Judith Curry abandons the science ship

[metzomagic]

Folks, hi,

Many of you may not be aware that Judith Curry has her own blog now. In her latest post:

Heresy and the creation of monsters

She says quite a few things that are going to probably burn any bridges she might have left between herself and her erstwhile colleagues in the climatology community. For instance:

A note to my critics in the climate science community

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 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.

(sorry about the long quote. But I didn't want to take a smaller part out of context)

She's accusing other scientists of being too political? The hypocrisy of that stance is truly amazing. What are scientists supposed to do when their lifes' work is under vicious attack by conservative wing-nuts with an overt ideological agenda? The last sentence alone is just unbelievable. It's like creationists accusing evolutionary biologists of belonging to the 'religion' of science.

Of course, on sites like WUWT the echo chamber is just lapping this up.

 

[PixyMisa]

She's accusing other scientists of being too political? The hypocrisy of that stance is truly amazing. What are scientists supposed to do when their lifes' work is under vicious attack by conservative wing-nuts with an overt ideological agenda?

What they're supposed to do is science.

I think Curry's point and her post are entirely reasonable, and your characterisation is grossly inaccurate.

 

[metzomagic]

What they're supposed to do is science.

I think Curry's point and her post are entirely reasonable, and your characterisation is grossly inaccurate.

What they *are* doing is science. It's just that some people don't like the results because it conflicts with their ideology.

I can't believe no one else has an opinion on this.

 

[PixyMisa]

What they *are* doing is science. It's just that some people don't like the results because it conflicts with their ideology.

Yes. Well, it's more complicated than that, but that statement is not untrue.

But the appropriate response is to do more science.

I can't believe no one else has an opinion on this.

I admit a certain surprise there myself.

 

[BenBurch]

What they *are* doing is science. It's just that some people don't like the results because it conflicts with their ideology.

I can't believe no one else has an opinion on this.

I didn't express my opinion because I think it obvious; She is very dishonest, and doing the opposite of seeking truth.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Never heard of the lady- but I see little in that quote to complain of.

 

[PixyMisa]

I didn't express my opinion because I think it obvious; She is very dishonest, and doing the opposite of seeking truth.

What, exactly, did she say that was dishonest? I read the quoted section and then the entire original post, and don't really find anything I disagree with.

She's certainly not "abandoning the science ship". She's pointing out that climate science has a PR problem, and that it's partly self-inflicted.

It does, and in my opinion, it was. So, what's the problem?

 

[metzomagic]

Never heard of the lady- but I see little in that quote to complain of.

I thought more people would be up on who Judith Curry was. Until recently, she was a highly respected climatologist with a lot of peer-reviewed papers to her credit. But lately she's been endorsing the likes of Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion and hanging out over at places like Climate Audit. She doesn't seem to see anything wrong with the way people cherry-picked the Climategate e-mails. There was a thread over at realclimate.org a few months ago where the scientists were flabbergasted by the things she was saying.

She also seems to have unilaterally chosen a role as a mediator between climate science and anti-science, but she's gone a little too far with the devil's advocate bit if you ask me. Basically, if you don't see anything wrong with those three paragraphs I excerpted from the blog post, then that pretty much pegs you as an AGW denier. You will, of course, disagree.

 

[PixyMisa]

I thought more people would be up on who Judith Curry was. Until recently, she was a highly respected climatologist with a lot of peer-reviewed papers to her credit. But lately she's been endorsing the likes of Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion and hanging out over at places like Climate Audit. She doesn't seem to see anything wrong with the way people cherry-picked the Climategate e-mails. There was a thread over at realclimate.org a few months ago where the scientists were flabbergasted by the things she was saying.

Such as?

She also seems to have unilaterally chosen a role as a mediator between climate science and anti-science, but she's gone a little too far with the devil's advocate bit if you ask me. Basically, if you don't see anything wrong with those three paragraphs I excerpted from the blog post, then that pretty much pegs you as an AGW denier. You will, of course, disagree.

You do realise that you are precisely representing one of the major problems she's talking about?

And since I don't deny AGW, the fact that I don't see anything wrong with what she said can't make me an AGW denier. Therefore, you are talking rubbish.

 

[metzomagic]

She's certainly not "abandoning the science ship". She's pointing out that climate science has a PR problem, and that it's partly self-inflicted.

Judith said:

This means abandoning this religious adherence to consensus dogma.

