Judith Curry abandons the science ship

[CapelDodger]

Since part of the OP addresses scientific concensus and by implication peer review I would just like to comment specifically on that.

The peer review system has come up for heavy criticism in the past on other contentious issues. I find it odd that we have to rely on the words of a few reviewers on any topic covered by science.

The most important peer-review is post-publication.

In the past, information was much harder to get at and review, but now we have computers that can send information across the entire planet in the blink of an eye. Why not make all submissions to scientific journals be posted openly to the public?

Because they might be submitted to other scientific journals if one doesn't accept it for publication. That might not be because it's bad science but because there are limitations on space, or because it needs some more work. Scientists are often grateful for peer review because it prevents them from making mistakes, and improves their final product.

If worst comes to almost worst there's Energy and Enviroment if it has the right message, and at the really worst Anthony Watts will feature it. Again, assuming it has the right message. It won't carry the imprimatur of a respected journal with standards to maintain, but not everybody cares about that.

The technology is there. You can even use technology to "drown out the noise" by using various settings.

Peer-review serves the same purpose rather more intelligently.

From what I understand most scientists now do not read journals in physical form anymore anyways, and yet Universities and other major scientific players still pay incredible sums of money on journal subscriptions.

The sums are perfectly credible, despite postage, and what they get is a serious reduction in "noise". Also no paywalls on the internet for students and faculty.

As for concensus, that should never be a goal of science. At best, concensus should be something that happens organically over time.

Indeed. The goal of science is to get to the truth of the matter, and the consensus (when there is one) is where you start from in the morning. When the consensus proves to have gone up a blind alley that becomes clear and scientists back-track to where things aren't clearly wrong. Some will go even further, but seldom to absolute first-principles.

A good example of this can be found in the accelerating expansion of the Universe. The concensus was that it was decelerating due to gravity, and when results were published (after peer-review) suggesting otherwise considerable doubt was expressed by all concerned. When supporting evidence emerged from different lines of investigation the consenus was abandoned, in very short order. Now there's a consensus on accelerating expansion, but no concensus on what's causing it. Exciting stuff. Like string theory used to be .

 

[Slimething]

But will it be too late to act significantly when the facts have won this 'delaying action' PR war?

I have no idea what you mean by "act significantly" but you're assuming that it's only the likes of deniers and skeptics that keep the masses from whatever you have in mind. I don't agree. Like I said, I'd never heard of this person before regardless of what she was saying before or after. Didn't care then; don't care now. If climatologists want widespread action on the problem, they still bear the burden of persuasion. Don't blame the other side for that failure.

 

[macdoc]

Don't blame the other side for that failure.

When the "other side" is funded by millions upon millions of dollars by the likes of Exxon et al to sow doubt, as the same crowd did with smoking and cancer, you are damn right the blame for in action will fall on their shoulders...

Even the Royal Society stepped in for the first time in its long history and took Exxon to task....

Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial ...

20 Sep 2006 ... Britain's leading scientists have challenged the US oil company ExxonMobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific ..

and this in spite of their own scientists as far back as 1995 calling human impact on climate by way of fossil fuel burning.....undeniable...

Now tell me again where the blame falls for inaction...??

In the courts....that would be and likely will be wilful obstruction of justice - obscuring the truth of a criminal act....

As with the cancer sticks, the companies involved KNEW the impact their product use was having on climate, yet not only did nothing to ameliorate the harm, but actively and aggressively campaigned against those that would force action to reduce carbon emissions on them...

..but do go on being an apologist for them......you can explain to the grand kids why you wilfully ********** up....and how you blamed the scientists who were simply stating....at this point in time especially.....the obvious.

It's getting warmer
We're responsible due to use of fossil carbon
There is time to act to reduce the impact
That time window is rapidly closing

That HAS BEEN the clear message

It's not up to the scientists, it's up to the governments, corporations AND individuals to act on the information.....just as they did successfully with the Montreal Accord...and we all know the damaged well funded obstructive lobbyists can do..and a few venal politicians.

