Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Judith Curry posted
regarding rebuilding the lost trust we used to have in climate science and climate scientists. This is my response to her post, an expansion and revision of what I wrote in the comments on that thread.
First, be clear that I admire Judith Curry greatly. She is one of the very, very few mainstream climate scientists brave enough to enter into a public dialogue about these issues. I salute her for her willingness to put her views on public display, and for tackling this difficult issue.
As is often my wont in trying to understand a long and complex dissertation, I first made my own digest of what Judith said. To do so, I condensed each of her paragraphs into one or a few sentences. Here is that digest:
Digest of Judith Curry’s Post: On the Credibility of Climate Research, Part II: Towards Rebuilding Trust
1 I am trying an experiment by posting on various blogs
2 Losing the Public’s Trust
2.1 Climategate has broadened to become a crisis of trust in climate science in general.
2.2 Credibility is a combination of expertise and trust. Trust in the IPCC is faltering.
2.3 The scientists in the CRU emails blame their actions on “malicious interference”.
2.4 Institutions like the IPCC need to ask how they enabled this situation.
2.5 Core research values have been compromised by warring against the skeptics.
2.6 Climategate won’t go away until all this is resolved.
3 The Changing Nature of Skepticism about Global Warming
3.1 Skepticism has changed over time.
3.2 First it was a minor war between advocacy groups. Then, a “monolithic climate denial machine” was born. This was funded by the oil industry.
3.3 Because of the IPCC reports, funding for contrary views died up. It was replaced by climate auditors. The “climate change establishment” didn’t understand this and kept blaming the “denial machine”.
4 Climate Auditors and the Blogosphere.
4.1 Steve McIntyre’s auditing became popular and led to blogs like WUWT.
4.2 Auditors are independent, technically educated people mostly outside of academia. They mostly audit rather than write scientific papers.
4.3 The FOIA requests were motivated by people concerned about having the same people who created the dataset using the dataset in their models.
4.4 The mainstream climate researchers don’t like the auditors because Steve McIntyre is their arch-nemesis, so they tried to prevent auditors publishing in the journals. [gotta confess I couldn’t follow the logic in this paragraph]
4.5 The auditors succeeded in bringing the climate establishment to its knees because people trusted the auditors.
5 Towards Rebuilding Trust
5.1 Ralph Cicerone says that two aspects need attention, the general practice of science and the personal behaviours of scientists. Investigations are being conducted.
5.2 Climate science has not adapted to being high profile. How scientists engage with the public is inadequately discussed. The result is reflexive support for IPCC and its related policies.
5.3 The public and policy makers don’t understand the truth as presented by the IPCC. More efficient strategies can be devised by recognizing that we are dealing with two groups: educated people, and the general public. To rebuild trust scientists need to discuss uncertainty. [“truth as presented by the IPCC? say what?]
5.4 The blogosphere can be a powerful tool for increasing credibility of climate research. The climate researchers at realclimate were the pioneers in this. More scientists should participate in these debates.
5.5 No one believes that the science is settled. Scientists and others say that the science is settled. This is detrimental to public trust.
5.6 I hope this experiment will demonstrate how the blogosphere can rebuild trust.
Having made such a digest, my next step is to condense it into an “elevator speech”. This is a very short statement of the essential principles. My elevator speech of Judith’s post is this.
Climategate has destroyed the public trust in climate science. Initially skepticism was funded by big oil. Then a climate auditing movement sprang up. They were able to bring the climate establishment to its knees because people trusted them. Public and policy makers don’t understand the truth as presented by the IPCC. To rebuild trust, climate scientists need to better communicate their ideas to the public, particularly regarding uncertainty. The blogosphere can be valuable in this regard.
OK, now what’s wrong with Judith’s picture?
Can The Trust Be Rebuilt?
First, let me say that the problem is much bigger than Judith seems to think. Wiser men than I have weighed in on this question. In a speech at Clinton, Illinois, September 8, 1854, Abraham Lincoln said:
If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. You may fool all of the peo you can even fool some of the but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
So it will not be easy. The confidence is forfeit, that ship has sailed.
