Reposted from Dr. Curry’s Climate Etc.
Posted on June 19, 2019 by curryja
by Judith Curry
Insights into the motivated reasoning of climate scientists, including my own efforts to sort out my own biases and motivated reasoning following publication of the Webster et al. (2005) paper
A recent twitter thread by Moshe Hoffman (h/t Larry Kummer) reminded me of a very insightful paper by Lee Jussim, Joe Duarte and others entitled Interpretations and methods: Towards a more self-correcting social psychology
Apart from the rather innocuous title, the paper provides massively important insights into scientific research in general, with substantial implications for climate science.
The Jussim et al. paper is the motivation for this blog post that addresses the motivated reasoning of individual climate scientists. And also for my next post that will address the broader ‘masking’ biases in climate science.
<begin quote>
“Getting it right” is the sine qua non of science. Science can tolerate individual mistakes and flawed theories, but only if it has reliable mechanisms for efficient self-correction. Unfortunately, science is not always self-correcting. Indeed, a series of threats to the integrity of scientific research has recently come to the fore across the sciences, including questionable research practices, failures to replicate, publication biases, and political biases.
Motivated reasoning refers to biased information processing that is driven by goals unrelated to accurate belief formation. A specific type of motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, occurs when people seek out and evaluate information in ways that confirm their pre-existing views while downplaying, ignoring, or discrediting information of equal or greater quality that opposes their views. People intensely scrutinize counter-attitudinal evidence while easily accepting information supporting their views. People generate convincing arguments to justify their automatic evaluations, producing an illusion of objectivity.
Scientists are not immune to confirmation biases and motivated reasoning. Values influence each phase of the research process, including how people interpret research findings. Reviewers’ theoretical and ideological views can influence their evaluation of research reports, leading them to judge studies that oppose their beliefs more critically than studies supporting their views. Consequently, they are then less likely to recommend publication of studies with undesired findings or funding for studies based on undesirable theories or hypotheses.
There are powerful incentives to present a strong, compelling story when describing their research. Most of us are motivated to get the science right, but we are also motivated to get the studies published and our grants funded. We want our colleagues to find our research sufficiently interesting and important to support publishing it, and then to cite it, preferably a lot. We want jobs, promotions, and tenure. We want popular media to publicize our research and to disseminate our findings beyond the confines of our lab. We might even hope to tell a story so compelling we can produce a bestselling popular book and receive lucrative consulting and speaking engagements, or have our findings influence policy decisions.
In brief, powerful incentives exist that motivate us to achieve — or, at least, appear to achieve — a “Wow Effect”. A “Wow Effect” is some novel result that comes to be seen as having far- reaching theoretical, methodological, or practical implications. It is the type of work likely to be emulated, massively cited, and highly funded.
Compelling, persuasive narratives are amply rewarded by promotions, grants, named chairs, etc., but the relationship of “compellingness of narrative” to validity (effect size, replicability, generalizability, etc.) is currently unknown. This raises the possibility that for some unknown and possibly substantial portion of the time, we are rewarding research practices that produce Wow Effects that are false, distorted, or exaggerated. We next demonstrate how mundane explanations for the same data remain hidden in the depths of the theorizing, methodology, statistics, and conclusions of some major areas of psychological science.
A checklist for increasing confidence that our research is relatively free of motivated biases:
- What do I want to happen and why? An honest and explicit self- assessment is a good first step towards recognizing our own tendencies towards bias, and is, therefore, a first step to building in checks and balances in our research to reduce them.
JC comment: This one is the most subjective, but in many ways the most telling. Are careerist objectives paramount in publishing this paper (for yourself, or to support a student or postdoc’s career objectives)? Are you looking to support your preconceived scientific notions or ideology, or are you looking to advance the science? If your answer to any of the following questions indicate bias, then you should come back and think harder about #1.
- Am I shooting for a “Wow Effect!”? Am I painting a weak and inconsistent result as dramatic in order to tell a compelling story? Scientific ambition is not inherently problematic, and may be a powerful constructive force for scientific advancement. But we want our literature to have true, valid, Wow Effects, not ones that cannot be replicated or ones promoted as powerful and pervasive, which upon further reflection (or evidence-gathering) are, in fact, weak, fragile, and fleeting, or which can be easily called into question under critical scrutiny.