Got your speech to the grandkids prepared........."weulllll uuuuh, errrrrr".....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-_LBXWMCAM

Now one of THE senior climate scientists who voiced the warning as long as 25 years ago goes out and gets arrested for protesting against coal......

Hansen of NASA Arrested in Coal Protest - NYTimes.com

23 Jun 2009 ... James Hansen of NASA gets arrested in effort to stop coal mining.

Just what are you doing about the problem....aside from being an apologist for those that think using the atmosphere as a free sewer is "just fine"??

 

[AlBell]

I'd say the chance of diatribes like that making the situation more to your liking is slim to none.

 

[CapelDodger]

I'd say the chance of diatribes like that making the situation more to your liking is slim to none.

One might hope that the rantings of Monckton, Inhofe and the Tea-Potty deniers would make the situation less to their liking, and it's just possibe that it has. The self-important blatherings of Dr Curry have less influence, but one does wonder whether she'll be summoned soon as an expert witness by the US House of Representatives. Is she readier for the experience than the Tea-Pottiers? We may get a chance to find out.

Dr Curry as McIntyre's revenge on Monckton for eclipsing him ... if I was writing this narrative that's the way I'd go. Monckton can handle oiks like McIntyre, but women are a mystery to him. (With a little imagination you really can make this stuff up.)

Monckton's no lightweight, though. He might trick her into publicly denying she's a witch.

 

[CapelDodger]

I have no idea what you mean by "act significantly" but you're assuming that it's only the likes of deniers and skeptics that keep the masses from whatever you have in mind. I don't agree. Like I said, I'd never heard of this person before regardless of what she was saying before or after. Didn't care then; don't care now. If climatologists want widespread action on the problem, they still bear the burden of persuasion. Don't blame the other side for that failure.

If people want action on the problem they bear the burden of persuading others. This isn't simply about climatologists, or scientists generally. It isn't their job to persuade anybody other than other scientists of anything. Climate science is moving ahead perfectly well in its own sphere (the "more research is required" policy has had the silver-lining of much more research being funded, especially in the oceans, which have been historically neglected in favour of the Moon) regardless of any PR campaigns.

Scientists provide information, people act on it as they think fit, be they politicans, industrialists, military leaders, or the general public. They might act to suppress or belittle the scientists, thereby stifling unwelcome information, or ignore it, or rationally incorporate it into their behaviour. That's up to them.

 

[sol invictus]

The basic physics of the atmosphere says that increasing greenhouse gasses will increase global temperature averages. Modern computer models confirm this, although with significant model-to-model variability in the size of the effect, and with the caveat that not all the relevant physics is included.

Human activity over the last century or so is adding significant quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere. There is strong evidence for a rapid increase in temperature during the same time period, of approximately the predicted magnitude.

Therefore, there is strong evidence for AGW, and the burden of proof is squarely on those that deny such an effect exists. Nevertheless there is room for doubt, as always in science. One cannot be certain AGW is happening, or if it is, how significant a contributor it is to temperature increases. The problem in such a strongly politicized environment is that these doubts, when expressed, are immediately seized and used as rhetorical weapons. That creates a pressure on the climate science community to hunker down and speak with one voice, a tendency that is antithetical to science and one that probably impedes scientific progress.

In my opinion this is a problem (although perhaps one that itself has been overblown). Unfortunately it's hard to see what to do about it, because in this case it's the intersection of science with public policy and politics that is both the most problematic and the most important.

 

[lomiller]

The peer review system has come up for heavy criticism in the past on other contentious issues. I find it odd that we have to rely on the words of a few reviewers on any topic covered by science. In the past, information was much harder to get at and review, but now we have computers that can send information across the entire planet in the blink of an eye. Why not make all submissions to scientific journals be posted openly to the public? The technology is there. You can even use technology to "drown out the noise" by using various settings..

