Judy Curry of Georgia Tech (and formerly a colleague here at Colorado, where she was instrumental in setting up our Environmental Studies Graduate Program) is finding her voice on the politicization of climate science, and has some really smart things to say in an interview in the National Journal. I encourage you to read the whole thing, but here are a few key passages:NJ: What can the science community do to strengthen public confidence in dispassionate science?Curry: We need climate glasnost: openness, transparency, and freedom of information. Scientists who engage in advocacy activities generate lack of confidence in their science, both from within the scientific community and from the public. The public should expect accountability from our major institutions, particularly the IPCC.NJ: Is the outside scrutiny from the skeptics making the science stronger?
Curry: Scrutiny from scientific skeptics makes the science stronger, either by identifying problems that can be addressed or by increasing confidence when problems and errors are not found. Scrutiny from [politically motivated] contrarians and deniers and the noise generated by such people do distract scientists from their real work... The scientists involved in the CRU emails are dismissing certain people as skeptics, assuming that they all have political motivations. Well, the motivation of the skeptic isn't really the point. The point is whether or not they have a valid argument.NJ: What's the role for the IPCC?
Curry: I staunchly support the IPCC, but when [chairman] Rajendra Pachauri comes out making all these really strong policy statements, such as the developed world has to cut back its energy use... and stop putting ice cubes in their water, and other crazy stuff... I don't like that. These guys should pick people who don't want to be advocates and will shut their mouths about advocating for policies. Otherwise, we don't look credible.NJ: Have you heard from the science societies?
Curry: We need to hear from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academies what they think of this. These are the two institutions that should be the watchdog on all this.
This is a black eye on our whole field. We have to defend our field, and show the broader scientific field -- the biologists, physicists and chemists -- that this is real science, not political science. What a lot of them are thinking... [is that] this is a politically tainted field.
17 comments:
Roger,
Lot of scientists weighing in. Lot of heat. Not much light.
You might want to link to the defenses that Santer and Mann have mounted. Really funny. Sad, too. And Romm decided that he needs to correct Hulme about the science.
I generally agree with what Dr. Curry says and applaud her greatly for taking a stand. I especially agree with the need for AAAS and NAS to weigh in.
However, she did say:
"Scientists have no idea how to react to all the criticism being made about their science by advocacy groups, talk radio, etc. Their reaction to criticism coming from right-wing partisans typically makes the scientists appear to be left-wing partisans. So what we are really seeing is the polarizing effect of the advocacy groups and the mainstream media, in forcing apparent partisanship of the scientists. "
I would argue that no one is forcing the scientists- no talk radio- no advocacy group is causing the scientists to misbehave.
To quote Kipling "If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you, if you can trust yourself when all men doubt you and make allowance for their doubting too..". These are fundamental problems of character submerged in tribalism, not caused by others, in my view.
I nominate Dr. Curry to replace Pachauri.
Kudos to Judith for doing this. It's unfortunate that more within the climate science community aren't stepping up to support her. From my thus-far limited experience within that community, though, it also doesn't come as a huge surprise.
I disapprove strongly of the word 'denier' to decribe skeptics whether they are scientifically or politically motivated. To suggest that climate skeptics are akin to holocaust deniers is simply outrageous.
Until Judy Curry learns to moderate her language she is no better than people like Joe Romm and George Monbiot. At the moment Rajendra Pachauri looks postively intellectual in comparison with his "ice cubes" comment.
Prof Curry's piece is astute. She makes her points clearly and concisely. The one area that I think she oversimplifies is the role of scientists in policy formulation around issues related to their field. Scientists have to be involved. It is the nature of their involvement and the separability of their policy views from their other political viewpoints. For example, what role should a food scientist who is a vegetarian have in formulating food poilicy? My response is that it depends on the extent to which their vegetarianism reliable predicts their stance on food policy. Similarly for climate scientists. If their positions on population control, economic development and nuclear power are tightly coupled with their personal beliefs then they make lousy policy scientists. Science and policy advising are necessary. Science, advocacy and policy advising spell danger for science and the scientists who practice it.
Curry has been generally excellent on this, with one caveat: whether the motivations are political or "purely scientific" doesn't much matter; if the data were available and the processes transparent, the debate could be held openly.
Then there's the issue that disputing the dominant paradigm is taken as defining that one is "right wing."
It's really just another ad hominem by circumstance.
Malcolm, I agree with on re "denier". That goes right along with the people who have advocated "war crimes trials" and worse for those who criticize CO2-forced AGW.
"We need to hear from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academies what they think of this."
Isn't it true that every major science collective body in the world grovelled in response to the great funding god's demand to support global warming ?
The kindest analysis of the IPCC would be that those involved were too stupid to notice they were being manipulated (by consensus psychology) . More likely, their ambition blinded them. It is clearly a campaigning organisation like Hansen/Realclimate.
The IPCC and the Delphi method. Includes outdated link to Roger Piekle Junior's opinion on the range of perspectives published by the IPCC.
Curry gives textbook Science 101 advice, for which I suppose we should be grateful. It certainly puts her on the side of All Right Thinking People. The problem is that, besides the fact that she's the only one doing it (which speaks volumes for climate science) is that she seems to think - I am inferring here - that if only there had been transparency to begin with, there would be no problem. I think we can reasonable expect an intelligent person like Ms Curry to follow the implications of her own logic: if someone has been hiding something, they probably have something to hide. You don't need a Ph.D to understand this concept.
I understand commenters' saying that Curry didn't go far enough.
But, she used the word "glasnost" and she "called out" Rajendra Pachauri and his fevered rant.
Curry was much stronger that Hulme and I was impressed with that.
n, fair point.
-5-Malcolm is spot on.
Nobody who uses the term "denier" (thereby directly and deliberately equating us with Holocaust deniers) should be given any more credence than one who uses "The N Word".
SHAME ON JUDY!
that if only there had been transparency to begin with, there would be no problem. I think we can reasonable expect an intelligent person like Ms Curry to follow the implications of her own logic:
Judy could still be right though: If you know things can't be hidden, you might not do things you that you would prefer to keep hidden.
Judith Curry is a breath of fresh air compared to Nature's rabid editorial rant. Will anyone own up to writing the Nature editorial?
If the climate changes were as dramatic and significant as many people claim, why was there a need to manipulate and hide data? Wouldn't it be obvious? If I was as concerned about the supposed climate crisis as many scientists claim to be, I would distribute my results along with the data and analysis methods as widely as possible. And I would vigorously encourage all my fellow scientists to do the same.
I fear it might have bypassed the scientists and the environmentalists anyhow. The politicians are pushing both nuclear power and cap and trade.
The first was rejected worldwide for costing too much - and it still does:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html
And the second, by widespread consent on left and right, favors only the traders on Wall Street and the city of London - the same vampire squids that caused this current financial crisis and were then handsomely rewarded for it.
Thanks guys. That's what you get for playing politics with the pros.
I don't take Curry's comments that seriously. Hindsight is 20/20. Why wasn't she trumpeting her views before ClimateGate and the damn burst? While most of the commenters are commending her I think she is offering too little too late.
Why does she use the term "denier"? Judy, If you expect to be taken seriously stop using the term denier. The only deniers are those that think there is a consensus and ClimateGate is irrelevant.
Post a Comment