JC comment: A litmus test of this is whether you are planning the press release for your paper before it is even accepted for publication. Do you care more about whether your paper will stand the test of time, or are you more interested in short-term publicity and publication in a high impact journal that looks for ‘wow’ papers? Part of this is exacerbated by the high impact journals such as Nature and Science, with press embargoes, that are clearly going for the ‘wow’ factor. A big problem is that many of these papers (particularly in Nature Climate Change) do not survive the first week of their press release without massive flaws having been uncovered.
- Do I have a long track record of research that systematically validates a particular political or social narrative or agenda? This is not about one’s intentions but rather one’s results. If one’s results consistently validate a particular set of beliefs, values or ideology, one has failed this check, and suggests that attempts at falsification may be in order.
JC comment: Falsification is maybe not the right word here; rather ‘refutation’ should be attempted. This should be attempted as a regular practice. A scientist should always ask “how might I be wrong?” at every step of their research. When the conclusions of your research are always predictable to outsiders, then your research will appear biased.
- Am I receiving remuneration (e.g., speaking or consulting fees) for reaching a particular conclusion? Conflicts of interest, though they do not invalidate one’s conclusions, plausibly place one at greater risk of dubious research and interpretation practices more generally.
JC comment: Also consider biases that may be introduced from ideas you submitted in a federally funded grant proposal, that you are seeking to confirm. Did you submit ideas supporting the consensus on climate change, that you thought would give your proposal a better chance of funding? See this previous post
- Have I generated theoretical arguments for competing and alternative hypotheses and designed studies to incorporate and test them?* Honest tests of alternatives can go a long way to reducing personal bias.
JC recommendation: if you are unaware of competing and alternative hypotheses, check out the papers listed in my Week in Review posts , and also my posts on attribution – the topic that is the source of most of the debate.
- Have I read some of the literature highlighting the invidious ways our motivated biases, morals, and politics can creep into our scientific scholarship? Doing so can alert one to ways in which our preferences might distort our science. After having done so, have I made a good faith attempt to eliminate such biases from my scholarship?
JC recommendation: check out my collection of blog posts related to this topic, discussing relevant papers in the literature [link]
- Have I sought feedback from colleagues with very different preferences and perspectives than mine or with track records of scholarship that often contest my preferred narratives?
JC comment: If you are active on twitter and block other publishing climate scientists, that is a hint that you deserve an ‘F’ on this one. I get that there are morons in the twitosphere, by all means mute or block them. But don’t wear your bias on your sleeve by blocking other climate scientists! Take note, Michael Mann and Katherine Hayhoe. For the latest drama in this regards, see this from Ross McKitrick. UNbelievable.
“It may not always be possible for researchers to meet all of these checks. However, as a starting heuristic, meeting six of the seven probably justifies confidence that the research has kept bias mostly in check. What to do if one cannot meet at least six (or, alternatively, one fails too many of one’s own such questions?). Although that, too, is a matter of judgment, one possibility will be to start over.”
<end quotes>
JC’s struggle with ‘motivated bias’ – Webster et al. (2005)
The saga of my own fight against motivated bias begins with publication of Webster, Holland, Curry, Chang (2005): Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration and intensity in a warming environment.
Webster’s motivation for investigating this topic was that he was disturbed by Kevin Trenberth’s Science paper and public pronouncements about increasing intensity of hurricanes while he was a lead author of the IPCC AR4 (which was in the ‘discussion’ phase at the time), which Webster regarded as unsupported. He supported Chris Landsea’s decision to resign from the IPCC over Kevin Trenberth’s statement.
Webster was surprised when the result of his investigations actually supported Trenberth’s assertions.
Prior to publication of the Webster et al. (2005) paper on hurricanes, I was blissfully well outside of the scientific or public debate on climate change. As an established, tenured Professor, my main objectives in publishing papers were to produce seminal papers that would stand the test of time, and hopefully change the way scientists think about the topic I was publishing on. I was also motivated to help my students and postdocs get established in their scientific careers.
That all changed in September 2005, following publication of the Webster et al. paper, several weeks following the devastation from Hurricane Katrina. The story behind all that was recounted in an interview with Keith Kloor at the now defunct Collide-a-scape.
The relevant issue here is that I became enmeshed in a scientific and public debate that was rife with minefields that would contribute to motivated bias. The first front in the ‘war’ surrounding the Webster et al. paper was the hurricane researchers, notably Bill Gray and Chris Landsea. The attacks on us, particularly by Bill Gray, were ugly. Then we were attacked by the professional climate ‘skeptics’,from the think tanks. The ‘hurricane wars’ was a huge story in the media. (see also Chris Mooney’s book Storm World).
