Judith Curry abandons the science ship

[AlBell]

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.

An interesting contention; which AGM efforts received and are receiving more funding than, say, An Inconvenient Truth, and various 'favorable' websites, or "the campaign against climate science" some perceive as the problem?

 

[sol invictus]

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.

I suspect you are in fact wrong about that. Generally speaking solid work passes peer review regardless of its conclusions. Science really is as I said - a continual attempt to falsify - so research that succeeds in that is regarded as a great coup rather than as a failure. I don't think climate science is so polluted by external pressures that it has strayed from that basic structure.

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

Yes, but again - research that supports the consensus is never the most interesting or exciting. It's the dream of every good scientist to overturn the status quo and build a new paradigm based on their own work. It just very rarely happens, because there are many other people trying to do the same thing, and so all the obvious cracks have already been peered into and investigated.

 

[Trakar]

Does this mean that the "science ship" is sinking?

Nope, merely Curry's credibility, but that's mostly been shot for the last year. These are merely the feeble, and rather pitiful, echoes of her own misguided sacrifice of integrity for the sake of controversy.

 

[lomiller]

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.

Realclimate has a recent article that tocuhes on that subject

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/11/science-narrative-and-heresy/

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

...... The more people who buy (very willingly) the lies, the more room on the hill for me and my kind of people. And I do love to say "told you so!"

You'll have to leave Cardiff to find a decent hill though - Caerphilly might do you and it's not too far .

I'll be ok on my hill overlooking Neath when it turns from fine estuary town into an expanded Swansea Bay. Still, I've often fancied a place by the sea - I'll have to buy a boat though.

 

[AlBell]

Realclimate has a recent article that tocuhes on that subject

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/11/science-narrative-and-heresy/

Did you say the requisite "amen" after you read that politicized polemic masquerading as a discussion of the scientific method?

 

[lomiller]

Did you say the requisite "amen" after you read that politicized polemic masquerading as a discussion of the scientific method?

So when NASA’s chief climate modeler, a man who has co-authored dozens of papers published in high profile journals like Science and Nature, comments on the state of climate science you equate that with a ranting religious zealot. TBH this says a lot more about you then it does anyone else.

 

[dlorde]

You see no problem with scientific consensus being equated to a religious dogma? The whole point of science is that its consensus is subect to change when evidence points that way, whereas religious dogma cannot change without spawning an entirely new religion.

I read the OP quote as Dr. Curry's opinion that she sees the current consensus as unscientific because it is too dogmatically adhered to, and she feels science should be less dogmatic.

That seemed like a reasonable opinion. It might be wrong, but if you feel the consensus is too dogmatic and that science shouldn't be too dogmatic, it's reasonable.

 

[lomiller]

I read the OP quote as Dr. Curry's opinion that she sees the current consensus as unscientific because it is too dogmatically adhered to, and she feels science should be less dogmatic.

That seemed like a reasonable opinion. It might be wrong, but if you feel the consensus is too dogmatic and that science shouldn't be too dogmatic, it's reasonable.

Maybe it sounds nice out of context, but the devil is in the details. For example is the current consensus on evolution “to dogmatic” and should biologists “actively pursue other alternatives like Intelligent Design”? If Curry has some ideas that run counter to mainstream climatology why doesn’t she publish them? I guess you could claim that she can’t get them though the peer review process but every woo claims they have great ideas they just can’t get past mainstream peer review, it’s not good company to be in.

The reality is that good science will get published and impact the views of that’s scientists peers. If you disagree with the mainstream consensus the thing to do is publish. Complaining on the internet without publishing normally tells us the person does not have any substantives enough to have any impact on the consensus

 

[metzomagic]

I read the OP quote as Dr. Curry's opinion that she sees the current consensus as unscientific because it is too dogmatically adhered to, and she feels science should be less dogmatic.

Think carefully about what you just wrote there.

There is roughly a 97% consensus (that the Earth is undergoing a period of unprecedented rapid warming, and mankind is the primary cause) among practicing climatologists for a very good reason. They understand what the science is telling us. Meanwhile, the 'skeptics' are hopping up and down and claiming that there is no consensus among the climatologists (because the 'skeptics' say so).

So, let me get this straight: you want the climatologists to *deny* there is a consensus, when in fact there actually is one? The 'skeptics' would have a field day with that! Trying to get scientists to agree on something is like herding cats to begin with.