The biggest problem with Judith’s proposal is her claim that the issue is that climate scientists have not understood how to present their ideas to the public. Judith, I respect you greatly, but you have grabbed the wrong end of the stick. The problem is not how climate scientists have publicly presented their scientific results. It is not a communication problem.
The problem is that 71.3% of what passes as peer reviewed climate science is simply junk science, as false as the percentage cited in this sentence. The lack of trust is not a problem of perception or communication. It is a problem of lack of substance. Results are routinely exaggerated. “Scientific papers” are larded with “may” and “might” and “could possibly”. Advocacy is a common thread in climate science papers. Codes are routinely concealed, data is not archived. A concerted effort is made to marginalize and censor opposing views.
And most disturbing, for years you and the other climate scientists have not said a word about this disgraceful situation. When Michael Mann had to be hauled in front of a congressional committee to force him to follow the simplest of scientific requirements, transparency, you guys were all wailing about how this was a huge insult to him.
An insult to Mann? Get real. Mann is an insult and an embarrassment to climate science, and you, Judith, didn’t say one word in public about that. Not that I’m singling you out. No one else stood up for climate science either. It turned my stomach to see the craven cowering of mainstream climate scientists at that time, bloviating about how it was such a terrible thing to do to poor Mikey. Now Mann has been “exonerated” by one of the most bogus
in academic history, and where is your outrage, Judith? Where are the climate scientists trying to clean up your messes?
The solution to that is not, as you suggest, to give scientists a wider voice, or educate them in how to present their garbage to a wider audience.
The solution is for you to stop trying to pass off garbage as science. The solution is for you establishment climate scientists to police your own back yard. When Climategate broke, there was widespread outrage … well, widespread everywhere except in the climate science establishment. Other than a few lone voices, the silence there was deafening. Now there is
, and the silence only deepens.
And you wonder why we don’t trust you? Here’s a clue. Because a whole bunch of you are guilty of egregious and repeated scientific malfeasance, and the rest of you are complicit in the crime by your silence. Your response is to stick your fingers in your ears and cover your eyes.
And you still don’t seem to get it. You approvingly quote Ralph Cicerone about the importance of transparency … Cicerone?? That’s a
You think people made the FOI (Freedom of Information) requests because they were concerned that the people who made the datasets were the same people using them in the models. As the person who made the
request to CRU, I assure you that is not true. I made the request to CRU because I was disgusted with the response of mainstream climate scientists to Phil Jone’s reply to Warwick Hughes. When Warwick made a simple scientific request for data, Jones famously said:
Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?
When I heard that, I was astounded. But in addition to being astounded, I was naive. Looking back, I was incredibly naive. I was so naive that I actually thought, “Well, Phil’s gonna get his hand slapped hard by real scientists for that kind of anti-scientific statements”. Foolish me, I thought you guys were honest scientists who would be outraged by that.
So I waited for some mainstream climate scientist to speak out against that kind of scientific malfeasance … and waited … and waited. In fact, I’m still waiting. I registered my protest against this bastardisation of science by filing an FOI. When is one of you mainstream climate scientist going to speak out against this kind of malfeasance? It’s not too late to condemn what Jones said, he’s still in the news and pretending to be a scientist, when is one of you good folks going to take a principled stand?
But nobody wants to do that. Instead, you want to complain and explain how trust has been broken, and you want to figure out more effective communication strategies to repair the trust.
You want a more effective strategy? Here’s one. Ask every climate scientist to grow a pair and speak out in public about the abysmal practices of far, far too many mainstream climate scientists. Because the public is assuredly outraged, and you are all assuredly silent, sitting quietly in your taxpayer funded offices and saying nothing, not a word, schtumm … and you wonder why we don’t trust you?
A perfect example is you saying in your post:
Such debate is alive and well in the blogosphere, but few mainstream climate researchers participate in the blogospheric debate. The climate researchers at realclimate.org were the pioneers in this …
For you to say this without also expressing outrage at realclimate’s ruthless censorship of every opposing scientific view is more of the same conspiracy of silence. Debate is not “alive and well” at realclimate as you say, that’s a crock. Realclimate continues to have an undeserved reputation that it is a scientific blog because you and other mainstream climate scientists are unwilling to bust them for their contemptuous flouting of scientific norms. When you stay silent about blatant censorship like that, Judith, people will not trust you, nor should they. You have shown by your actions that you are perfectly OK with realclimate censoring opposing scientific views. What kind of message does that send?