How well would science work if all scientists simply posted their opinions on the internet and argued it out with everyone else on whatever forum they frequented?
The job of the reviewers is to act as a filter so you don’t need to read though millions of pages of junk to find meaningful papers. It’s not the end all of science it’s the starting point, it’s a necessary but not sufficient condition for science. Bad papers will still get published and the real test of these papers is in the response or lack there-of they receive.
Thus, when we want to have a science discussion we want to start with peer reviewed papers. These are not the end of the discussion except in cases where the other side of the discussion has no peer reviewed papers to point to. Typically this occurs when their arguments are so bad and so lacking in merit that they can’t even get past the initial filter to even be considered.
Sure some people may want to take the time to debunk the near endless stream of ideas that are too weak to make it though this filter, but if you want a productive dialogue that advances the state of human knowledge you won’t get it this way because the steam if woo is and always will be endless. This is even more true today specifically because it’s so easy for anyone with an opinion to post if for mass consumption.

As for concensus, that should never be a goal of science. At best, concensus should be something that happens organically over time.

Science by it’s very nature doesn’t offer proof, consensus is the most it ever gives you. It’s understandable that there are people out there who want more absolute answers, but you won’t find them in the science.
Perhaps you are suggesting that the consensus in this particular area is somehow artificial. This is fairly typical conspiracy theory stuff, and just like the vast majority of such claims it wrong. Understanding of the role of CO2 in the earths climate is the cumulative result of tens of thousands of papers going back more then 100 years.

 

[lomiller]

The problem in such a strongly politicized environment is that these doubts, when expressed, are immediately seized and used as rhetorical weapons. That creates a pressure on the climate science community to hunker down and speak with one voice, a tendency that is antithetical to science and one that probably impedes scientific progress.

I don’t think the climate science community is speaking with one voice on all but the broadest issues. Consider the analogy to intelligent design vs evolution. Scientists studying the fossil record can disagree wildly on just about everything and still speak with one voice regarding Intelligent Design.

Similarly, in climate science there is a political movement that is pushing a set of “facts” so vastly different then what nearly all the working climate scientists believe that they are inevitably united in what they say

 

[AlBell]

I don’t think the climate science community is speaking with one voice on all but the broadest issues. Consider the analogy to intelligent design vs evolution. Scientists studying the fossil record can disagree wildly on just about everything and still speak with one voice regarding Intelligent Design.

Similarly, in climate science there is a political movement that is pushing a set of “facts” so vastly different then what nearly all the working climate scientists believe that they are inevitably united in what they say

Trying to get valid comparisons of "political movement facts" and "working scientist facts" is where the real difficulty lies, and the skepticism, and arguments begin.

Telling skeptics to read the IPCC Reports, or directing them to realclimate.org leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[lomiller]

Trying to get valid comparisons of "political movement facts" and "working scientist facts" is where the real difficulty lies, and the skepticism, and arguments begin.

How is that even remotely difficult? If you want to know the science look at what can be supported by the primary literature.

Telling skeptics to read the IPCC Reports, or directing them to realclimate.org leaves a lot to be desired.

Both cite the primary literature extensively, and it’s easy to confirm the extensive publication record of the contributors at RealClimate. Again, this is pretty simple stuff. When random unpublished internet “experts” dispute what is being said by working scientists who publish extensively in the field and cite primary literature to back up their statements sceptics side with the latter.

 

[AlBell]

If it's so easy, you'd think the comparisons I mentioned would be available; they are not.

 

[lomiller]

If it's so easy, you'd think the comparisons I mentioned would be available; they are not.

The 4th IPCC assessment report is the largest literature review ever conducted. It IS exactly the comparison you are looking for, you not liking it's conclusion doesn't change a thing.

 

[CapelDodger]

Trying to get valid comparisons of "political movement facts" and "working scientist facts" is where the real difficulty lies, and the skepticism, and arguments begin.

There wouldn't be such a problem if the political argument was kept separate from the science. There's plenty of scope for policy differences on how to respond to what the science tells us, but unfortunately the political argument strays into denying the science itself rather too often.

Telling skeptics to read the IPCC Reports, or directing them to realclimate.org leaves a lot to be desired.

Explanation fatigue does set in after a few years .

Events will soon enough make people accept what's confronting them (in general terms) but there'll still be heated argument over what should be done about it.