We were being attacked publicly; this was WAR on science. In our beleaguered state, we were ‘adopted’ by the enviro advocacy groups and the activist scientists (including RealClimate bloggers and Joe Romm). I became a ‘partisan’ on this topic; not so much the broader issue of AGW (but I decided at that time to generally accept the consensus), but on the specific issue of hurricanes and global warming.
Publication of the Webster et al. paper (also Emanuel, 2005) stimulated hundreds of publications on this topic. In the following year I was asked to review many many papers on this topic. My first reaction to receiving such a paper was to quickly figure out what ‘side’ of the debate the paper fell on. I was very hard on papers that were generally critical. I was also very hard on papers that supported our paper; after all, it wasn’t going to help ‘our side’ if weak papers got published.
I became a ‘partisan’ on this subject, and more broadly the issue of AGW. I was a soldier in the noble fight against the war on climate science. I started paying attention to social media and blogs, and I became intrigued by RealClimate.
At the same time, I was most definitely paying attention to the criticisms from Gray, Landsea and others related to the quality of hurricane intensity data. I became increasingly intrigued by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and was puzzled by the mid-century warming ‘hiatus’.
The personal and professional shock of entering the public debate on climate change was deeply unwanted, surprising, and disturbing. I could have stayed out of all this, but I was deeply disturbed by the ‘war on science.’ Why couldn’t scientific disagreement play out in the usual way (conferences, publications), with the media acknowledging uncertainty and disagreement? Well, the answer to that question was that urgent policy decisions were at stake, including rebuilding New Orleans. With regards to AGW, for the first time the public realized that even 1 degree warming could actually matter, if it caused more intense hurricanes. This was seized on by climate change activists, with an equal but opposite response by the libertarian/conservative advocacy groups.
I was concerned about bias being introduced into the science by this partisan ‘war.’ My reflections on all this were published in the 2006 paper by Curry, Webster and Holland Mixing politics and science in testing the hypothesis that greenhouse warming is causing a global increase in hurricane intensity that was submitted in November 2005. Upon rereading this paper 13 years later, I still really like it. You can already see evidence of my readings from philosophy and social science in trying to grapple with what was going on.
Upon publication, our 2006 paper saw extensive discussion in the blogosphere. I used google to identify the blogs that were discussing this, and I stopped by each, leaving a comment stating my willingness to answer any comments. On one blog, I entered into a particularly interesting discussion, where people wanted to look at the data, asked questions about the statistical methodology, etc. A few days later I realized I was at the nemesis blog of RealClimate (ClimateAudit). I continued to engage at CA (see the Collide-a-scape interview for further details.) During the period 2006-2010, the main blogs I participated in were ClimateAudit and Collide-a-scape.
Up until 2009, I was still considered as an ‘ally’ by the AGW advocate community. (Although there were early hints from the Climategate emails of Mann’s ‘displeasure’ re my comments in a NRC committee to review a doc on temperature trends.)
Of course, this all changed in Nov 2009 with the Climategate emails, you can read my perspective on this in the Collide-a-scape interview. I was still fighting against the ‘war on science,’ but I was reconsidering who the ‘bad guys’ were. Over the next few years, the reception of the activist wing of climate science to my response to Climategate and Climate Etc. clarified all this, with serious implications for the integrity of climate science.
In August 2010, I started Climate Etc., the blog was seeded with material from my draft ‘uncertainty monster’ paper. Apart from scientific topics, my motivation was to grapple not only with any personal bias that I might have, but to understand bias in climate science caused by the politicization of the topic. Almost 9 years later , I think some things have improved, but the climate scientist activists have further entrenched their biases, to the great detriment of climate science and the climate policy debate.
So, how did I end up taking a different path and ending up in a different place than say Michael Mann, Katherine Hayhoe, or whoever?
First, as a female scientist of my generation, I wasn’t really entrained into the ‘power’ community surrounding climate science, although in the 2000’s I was named to some National Academy and other advisory committees. So my career path wasn’t invested in this kind of ‘power’ climb to influence climate science or public policy. I wasn’t editor of any journals, a lead author for the IPCC, etc. I was more interested in doing my own research. When I went to Georgia Tech in 2002, my main objective was in building a faculty and mentoring them and developing a good educational, professional and personal environment for students. So my career objectives were not really tied up in the ‘AGW enterprise.’
