there must be no debate”. That someone even questions the basis for the policies that enable the global environmental “progressive” movement must be ridiculed, suppressed, stamped out. The voice that says the emperor has no clothes must be silenced.

Getler’s response to the recent climate change coverage on the News Hour is an example of how PBS has lost its journalistic ethical standards. Climate science is not as PBS has presented it. Inclusion of the Anthony Watts interview was not even close to being balanced because PBS’s overwhelming presentation of climate is one-sided coverage of the “world is ending” climate special interests. Clearly Getler has forgotten Jim Lehrer’s rules he described himself in December 2009. “Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.” http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2009/12/lehrers_rules.html. PBS is no better in presenting real science than the Iraqi Information Ministry in 2003. At least Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf “Comical Ali” was entertaining. (emailed to the PBS Ombudsman)

Correction:
“The Great Global Warming Swindle” debuted on the UK’s Chanel 4 IN 2007, and it…..

Anthony Watts knows more about thermometers, their use and the proper siting of thermometers for weather and climate than most climate scientists. Anthony is out their with his volunteers getting their feet dirty while climate scientists throw in garbage assumption, press enter and make grave projections about the effects of co2. He is more than qualified to make his statement on PBS of badly sited stations. His livelihood depends on selling thermometers for goodness sake.

Everybody here seems to forget that AW is a meteorologist, far more qualified about climate than a so called “climate scientist” maybe an “atmospheric physicist “would be most appropriate term for persons studying AGW which doesn’t exist anyway….

I hope I may be forgiven for defending Dr. Curry just a bit, contrary to commentors with whom I agree 97% of the time ;->. Her comment about Anthony’s virtues as a spokesperson may have other motivations than ivory tower elitism. For example, since a great many people do value credentials, however well- or ill-founded that prejudice may be, a skeptic with more “impressive” credentials (Lindzen? Pielke Sr.? the speakers’ roster of a Heartland conference contains many examples) might make a more effective spokesperson for skepticism on P(BS), turning the ensuing debate from ignorant credentialism to more substantial issues. (I do think Anthony’s deep first-hand knowledge of the station-siting issue and its relation to the BEST data may have been the thinking behind Heartland’s recommendation.)
I, for one, appreciate the respect with which thoughtful skeptics are received at Dr. Curry’s blog. And I think it inappropriate to take offense on Anthony’s behalf when he apparently took none.

“On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not.” — Judith Curry
There’s a lot of umbrage over this remark. But if one wanted to present climate science, as one of Kuhn’s paradigms, then it is most certainly correct. Anthony is simply not much of a cheerleader for the approved narrative. Any disdain held out for Judith needs be on the basis that she is relying social norms, mores, and touchstones in making this statement; rather than on the scientific method.
After all, the entire point of the scientific method is that an experiment needs no spokesperson. The experiment speaks for itself.

I stopped watching and donating to PBS in 2004. I tuned in to watch a much advertised PBS commentary comparing George Bush and John Kerry. When I realized it was just a big political advertisement for Kerry and an attack on Bush, I emailed OPB and told them to cancel my membership. CAGW is a political argument as much as a scientific argument and obviously more than one viewpoint is uncomfortable and to be censored if possible. Whenever someone argues that people without climate academic degrees are not qualified for this discussion, I just comment that if we had waited until Bill Gates and Steve Jobs got degrees in computer science, we would not be having this discussion now. (Posted on JC blog also).

Three men that were mostly self taught, that bucked the establishment, that were ridiculed by it and also marginalised: Albert Einstein (photoelectric effect, tensor calculus,etc)
Could we cease to spread this myth please.
Albert Einstein was not “mostly self-taught”. His high school career was blighted by the fact that his father shifted a lot, but mostly he went to good schools. Then, at just seventeen, he went to the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich which, despite the name, is one of the very best universities in the world. His teachers there were first class.
His work soon after, far from being marginalised, was accepted almost overnight. He was published in top journals well before he got his PhD. He reached full professor at a speed most people could only dream of. Even though experimental proof for relativity was late coming he got a Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect because they knew how brilliant he was. It was the scientists who refused to accept his work, and there were some, who were ridiculed.
Nor did Einstein ever attempt to “buck the establishment”. He accepted academic posts in quick succession at top establishments.
If you are looking for a lone maverick against the world, Einstein is not your man. He was totally establishment. The number of true genius mavericks is very low, as it happens.

It’s interesting the contrast, Anthony speaking in a resonable voice, voicing his points articulately, carefully avoiding even the hint of an Ad Hominum; then the response from the alarmist rabble a loud hysterical outcry for even alowing a vile denialist a chance to speak.
If they’re thinking it’s a PR war, I’d say they lost that battle.