The key to restoring trust has nothing to do with communication. Steve McIntyre doesn’t inspire trust because he is a good communicator. He inspires trust because he follows the age-old practices of science — transparency and openness and freewheeling scientific discussion and honest reporting of results.
And until mainstream climate science follows his lead, I’ll let you in on a very dark, ugly secret — I don’t want trust in climate science to be restored. I don’t want you learning better ways to propagandize for shoddy science. I don’t want you to figure out how to inspire trust by camouflaging your unethical practices in new and innovative ways. I don’t want scientists learning to use clever words and communication tricks to get people to think that the wound is healed until it actually
healed. I don’t want you to learn to use the blogosphere to spread your pernicious unsupported unscientific alarmism.
You think this is a problem of image, that climate science has a bad image. It is nothing of the sort. It is a problem of scientific malfeasance, and of complicity by silence with that malfeasance. The public, it turns out, has a much better bullsh*t detector than the mainstream climate scientists do … or at least we’re willing to say so in public, while y’all cower in your cubbyholes with your heads down and never, never, never say a bad word about some other climate scientist’s bogus claims and wrong actions.
You want trust? Do good science, and publicly insist that other climate scientists do good science as well. It’s that simple. Do good science, and publicly call out the Manns and the Joneses and the Thompsons and the rest of the charlatans that you are currently protecting. Call out the journals that don’t follow their own policies on data archiving. Speak up for honest science. Archive your data. Insist on transparency. Publish your codes.
Once that is done, the rest will fall in line. And until then, I’m overjoyed that people don’t trust you. I see the lack of trust in mainstream climate science as a huge triumph for real science. Fix it by doing good science and by cleaning up your own backyard. Anything else is a coverup.
Judith, again, my congratulations on being willing to post your ideas in public. You are a rara avis, and I respect you greatly for it.
PS – In your post you talk about a “monolithic climate denial machine”?? Puhleease, Judith, you’re talking to us individual folks who were there on the ground individually fighting the battle. Save that conspiracy theory for people who weren’t there, those who don’t know how it went down.
This is another huge problem for mainstream climate scientists and mainstream media alike. You still think the problem is that we opposed your ideas and exposed your errors. You still see the climate scientists as the victims, even now in 2010 when the CRU emails have shown that’s nonsense. Every time one of your self-appointed spokes-fools says something like “Oh, boo hoo, the poor CRU folks were forced to circle their wagons by the eeevil climate auditors”, you just get laughed at harder and harder. The CRU emails showed they were circling the FOI wagons two years before the first FOI request, so why haven’t you noticed?
The first step out of this is to stop trying to blame Steve and Anthony and me and all the rest of us for your stupidity and your dishonesty and your scientific malfeasance. [Edited by public demand to clarify that the “your stupidity” etc. refers to mainstream climate scientists as a group and not to Judith individually.] You will never recover a scrap of trust until you admit that you are the source of your problems, all we did was point them out. You individually, and you as a group, created this mess. The first step to redemption is to take responsibility. You’ve been suckered by people like Stephen Schneider, who said:
To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
That worked fine for a while, but as Lincoln pointed out, it caught up with you. You want trust? Disavow Schneider, and STOP WITH THE SCARY SCENARIOS. At this point, you have blamed
from acne to world bankruptcy on eeevil global warming. And you have blamed everything from auditors to the claimed stupidity of the common man for your own failures. STOP IT! We don’t care about your pathetic justifications, all you are doing is becoming the butt of jokes around the planet. You seem to have forgotten the story of the . Read it. Think about it. Nobody cares about your hysteria any more. You are in a pit of your own making, and you are refusing to stop digging … take responsibility.
Because we don’t want scientists who are advocates. We’re not interested in scientists who don’t mention their doubts. We’re sick of your inane “simplified dramatic statements”. We laugh when you cry wolf with your scary scenarios. Call us crazy, but we want scientists who are honest, not scientists who balance honesty and effectiveness. You want trust? Get honest, kick out the scoundrels, and for goodness sakes, get a clue about humility.