My generation of scientists (60+) have mostly identified as atmospheric scientists (meteorologists), oceanographers, geologists, geographers. By contrast, younger scientists (particularly those receiving Ph.D. since 2000) studying any topic related to climate pretty much have their careers defined by the AGW enterprise. As a percentage, I suspect that a far lower number of 60+ climate scientists are activists (and are more ‘skeptical’), relative to a large percentage of under 50’s (who don’t seem skeptical at all). Somebody outa do a survey.
Second, politically I’m an independent with libertarian leanings, and I have never been particularly aligned with environmental movement (while I highly value clean air and water and species diversity, the environmental movement seems motivated by other issues). I simply don’t have the soul of an ‘activist.’
Third, since my days as a graduate student I have had an abiding interest in philosophy and the social sciences, particularly as related to science.
Fourth, I care more about whether my publications will stand the test of time and contribute to deep understanding, than I care about the ‘wow’ factor, which I regard as transient and leading to nothing but trouble (e.g. Webster et al. 2005).
Fifth, at this stage of my life I can afford to buck the ‘system.’ 20 years ago, when I had a mortgage payment and college tuition to pay, there is no way I would have put myself out on such a controversial limb. There is only so much personal and professional integrity that you can afford, if your job might be at stake.
So that summarizes my personal journey, over the past 14 years, to fight against my own personal biases. Through Climate Etc. I provide resources that I hope others can use to think about, understand and challenge their own biases. Apparently trying to fight against bias in climate science gets you labeled as a ‘denier’, ‘anti-science,’ ‘serial climate disinformer.’ There seems to be no end to the perversions of ‘motivated’ climate science.
What’s next: If you are a true believer in AGW and the urgent need to act, you will think this is all irrelevant, e.g. settled science, 97% and all that. The bigger problem than motivated bias in individual scientists is when this bias gets institutionalized. The Jussim et al. paper also provides insights into this that are relevant to climate science, which will be the topic of my next post.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There’s one more important dynamic among scientists and it acts to retard progress.
The status of scientists who are sitting at the pinnacle of their fields stand to lose a lot if the theories that put them there are shown to be wrong. It certainly will reinforce your belief that your lifetime of work is correct if being wrong means that you lose your professional standing, and suffer the humiliation that your only contribution to your scientific field was misleading it for a long time.
Those who have ideas that would upset the status quo are often not treated politely. John Yudkin was a leading British nutritionist who showed that sugar and not dietary fat was the problem in our diets. He was professionally destroyed by those who held sway in the scientific community. It’s been almost half a century and only recently have the “self-correcting” mechanisms of science moved us away from false conclusions.
Unfortunately, I don’t see how this is a dynamic that we’ll ever get away from.
Remember when NASA was publicly sporting that Tang and Teflon were great benefits that came from space exploration? We live in a world that often says about science, that is nice, but what good is that to me? And scientists need to load up grant proposals with everything, including the kitchen sink.
‘Research into this laser will lead to particle accelerators for treating cancer’. And after writing that, they will do little side line experiments to demonstrate and publish proof of concept, and lock down any patent claims. But that is all it ever was. A sideline to help justify the funds needed for the real science.
Rarely, a scientist will leave research to attempt to develop such a sideline. Those who don’t, end up trafficking in the sidelines to get the resources needed for research. And with all such claims they must publish that they followed through and demonstrated proof of concept.
Just more Tang and Teflon.
But military research doesn’t need the promised sidelines. All sorts of good things have come out of military research that we use every day. Existential fear works wonders to get funds. It even helped generate funds for non-military science. Like building colliders and racing to the moon.
Other scientists have learned this lesson too. So many diseases are hyped as catastrophes. And of course environmentalism is built on catastrophe. Save the Planet. The Ohio river really did catch fire, but not all catastrophes have been real. Despite what Carson said, the robins were not disappearing.
All the above opens up yet more avenues for bias. What do we need to do to get funds? And once funding systems are established, entire communities are reliant on this continuing. Will we publish the truth if it may threaten the community?
As we look back at climate gate, there was blatant fraud and abuse. Yet inquiries served to whitewash and permit continuation. But beyond the blatant bias there will be biases hidden within. Who will suggest a topic if it is likely to be turned down? Who will publish a result that may get them blacklisted or even fired? There are so many ways one can be quietly put out.