The outrage at allowing someone to have a negative position on AGW show that the west is no more free from bigoted fanatics than the Islamic world. The only difference is the subject matter of their dogma.

[snip – snooty derisive comments about our host serve no good purpose – mod]
I disagree. It reveals a great deal about the mindless, emotion driven, turd burglar that posted it.

Why didn’t the ombudsmen stand up to the PBS audience. The people commenting seemed to want PBS to suspend the first amendment when they say so. Of all networks PBS is obligated [to] offer dissenting voices. They are acting like magazine editors the way they kowtow when the TEAM says jump for the ’cause’. Is there a pattern here? Roll over for the bully. Where was their argument of the facts?

The main commandment for NOAA seems to be — adjust the numbers as much as needed to show what you want. Honesty has no place in the “science” as done at NOAA. They are not the only ones of course, but just one example.
With all the out and out number cheating — why can the climate realists not get on TV and get that across? Why does the average Joe on the street not know that the governent agencies are engaged in massive, institutional fraud? We have them dead to rights on this issue.

David M Hoffer,
+1 your comments. Dr Judith Curry has a Bachelor of Science in GEOGRAPHY !!!! If she was so sharp then why didn’t she do pure Physics, Engineering or Mathematics?
How PATHETIC. She has absolutely NO RIGHT to speak condescendingly of others and consider that she holds the “truth”. Geography and Psychology degrees are well known to be about as close to basket weaving as it gets in higher education. Absolutely PATHETIC.
The very problem with Climate Science is that it is actually cluttered with far too many second rate pseudo-scientists. Geography Students who have a poor grasp of statistics (mathematics) and physics.
Dr Richard Lindzen holds the kind of qualifications that would allow him to speak condescendingly of Geography graduates like Phil Jones and others.

gringojay says:
September 22, 2012 at 4:22 pm
My apologies. I misunderstood as well.

Curry is not the monster here, gentlemen. Systematic one sided reporting by sycophants is the monster.
KQED’s Desmog link is dead. heh

Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. doesn’t often post on weekends. Today he posted this: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/a-pbs-overreaction/

“and never the twin shall meet.”
That’s, never the twain shall meet.

On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not………..
what a pompous load……..

Is anyone really surprised at this response? Anyone and I mean anyone, who dares to speak out against the consensuses will get their head handed to them. As for a debate, maybe in a root cellar with the lights turned out and the door closed. Dr Curry is consistently admonished on her own blog for allowing decenting views without comment and is placing her position amoung colleagues at risk with this stance.
Jim

………..rather than a university-accredited scientist to provide “balance.”

So a university-accredited scientist would have made the sceptics case stronger? Weaker? Balanced????? Heh, heh. 😉
Goodnight all.

If PBS were interested in balance, they would have also had a former CAGW believer who turned skeptic. Those are relatively easy to find.

Incidentally, I found the PBS Ombudsman contrary “even handed ” response to be reprehensible. This is supposed to be Public TV ? Not a politically active conclave of thought reactionism reminiscent of various propaganda regimes attempts to compel beliefs, Not “approved” dicta? Talk about “1984”, one wonders whether the Ombudsman ever read the novel, because he is a main player in its unfolding today.
Second, I believe that this response to contrary views to be quite compete:
davidmhoffer says:
September 22, 2012 at 8:47 am

Hey Anthony, James Chadwick discovered the neutron – and he didn’t have a Ph.D either. You’re in damn good company.

I agree with a number of comments here which hint at what I call the ‘Ph.D Club’. This is a club comprising those with a Ph.D who tend not to take seriously anyone without one.
Mr. Watts doesn’t have one, so he can be treated with varying degrees of disdain (excuse the pun) by those who have one.
I also agree with those here who have pointed out that a Ph.D is a very specific thing. It doesn’t mean you know everything about everything. In fact it probably only means you know every last excruciating detail about a very confined area of scientific enquiry.
This leads me to a question.
Dr. Judith Curry did her PhD thesis at the University of Chicago on the impact of sea ice and clouds on the radiation balance of the Arctic. To my way of thinking this means she ought to know at least something about Arctic sea ice, even though it may not mean much else.
Here’s a quote from Dr. Curry : “In my most recent posts on the Arctic sea ice decline, I estimated that about half the decline could be attributed to human induced CO2, which is in line with the latest analyses from the CMIP5 climate models.”
I found that remark startling.
50% of Arctic Ocean sea ice decline, according to Dr. Curry, is due to human CO2!
How can that be possible, when all the evidence suggests CO2 is at best a minor factor in climate change?
And if it’s true, what proportion of the recent record increase in Antarctic sea ice is due to human CO2?
What am I missing here? Is Dr. Curry a reliable source?