 

[AlBell]

Following a couple non-answers

Trying to get valid comparisons of "political movement facts" and "working scientist facts" is where the real difficulty lies, and the skepticism, and arguments begin.

Telling skeptics to read the IPCC Reports, or directing them to realclimate.org leaves a lot to be desired.

And the cycle begins anew.

 

[sol invictus]

I don’t think the climate science community is speaking with one voice on all but the broadest issues. Consider the analogy to intelligent design vs evolution. Scientists studying the fossil record can disagree wildly on just about everything and still speak with one voice regarding Intelligent Design.

Yes, but nevertheless the fear that scientific disagreements may be misused by creationists can exert a small but significant damping effect on the discussion. I know that for certain, because I've experienced it myself.

Similarly, in climate science there is a political movement that is pushing a set of “facts” so vastly different then what nearly all the working climate scientists believe that they are inevitably united in what they say

I suspect that the effect is considerably more pronounced in climate science, where the pressure is much greater, than it is in evolutionary biology.

It's really helpful (maybe even essential) to have scientific crackpots, mavericks, iconoclasts - people that dislike consensus and constantly seek to poke holes in it. In fact science by definition is a continual attempt to falsify the dominant model (when one exists). When the field gets poisoned by the level of vitriol and political pressure one has in climate science, it's much harder for that to play out as it should.

 

[sol invictus]

Trying to get valid comparisons of "political movement facts" and "working scientist facts" is where the real difficulty lies, and the skepticism, and arguments begin.

Telling skeptics to read the IPCC Reports, or directing them to realclimate.org leaves a lot to be desired.

The problem isn't so much figuring out what working scientists believe. It's figuring out how much confidence to place in their projections, and from there, what level of resources to devote to avoiding a potential catastrophe.

That's a very, very hard question in any field. It's exacerbated here because there are very strong pressures distorting the debate, pressures that arise because there's a huge amount of money at stake.

 

[CapelDodger]

Trying to get valid comparisons of "political movement facts" and "working scientist facts" is where the real difficulty lies ...

How would you approach the problem of validly comparing these disparate and vague entities?

... and the skepticism, and arguments begin.

The idea that AGW is a hoax is a political movement fact, is it not? Not a scientific fact. A political movement fact doesn't have to be true, it just has to be held to be true and presented as true. The idea that the stolen CRU emails revealed dastardly distortion and deletion of data is a political movement fact, not an actual fact (albeit a "fact" accepted as gospel by Dr Curry). There are many such examples.

How can one validly compare such "facts" and scientific facts? They are grossly different things.

Telling skeptics to read the IPCC Reports, or directing them to realclimate.org leaves a lot to be desired.

So what do sceptics desire?

 

[CapelDodger]

The problem isn't so much figuring out what working scientists believe. It's figuring out how much confidence to place in their projections, and from there, what level of resources to devote to avoiding a potential catastrophe.

That's a very, very hard question in any field. It's exacerbated here because there are very strong pressures distorting the debate, pressures that arise because there's a huge amount of money at stake.

And the "Well, D'uh " award goes to ...

Acid rain, the ozone hole, even tobacco were chicken-feed compared to the fossil-fuel industry and the gadget-gorged car-culture it has spawned. Hence the longevity and intensity of the campaign against climate science, which will only get more hysterical in the near-term.

 

[AlBell]

.

It's really helpful (maybe even essential) to have scientific crackpots, mavericks, iconoclasts - people that dislike consensus and constantly seek to poke holes in it.

And one possible problem is 'who is providing the peer review process'? In climatology, there seems to be a significant effort to ensure papers from scientific crackpots, mavericks, iconoclasts (a group now including Ms Curry) never see publication. Of course I could be wrong in this assessment.

In fact science by definition is a continual attempt to falsify the dominant model (when one exists). When the field gets poisoned by the level of vitriol and political pressure one has in climate science, it's much harder for that to play out as it should.

Not to mention the scramble for 'favorable peer review', publication in the 'right' journals, and funding, which must have some bearing on the field.