And then you see that your fears are real. They are actively working to destroy any who contradict or challenge their claims.
This is the type of bias and self censoring that all of us suffer. Can I say that, or will it sick HR on me? If I tweet that, will it come back to bite me?
The topic of mastering one’s biases is very broad and very deep. We are all human, thus we are all have biases. Hidden and overt. Conscious and subconscious. Influenced, and influencing. Including scientists.
But the malicious behaviors evidenced by climate gate, and those that have happened since, show a complete abandonment of science in an attempt to abuse it to control people and governments. Big difference.
I’ve always been interested in Dr. Curry. I admire much of the research she has done. We need people within scientific fields to assess uncertainty and discuss things like bias and cognitive errors.
However, I think it’s important to point out that biases, cognitive errors, political partisanship, etc. can affect any side of a scientific debate. It would itself be a bias to suppose that only one side or another suffers from such issues.
There is also an important difference between climate science and the social sciences: in the former case, there are 1000s of scientists all over the world acting independently as well as in cooperation to collect and analyze climate data, build models, do attribution studies, etc., all focused on the topic of climate change and its various interconnected facets. There is no comparable effort in the social sciences. In addition, the social sciences are plagued by the problem that they research humans, which itself has all kinds of methodological issues to contend with. It is also known to be hugely dominated by liberal academics; has anybody seen data supporting the same within climate science, on a global scale? It is not news that the social sciences have had trouble with improperly executed and published science, but I have not seen any data that justifies extending that assertion to the field of climate science. If anyone can provide such data, please do. (Of course, there will always be poorly done research in every field, and climate science is no exception, on either “side” of the debate).
Compared to the number of scientists working on AGW, it doesn’t seem to me that there are an extraordinary number of scientist activists out there on the “pro-AGW policy” side, while it seems to me that there is quite a large proportion of climate scientists who are vocal about their opposition to policies to mitigate climate change relative to the number who lean this way. This is just an observation based on no hard data, but it brings me back to my original point: bias can happen no matter where one stands on the issue. Dr. Curry’s awareness of bias may help her avoid it in her own work, but I wonder whether she might have biases relating to her view of climate science as a field; it would be understandable after her experiences. (I make no accusations, I’m only speculating.)
I have to admit that although I respect Dr. Curry as a scientist, I’m biased against her activism. This happened after reading her congressional testimony discussing cognitive errors potentially common in climate science. While she made no specific accusations and provided no data, the clear implication was that the field was rife with such errors – at least among those who think AGW is a significant problem. Such rhetoric without supporting evidence is liable to cause/increase bias among those disposed to it.
(To me it’s significant that “climate gate” and the players involved come up again and again when this kind of thing is discussed. One would think that if the field were rife with problems, there would be plenty of other scandals to talk about by now apart from the ubiquitous conspiracy theories and unsupported accusations. Interpretation of the climategate emails is itself a minefield for bias, e.g., were Mann et al. trying to expose systemic problems in editing and publication by particular journals, or were they trying to silence opposition? Is there good reason to assume bias in any investigation into the affair that found no scientific misconduct, even when they pointed out lack of professionalism and poor data handling?)
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I have to say, it is an ‘interesting’ state of affairs when raising concerns about cognitive errors in scientific research is ‘activism.’
People have accused me of activism. My so-called activism is pretty passive; I provide my opinion and analysis of something if requested (such as congressional testimony). I am not signing petitions, participating in marches, lobbying or advocating for specific policies. In fact my only ‘advocacy’ has been related to promoting ethics and integrity in scientific research.
The state of affairs in climate science is such that any discussion of nuance and uncertainty prompts the epithet of ‘denier.’
Thank you for your work.
Dr. Curry,
I hesitated to use the word “activism,” and nearly added in parentheses, “broadly speaking.”
You provide more than opinions “if requested.” You have your own blog. If one’s blog is anything but completely balanced or completely factual, it can be a form of grassroots activism.
It seems to me that in the process of promoting ethics and integrity in science, you also convince people that it is lacking. When you apply criticisms of social science to call into question the integrity of climate science, it implies a lack of integrity. Have you demonstrated that the criticisms are similarly justified? Showing bias in the media, in the IPCC reports, in politicians’ and activists’ rhetoric is not enough. Climategate and the comments of individual scientists are not enough. Only evidence of systemic or widespread bias that affects the quality of the research would suffice. Promoting integrity in science is a laudable goal, but a blog, WUWT and congressional hearings aren’t appropriate venues.