“””””…..pete50 says:
September 22, 2012 at 7:27 pm
Hey Anthony, James Chadwick discovered the neutron – and he didn’t have a Ph.D either. You’re in damn good company…..”””””
Before Chadwick, the Quantum Mechanics of matter knew of just 92 different sized quanta of matter, which changed Alchemy into Chemistry.
Then Chadwick had to come along and mess it all up, so now the Quantum Mechanics of matter involves maybe a thousand or so different quanta of matter.
Well we call them isotopes or something like that.

Cant you be a climate scientist by doing good science??

At this point in history “climate science” (a.k.a. “climatology”) itself is at stake. One should decide whether it has gone completely astray and falls into the same category of human endeavor as “astrology” or “homeopathy”, in which case genuine experts are the least qualified to deliver judgement, in spite of the fact these fields have their own educational institutions and peer reviewed journals.

Please excuse the late night typos in my above comment. By the way, Richard Feynman defines Anthony as a “scientist”
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman

“On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson?”
As Professor Curry should know, all science is based on facts. Where, as in climate science, much of the data on which the facts are based is suspect, who can be a more appropriate spokesperson than the man who has led the way in questionnung that data? If the data is wrong then the science can never be right.

David quotes:
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman
So what is the technical term for the ignorance of ignorami?

John Brookes says:
September 23, 2012 at 6:04 am
David quotes:
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman
So what is the technical term for the ignorance of ignorami?
==================================================
Climate Science ?

It doesn’t take an advanced degree in any field of science to understand the scientific method and recognize climate science isn’t following it. One doesn’t have to be an expert on Karl Popper to know Post-Normal Science isn’t science, but advocacy by highly biased technocrats. It doesn’t take too much world-experience to know that when climate scientists focus on the PR campaigns instead of the science, something is wrong with the science.
I write software for a living, and sometimes teach computer programming classes at the college level. A second-year junior college student programmer can recognize the poor quality of the published climate model computer code. If I worked on a team using the same quality control methods and source control methods as used by the climate modelers, we would all be fired.
I’m not a climate scientist, but I’m from Missouri and recognize cow flop and pig excrement when I see it or smell it.

I agree with the above comment questioning Judith’s assumption that 50% of Arctic ice decline is related to CO2 AGW. In what way Judith? Air temp increase or oceanic SST increase?
You have two routes of investigation, both of which must be completed, and then a huge caveat:
1). What would be the anthropogenic CO2 mechanism for increasing air and SST and how much energy is then available from just the anthropogenic CO2 increase in warming the air and SST? Is it enough energy to cause warmer SST’s and/or warmer Arctic air temps? Then coming from the other way, have the changes in Arctic weather parameters (IE air temps measured where the ice has melted and SST changes measured where the ice has melted) match what you have calculated (temp increase, water vapor increase, etc)? Or are you suggestion anthropogenic CO2 has changed the weather systems (IE pressure systems) in the Arctic? If so, how did it do that?
2). Before you answer the anthropogenic CO2 question, you must rule out intrinsic, natural ENSO and other oceanic/atmospheric teleconnection causes. If these causes can account for the warming (using the same thorough investigations), and I think they can by looking at Bob Tisdale’s work, you have at best a tie. Which requires you to accept the null hypothesis, not your 50% WAG.
Caveat: But even then, if you believe the anthropogenic CO2-related changes are real, they are still buried in the overall noise. Therefore you cannot say that CO2 is causing any of it. Why? You know as well as the rest of us that CO2 changes in temperature (air or SST) cannot be extracted from natural noise variability. The changes are too small and the signal you seek is no different from natural noise and trends.
What part of my argument is not entirely logical?