Because the truth is, climate science is one of the newest sciences. The truth is, we know little about the climate, we’ve only been studying it intensely for a couple decades. The truth is, we can’t project the climate of the next decade, much less that of the next century.
The truth is, we have no general theory of climate. The truth is, we don’t know if an average temperature rise of a couple degrees will be a net benefit or a net loss. The truth is, all of us are human, and our knowledge of the climate is in its infancy. And I don’t appreciate being lectured by infants. I don’t appreciate being told that I should be put in the dock in a Nuremberg style trial for disagreeing with infants. You want to restore trust? Come down off your pedestals, forsake your ivory towers, and admit your limitations.
And through all of this, be aware that you have a long, long, long climb back up to where we will trust you. As Lincoln warned, you have forfeited the confidence of your fellow citizens, and you will be damn lucky if you ever get it back.
[Update: please see Dr. Curry’s gracious response below, at ]
[Update 2: Dr. Curry’s second response is , and my reply is ]
[Update 3: Dr. Curry steps up and . My .]
Sponsored IT training links:
Subscribe for
training and pass your real exam in first attempt. we offer guaranteed success with latest
video tutorials.
Rate this:Share this:Like this:Like Loading...
Related posts
Site stats
242,043,594 views
"...the world's most viewed climate website"
- Fred Pearce
"...invaluable" - Steven F. Hayward,
"...changed the world and is one of the most influential resources on global warming. -
"...flashy (apparently widely distributed)"
BUY THIS BOOK!
Shameless Plug
Donations accepted:
to help keep the
project going.
Follow WUWT via Email
Enter your email address to follow WUWT and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 32,080 other followers
Recent Posts
Top Posts & Pages
February 2010
Select Month
August 2015 &(88)
July 2015 &(146)
June 2015 &(144)
May 2015 &(157)
April 2015 &(125)
March 2015 &(126)
February 2015 &(115)
January 2015 &(106)
December 2014 &(130)
November 2014 &(136)
October 2014 &(163)
September 2014 &(185)
August 2014 &(190)
July 2014 &(173)
June 2014 &(195)
May 2014 &(216)
April 2014 &(182)
March 2014 &(185)
February 2014 &(164)
January 2014 &(202)
December 2013 &(144)
November 2013 &(147)
October 2013 &(147)
September 2013 &(148)
August 2013 &(165)
July 2013 &(174)
June 2013 &(164)
May 2013 &(193)
April 2013 &(171)
March 2013 &(164)
February 2013 &(165)
January 2013 &(172)
December 2012 &(126)
November 2012 &(139)
October 2012 &(176)
September 2012 &(151)
August 2012 &(144)
July 2012 &(175)
June 2012 &(179)
May 2012 &(177)
April 2012 &(178)
March 2012 &(190)
February 2012 &(161)
January 2012 &(142)
December 2011 &(161)
November 2011 &(168)
October 2011 &(180)
September 2011 &(189)
August 2011 &(190)
July 2011 &(170)
June 2011 &(187)
May 2011 &(177)
April 2011 &(177)
March 2011 &(172)
February 2011 &(183)
January 2011 &(193)
December 2010 &(183)
November 2010 &(168)
October 2010 &(191)
September 2010 &(179)
August 2010 &(200)
July 2010 &(188)
June 2010 &(140)
May 2010 &(124)
April 2010 &(122)
March 2010 &(136)
February 2010 &(142)
January 2010 &(157)
December 2009 &(168)
November 2009 &(163)
October 2009 &(132)
September 2009 &(106)
August 2009 &(92)
July 2009 &(96)
June 2009 &(94)
May 2009 &(89)
April 2009 &(99)
March 2009 &(99)
February 2009 &(60)
January 2009 &(60)
December 2008 &(58)
November 2008 &(45)
October 2008 &(63)
September 2008 &(75)
August 2008 &(77)
July 2008 &(68)
June 2008 &(72)
May 2008 &(54)
April 2008 &(54)
March 2008 &(39)
February 2008 &(40)
January 2008 &(31)
December 2007 &(27)
November 2007 &(37)
October 2007 &(29)
September 2007 &(17)
August 2007 &(31)
July 2007 &(20)
June 2007 &(25)
May 2007 &(31)
April 2007 &(31)
March 2007 &(27)