“The state of affairs in climate science is such that any discussion of nuance and uncertainty prompts the epithet of ‘denier.’”
This is a sweeping generalization. As a scientist, you should know to be logical in your statements: “The state of affairs in climate science is such that discussion of nuance and uncertainty often prompts the epithet of ‘denier.’” Plenty of people use the term “skeptic” or “contrarian”; making statements like yours can actually promote bias.
Every participant in this debate is a victim of prejudice. The insults casually thrown around on this site can be downright vile. I got sick of it, and sick of the endless unfounded assertions about the science, scientists, and those who believe something should be done to mitigate AGW. “Denier” doesn’t sound so bad next to “Marxist totalitarian enviro-freaks.”
@Kristi Silber
But is there an important difference between climate science and (failed) nutrition science? The latter is as focused as the former.
But climatology has even worse methodological issues to contend with, because it isn’t lab science and must often grapple with trying to measure something enormous (hard to “grasp”) and/or hard-to-measure (e.g., clouds, sea ice coverage) or impossible to measure (interactions) or difficult to tease out from noise, etc., etc. Plus something that may be “chaotic” and thus may not be really understandable for centuries.
It’s odd—or is it?—that no surveys of climatologists’ political leanings have been conducted—or, if they were, published, AFAIK. More interesting to know would be their commitment to the ecological, or green, movement. I suspect that it is high and is the basic motive behind warmism, not leftist politics. Here’s something I posted elsewhere a month or two ago:
Resume Kristi Silber:
But the warmist rank-and-file can afford to be laid back, because their side: 1) is winning; 2) has professional PR-specialists and communications experts promoting its message to the media; 3) has the media and most politicians on its side; 4) has large numbers, so “let George do it” thinking takes over; 5) has 100 times the money (from green NGOs and foundations, plus government. grants); 6) is “settled science” and needs no advocacy; 7) etc.
Contrarians can’t be similarly complacent. Thus the “large proportion of [contrarian] climate scientists who are vocal about their opposition to policies to mitigate climate change.” It may also be that their focus on this aspect of the debate (i.e., mitigation rather than attribution) stems from mitigation being: 1) the weakest aspect of the warmist case; 2) the easiest for the public to understand; 3) the easiest to arouse the public about (lost jobs and higher taxes)—all pain for no gain, IOW. Another reason may be that the higher proportion of engineers relative to scientists in contrarian ranks finds the engineering-oriented aspect of the debate more congenial to engage in.
Here’s an interesting take on bias:
https://phys.org/news/2019-06-decline-growth.html
” If you are a true believer in AGW and the urgent need to act, you will think this is all irrelevant, e.g. settled science, 97% and all that. ”
This is an unfounded, biased assertion. Sounds like propagandist rhetoric. And speaking for myself, it’s wrong. Ironic end to an article about bias.
“As a percentage, I suspect that a far lower number of 60+ climate scientists are activists (and are more ‘skeptical’), relative to a large percentage of under 50’s (who don’t seem skeptical at all). Somebody outa do a survey.”
Scientific skepticism does not necessarily lead to a rejection of the need to mitigate against AGW – one can be a skeptic and decide that the weight of the evidence lies with either side of the issue. But assuming that “skeptics” means those who are unconvinced by the evidence of AGW, and that number of publications about climate science correlates roughly with age, there is at least one study that does not support Curry’s hypothesis: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/107/27/12107.full.pdf – here, though, number of publications is associated with level of expertise in the subject. I recognize, though, that regarding either expertise or age, number of publications is a dubious proxy. William Happer, for example, has relatively few publications about climate change, he’s pretty old, and some regard him as an expert. Whether that’s merited is another question.
J. Curry: ”If you are a true believer in AGW and the urgent need to act, you will think this is all irrelevant, e.g. settled science, 97% and all that. ”
Kristi Silber: “This is an unfounded, biased assertion. Sounds like propagandist rhetoric. And speaking for myself, it’s wrong.”
“True believer” connotes a fanatic/extremist, as described in Eric Hoffer’s book of that title.
Thanks, Roger. I didn’t know.
Part of Hoffer’s definition of “true believer” is “the man of fanatical faith who is ready to sacrifice his life for the holy cause.” I’d be surprised if this applies to many who accept the evidence for AGW and believe there’s an urgent need to act, at least compared to some of the mass movements he discusses, such as Communism and Nationalism .