Well of course my little ditty above about “Climate Scientists” needing to first be Physicists, was tongue in cheek. To point out that applying the mathematics of statistiscs, to essentially random noise masquerading as data, and detrending this and running average that; aka “Throwing away much of the data”, is NOT science; you can apply the same numerical methods to the numbers in your phone book, and extract about the same amount of information.
Everybody is statistics happy. Baseball players have to keep records of how many times they drop the ball. Football players; well those who play the American game of “please don’t kick the football” ; when they drop the ball, everything stops, so they all stand around and talk about it, and who should get credit for dropping it.
That’s why we have records. Keep the daily temperature outside the back door for a hundred years, and you’ll find on average you get 3.65 new all time high unprecedented daily records each year; and the same for never before happened, lows.
But Dr Judith Curry is starting to sound like a professional in training. Remember, that professionals have a “practice”, not a job, and they practice on their clients, and never give a money back guarantee.
Well there’s one other characteristic of “professionals” that I never mentioned before. Professionals protect their monopoly, by getting laws passed to prohibit anyone not in the club from practising their gig as well.
So Dr Curry would decide who is a scientist, or a climate scientist and who is not. Who are engineers; only those with State approved professional licences, or those who do actual engineering, and design things that work.
Many of the best engineers I’ve encounterd in nearly 51 years in industry, did not have any University degree; maybe they had some military service backgound, and worked as technicians fixing things that broke. Some of those technicians have gone on to become among the best engineers I have ever encountered; well because they knew from experience, how to make things work, rather than study books, that told them how things are supposed to work; often written by academics, who never ever had to make anything work. Note, that does NOT mean that all academics, are that way. Some of them change peoples lives with their diligence and patience. I know a few who changed mine.
Anthony’s community organizing project to run down all the different models of Weber grills, out there making weather, and contributing their part to the runaway warming catastrophe, we have been promised; is classic science at its best.
Lacking a budget to build the world’s largest weather and climate reporting station; he devised a way, to catalog the mottley collection of bric-a-brac, that passes for the official weather network, and uncovered a pattern of random deviations from approved design and environment; and recruited his international army of fellow tinkerers to get some really important knowledge about the total inadequacy of the network that tells us the sky is falling.
And having an actual weather reporting background anyway, he was well qualified to see the errors in the existing network.
How dare “professor” Curry from her ivory tower, imply that isn’t science.
Science starts with the data; and if the data is crap, then so is the follow on; and the “approved scientists” are simply embarrassed, that a weather geek, showed what a load of malarkey they have been peddling as accurate weather data.
Did Spencer Michels set out to have an on screen sacrifice ? Who knows; I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt; but he should have had more gumption than to be cowed by the wolves who are shivering in their moth eaten sheepskins.

Berényi Péter says: September 23, 2012 at 12:19 am
At this point in history “climate science” (a.k.a. “climatology”) itself is at stake. One should decide whether it has gone completely astray and falls into the same category of human endeavor as “astrology” or “homeopathy”, in which case genuine experts are the least qualified to deliver judgement, in spite of the fact these fields have their own educational institutions and peer reviewed journals.
—————————————————–
Oohhh, I like that. How’s this for a new sound bite: “The difference between astrology and climate science is that astrologers don’t use taxpayer’s money to redraw the star charts”

I’m with David on this (recursively follow the path from there). I have always found JC to be a bit disingenuous and rather condescending. The fact that she is even willing to stand up to the establishment in any manner is good, but there has always been this “I know, you don’t” attitude to anyone outside of the circle.
@george e smith: I recently had a Facebook argument (er, discussion) with some of the people I went to school with regarding people referring to themselves as “engineer” without a degree. Legally speaking, none one of the posters in that thread (including me, with a PhD) is allowed to title himself “engineer,” simply because none of us has a PE license. My argument resembled yours (which is rather anti-elitist in nature): what you do has little to do with what, if any, degree you have. It is sad that society has gotten to the point that authority means so much, and is typically based solely on educational background. By their own logic (those I was debating), I should be right simply because I had the most authority (the biggest degree)… sigh. For the record, I thank the many “engineers” I worked with in my early career, those that did not not have a degree, but Harris Corporation still saw fit to title them as such. They knew their stuff.
Mark

John Brookes says:
September 23, 2012 at 6:04 am
I am curious if you think it is ok that JoNova’s site is being attacked like it is?

george e smith says:
September 23, 2012 at 10:22 am
. . . How dare “professor” Curry from her ivory tower, imply that [Anthony Watts’s work on the Surface Stations network] isn’t science. Science starts with the data; and if the data is crap, then so is the follow on; and the “approved scientists” are simply embarrassed, that a weather geek, showed what a load of malarkey they have been peddling as accurate weather data.

Pretty much sums it all up. Dr. Curry, if you’re reading this, please go back and read Mr. Smith’s comment in its entirety, and let’s have a response. I assume it will take the form of an apology.
/Mr Lynn

As usual, Judith being sensible.

Jim Clarke says:
September 22, 2012 at 8:26 am
“On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not.”
I totally, 100% disagree. I believe that people as educated on the subject as Anthony Watts are actually more qualified than ‘climate scientists’, whoever they are. What does it take to be a climate scientist? Well, you have to live in the make-believe world of academia or government, where science is secondary to ones ability to garner grant money. That is the real job of the modern day, climate scientist. On campus, they don’t say “science or perish”, they say “publish or perish”. It doesn’t have to be good science. It just has to be published science that adds to the prestige or notoriety of the scientist and university.
Consequently, the university scientist lives in a strange environment where they study reality through the lens of grant acquisition.

For a cutting insider look at this world, go thru the annals of ‘Piled Higher and Deeper’. It will only take at most a day of your time! 🙂