There is a consensus for a very good reason. All the evidence points to the fact that we are recently undergoing a period of rapid, unprecedented warming, and that mankind is a primary cause of it. To accuse scientists of being 'religious' is not something you expect a fellow scientist to do.

The PR problem, by the way, is largely and very intentionally caused by people with a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry. The FUD they are sowing is working, unfortunately.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I thought more people would be up on who Judith Curry was. Until recently, she was a highly respected climatologist with a lot of peer-reviewed papers to her credit.

And suddenly she's not? Where did those papers go? Surely not up in smoke?

She also seems to have unilaterally chosen a role as a mediator between climate science and anti-science, but she's gone a little too far with the devil's advocate bit if you ask me. Basically, if you don't see anything wrong with those three paragraphs I excerpted from the blog post, then that pretty much pegs you as an AGW denier. You will, of course, disagree.

I'd refer you to forum policy on AGW threads. I fear I can see no logical justification for the highlighted comment.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5973697#post5973697

 

[metzomagic]

And suddenly she's not? Where did those papers go? Surely not up in smoke?
I'd refer you to forum policy on AGW threads. I fear I can see no logical justification for the highlighted comment.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5973697#post5973697

OK then, I'll just re-phrase it as a question. Do you:

1. Agree that the Earth is undergoing a period of sudden warming that is unprecedented in the last 1000 years?

2. Agree that mankind is a primary cause of this warming due to the release of CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Just to say I've only "heard" of Curry once (something like "Judith Curry said -yes, that Judith Curry- <something neither good nor bad>") so I don't have an opinion about her, nor I think I'll have in the future.

That kind of debate looks too "United States" to me, so a foreign thing or affecting only a subset of global culture. I only perceive a certain activity from individual scientists or people related to scientific activities involving complains or even tantrums that are celebrated and spread by specific media, all within the regional scope I mentioned.

Should I care about Dr.(I presume) Curry?

 

[PixyMisa]

Judith said:

This means abandoning this religious adherence to consensus dogma.

And?

 

[PixyMisa]

OK then, I'll just re-phrase it as a question. Do you:

1. Agree that the Earth is undergoing a period of sudden warming that is unprecedented in the last 1000 years?

Yes.

2. Agree that mankind is a primary cause of this warming due to the release of CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels?

Yes.

And I think that Judith Curry's post is well-reasoned and that it's important that AGW activists listen to her rather than burning the heretic.

 

[CapelDodger]

And suddenly she's not? Where did those papers go? Surely not up in smoke?

Not at all. What's strange is that the people she's associating with now dismiss her work as "voodoo science".

Dr Curry has picked up on denialist psycho-babble such as "tribalism" to replace "consensus". Suffice to say she thinks the Wegman Report had something important to say, and that Steve McIntyre is a force for good in the world of Science.

Dr Curry has gone emeritus. And gone from a minor player in climate science to a major figure in the blogosphere. Go figure.

 

[CapelDodger]

And I think that Judith Curry's post is well-reasoned and that it's important that AGW activists listen to her rather than burning the heretic.

"AGW activists"? "Heretic"?

I'm not surprised you find "... this religious adherence to consensus dogma ..." unobjectionable. That "dogma" is the science.

 

[CapelDodger]

She's certainly not "abandoning the science ship". She's pointing out that climate science has a PR problem, and that it's partly self-inflicted.

What Dr Curry isn't noticing is that on one side are people whose only job is PR, and who lack no funds or platforms for engaging their professional skills. On the other are scientists, who never signed up for this kind of thing. It's as "self-inflicted" as what the Celts got from the Roman Army.

Meanwhile, reality and the science go on regardless of the PR battle.

 

[PixyMisa]

"AGW activists"? "Heretic"?

I'm not surprised you find "... this religious adherence to consensus dogma ..." unobjectionable. That "dogma" is the science.

No, no it's not. That's the point she's making. There's the science, and there's the dogma, and they are not the same thing.

What Dr Curry isn't noticing is that on one side are people whose only job is PR, and who lack no funds or platforms for engaging their professional skills.

But that's not true, and that is another of her points. At best you're making a hasty generalisation - a logical fallacy. Doesn't get you anywhere.

On the other are scientists, who never signed up for this kind of thing.

Like it or not, they're signed up for it now.

Meanwhile, reality and the science go on regardless of the PR battle.

The PR battle is real, and you have to deal with it.

 

[plumjam]

I favour Curry.