Dr. Curry, thanks for your ongoing efforts to bring attention to the questionable science being done on how our climate operates.
I’ve followed your interest evolution since you began to wonder about climate science. Climate science is an extreme example of Kuhn meets Eisenhower and then caricatured by Oliphant. It’s beyond bizarre.
Keep working to help people who want to understand what they can believe about climate science to understand the limits of knowledge in this field of research.
Those who say “we can’t take a risk that CO2 may be harmless to our environment” need to understand the economic consequences of taking that stance (albeit, sadly, many actually want those consequences) and that there are better approaches instead of wind/ solar (viz., nuclear).
Sigh. So many are so hoodwinked. I only hope I live long enough to see this chapter in science fully debunked and held up as the uber-example of how smart people can be so wrong.
When I was a graduate student (eons ago) in an Econometrics course my Professor (who had been teaching the course since the Punic Wars) started the course by stating “All models are wrong, but some may be useful.” I have never forgotten that pearl of wisdom. I always temper the dire warnings of doom from the IPCC or my new Freshman about the coming end of life as we know it with that insight from my old Professor. I also recall growing up in Montana and my summers in Glacier National Park. I have picture of a 3 year old version of me on the Grinnell Glacier some 150 feet further away from where it is today and I laughed so hard at the National Park Service removing the sign about how the Glacier would be gone by 2020 (https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/07/national-park-glacier-warnings/). On my Faculty Office door I have a picture of the Forest Service sign in Montana that marks the National Continental Cold Spot by Rogers Pass in Montana (-70 degrees F) and when my Freshman student invoke the fear of Global Warming, I ask them if -68 F will be survivable? Dr. Curry’s comments are a breath of fresh air! Yes I am now 66 and have been in the college classroom for almost 40 years and as a tenured full professor in another discipline I do not worry about these exact issues-but I share a deep sense of empathy & sympathy as I have seen the erosion of campus free speech & collegiality! I recall a time when even if we disagreed we did it in a manner that was much more respectful and decent. I fear that time has gone forever! Dr. Curry keep up the great work!
There still seems a delusion in the blogosphere that scientists are dispassionate saintly people who serve God and humanity rather better than the Pope.
Here are a few examples of things showing that scientists are unprincipled, over verging on criminal:
1. HEIs carrying out unconsented electronic surveillance on those interacting with the organisation.
Without need for any discussion, any Professor engaged in such criminality should be immediately defrocked, their pension should be confiscated and handed over to those they were illegally spying on and their behaviour should top of the outrage news for at least a month.
Problem is, they take their orders from the Dean/VC and many HEIs are in bed with CIA/MI5+6 etc. Just ask Stanford, Oxbridge and Yale about all that…
So ask next time directly: ‘Are you engaged in surveillance activities and where is my signed consent for you doing that?’
2. Try using logical and realistic arguments to justify not continuing to fund a non-performing patent and see how quickly political threats come your way. You have evaluated a situation commercially and recommended that discontinuation be approved. The ego of the academic is more important than the P+L account of the IP department.
This is always worse when those in bed with the security services are those being challenged.
3. Science is not a forum for free flowing debate, it is an environment for sycophantic admiration and courting of powermongers.
One reason why correction does not occur is because juniors raising doubts get sidelined by egotistical seniors. The poor juniors could only get to that stage by having made a commitment not so easy to back out of, you will never know as an undergrad, because undergraduate science is storytelling, not research life.
4. What makes a great pioneer does not necessarily make a great evaluator.
Hypercompetitiveness usually does not cosegregate with dispassionate evaluation, but promotion is through hypercompetitive success, so the powermongers may have to learn self-evaluation many years later than the rest of us.
It takes great patience to have to tolerate someone on five times your salary needing basic lessons about which you were competent aged 23…..
One of the interesting realities of the UK Brexit debate is that apparently the EU is the sole saviour of science.
What the scientists actually mean is that they have got used to FP funding streams and are too lazy to reinvent themselves with alternative sources.
I mean: particle physicists work at CERN, which is not in the EU. They might toddle off to Fermilab, which happens to be Stateside. Somehow they get funded….
How on earth does Russia manage?
But all the rest of us get told we are idiots because scientists think they are all Remainers and they are all superior.
Having worked with scientists outside their academic comfort zones, that last contention has a considerable body of counter-evidence stacked up….