The scientists are trying to do science, you see. But unfortunately there's these pesky ideologues out there (Inhofe, Cuccinelli, et. al.) trying to take them to court for *fraud* just for doing their job as scientists. A bit of 'circling the wagons' on the part of the scientists is to be expected in this case, don't you think?

 

[macdoc]

+1 on both posts and yes dlorde you ARE wrong.

Even the fossil companies own scientists could have told you that 15 years ago.

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate

By ANDREW C. REVKINPublished: April 23, 2009

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=2

Even this was 5 years ago....

Here is what Gammon had to say concerning links between humans and climate change.
This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where there is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”

In case there is any doubt, Gammon went on:
This is not the balance-of-evidence argument for a civil lawsuit; this is the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt We’ve been there for a long time and I think the media has really not presented that to the public.”

Dr. Richard H. Gammon
Professor of Chemistry and Oceanography*
Adjunct Professor Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington

You are playing the same game IDers want....controversy for it's own sake to further their agenda...

Move on

It's getting warmer
We're responsible
We have to make some decisions about that reality

 

[AlBell]

Did you read what Curry had to say in the OP link?

Your response just drives home her basic point.

 

[macdoc]

Yes I read what Curry had to say and your unsupported nonsense just drives home our ( and even her friends ) point.

She's wrong....period..so are you.
Get over it.
She should know better.....I have no idea what your excuse is beyond ideology..

All we hear from you is unsupported flyby sound bites....worthless..... as is her attempt to stir up controversy where there is none..nothing new there

Manufactroversy

A manufactured controversy that is motivated by profit or extreme ideology to intentionally create public confusion about an issue that is not in dispute. ...

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/04/manufactroversy/

 

[AlBell]

Most posts in this thread don't have much left in their 'science ship' either.

Nothing like a good personal attack though.

 

[Trakar]

Most posts in this thread don't have much left in their 'science ship' either.

Nothing like a good personal attack though.

Confessions are always appreciated, but really aren't necessary, your MO is obvious.

 

[AlBell]

My MO? I'm just glad I'm not Judith Curry listening to the vituperation her "peers" must be dishing out.

 

[dlorde]

Think carefully about what you just wrote there.

I did.

So, let me get this straight: you want the climatologists to *deny* there is a consensus, when in fact there actually is one?

No, where did I ever say anything remotely like that? I was simply explaining what I read as the view Dr Curry was expressing in the quote in the OP.

A bit of 'circling the wagons' on the part of the scientists is to be expected in this case, don't you think?

Quite possibly - I'm not really that interested in the squabbles between the various factions.

For the record, my view is that the science is clearly beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[dlorde]

Maybe it sounds nice out of context

I don't know about 'nice', but if the OP presented it out of context, perhaps in future some indication of the context should be provided.

 

[dlorde]

+1 on both posts and yes dlorde you ARE wrong.

About what?

If you refer to my interpretation of the OP quote, I'm happy to accept I may have misinterpreted it - because, as I have since been told, it was presented out of context. I interpreted it as given.

Even the fossil companies own scientists could have told you that 15 years ago.

Could have told me what? That I would misinterpret a quote 15 years in their future? Get a grip.

You are playing the same game IDers want....controversy for it's own sake to further their agenda...

I'm not playing any game, nor am I interested in creating or stirring up controversy. For some reason, you seem to have read a whole bunch of AGW nonsense into my simple response to the OP. A quote was posted, we were asked what we thought of it, and I gave my opinion of the reasoning in the quote.

Grabbing the wrong end of the stick with both hands seems a considerable understatement...

ETA: clarification

 

[lomiller]

I don't know about 'nice', but if the OP presented it out of context, perhaps in future some indication of the context should be provided.

You seem to have missed my point. You said that you agree with Curry and that “consensus is to dogmatic”, but when sceptics look at other fields in science not only do they accept consensus as being dogmatic they demand it.

It would be absurd to suggest the consensus on Evolution is to dogmatic and scientists should be more willing to work with proponents of ID, it would be equally absurd to suggest the people who say an airplane crashing into the WTC is what caused it to collapse are being too dogmatic.

What Curry is saying is fundamentally the same as A Biologist arguing that sticking to the science of evolution is getting them nowhere and they should be less dogmatic about it and more willing to work with the proponents of Intelligent Design. In this analogy, she is arguing that the fact they are being harassed means that science need to cave in and work on the basis that Intelligent Design is a legitimate alternative that needs to be addressed. This is utterly and completely backwards.