February 2007 &(24)
January 2007 &(25)
December 2006 &(22)
November 2006 &(11)
CategoriesCategories
Select Category
<option class="level-0" value="0.org connect the dots
97% consensus
99% certainty
Adjustments/Corrections
Agriculture
Air pollution
Announcements
Anthropogenic Ocean Warming
Attribution
Bad science
Bengtsson Climate McCarthyism scandal
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature
Book Review
Cancun Climate Conference
Cap-and-trade
Carbon credits
Carbon dioxide
Carbon footprint
Carbon sequestration
Carbon soot
carbon tax
Celebrities on AGW
censorship
CFC&#8217;s
Chaos and Climate
Citizen science
Climate cash
Climate Communications
Climate Craziness of the Week
Climate data
Climate FAIL
Climate Models
Climate Myths
Climate News
Climate News Roundup
Climate reconciliation
Climate Reference Network
Climate sensitivity
Climate ugliness
Climategate
Climategate 3.0
Climate_change
COP conferences
Copenhagen Climate Conference
Cosmic rays
Cowtan & Way
Curious things
Current News
Desertification
disinvitation
Durban Climate Conference
dust storms
Earthquakes
Economy-health
Educational opportunity
El Nino Basics
Environment
Experiments
Extinction
extreme weather
Forecasting
Fusion power
Gavin Schmidt
Geoengineering
geothermal energy
Gergis et al
Global cooling
Global Temperature Update
Global warming
Global Warming Optimism
Gore-a-thon 2011
Gore-a-thon 2012
Gorefest11
Government funding of science
Government idiocy
Green Blob
Green Mafia
Green tech
Greenland ice sheet
Hiatus in Global Warming
Hits and Misses
hurricanes
hydroclimatology
Hydropower
IPCC AR5 leak
IPCC AR5 Report
James Hansen
Karl et al. 2015
Land use land cover change
Letters To The Editor
Lewis and Crok
Little Ice Age
Local_issues
Lower Troposphere Temperature
Marcott et al proxy paper
measurement
MedievalWarmPeriod
Michael E. Mann
modification
More On Series
National Climate Assessment Report
Natural CO2 sources
natural gas
Natural Warming
NOAA 2 year FOIA documents
Noble Cause Corruption
nuclear power
Obama Climate Plan
Obamas War on Energy
Obvious science
Ocean acidification
Ocean Heat Content
Ocean Temperatures
Open Thread
Optical phenonmena
Paleoclimatology
Papal Climate Encyclical
Peer review
Polar Vortex
Polarbeargate
Positive effects of CO2
Post-normal science
Presentations
Puzzling things
Quote of The Month
Quote of the Week
Radiative Imbalance
Reference Pages
reproducibility
Sea Ice News
Sea Surface Temperature
solar flare
solar power
Southern Annular Mode
Spaceweather
Specific Humidity
Spencer-Braswell and Dessler
statistics
Stephan Lewandowsky
Stern Review
Stratospheric water vapor
Surfacestations paper
Sustainability
Tabloid Climatology
TAO/TRITON Buoys
Technology
Temperature
The &#8220;Clitanic&#8221; aka Spirit of Mawson
The Rat-hole problem
The Skeptic&#8217;s Case
The Weather Channel
The WUWT Hot Sheet
The Yamal Deception
thorium power
Throwback Thursday Predictions
thunderstorms
Trenberth&#8217;s missing heats
UKMO HADCRUT4
Uncategorized
Uncertainty
United Nations
Waste heat
Watts et al 2012
Weather_stations
Willis Autobiography
wind power
Humor/Satire
Lukewarmers
Political Climate
Pro AGW Views
Skeptical Views
Transcendent Rant and way out there theory
Unreliable*
* Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.
Click for the:
Sea Ice Page
Solar Images &#038; Data Page
Atmospheric Maps Page
ENSO/SST Page
ENSO Meter
Sponsored links
IT Certifications:
Copyright Notice
Material on this website is copyright (C) , by Anthony Watts, and may not be stored or archived separately, rebroadcast, or republished without written permission.
For permission, contact us. See the About&Contact menu under the header.
All rights reserved worldwide.
Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.
Send to Email Address
Your Email Address
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
%d bloggers like this:}