David Rose has a new article about Judith Curry called I was tossed out of the tribe. Well, here’s problem number one. There is no tribe. If you’re a scientist/researcher, then you should be aiming to do research that is honest and objective, the results of which should not depend on who you regard as being your contemporaries. If you think there’s some kind of tribe to which you need to belong, then you’re doing it wrong.
Apparently, also, Judith Curry’s record of peer-reviewed publication in the best climate-science journals is second to none. Sorry, but this is simply not true. It’s pretty decent, but it’s not second to none. The article also says: Warming alarmists are fond of proclaiming how 97 per cent of scientists agree that the world is getting hotter, and human beings are to blame. Ignoring the term Warming alarmists, the reason people say this is because it is essentially true.
Judith Curry apparently also says
‘…..A sensitivity of 2.5˚C makes it much less likely we will see 2˚C warming during the 21st century. There are so many uncertainties, but the policy people say the target is fixed. And if you question this, you will be slagged off as a denier.’
Firstly, a sensitivity (ECS, I assume) of 2.5oC does not make it much less likely that we will see 2oC during the 21st century. Not only do the ranges of projected warming already include the possibility that the sensitivity might be 2.5oC, but what we will see depends largely on how much we emit. Also, the target is fixed in the sense that it is defined according to giving us some chance of keeping warming below 2oC; normally a 66% chance. It already includes the uncertainty about climate sensitivity and uncertainty about carbon cycle feedbacks. Maybe when Judith questions this, she gets slagged off for apearing to not understand this basic concept; something a scientist with a record that is apparently second to none should be able to understand.
Judith Curry also added that
her own work, conducted with the British independent scientist Nic Lewis, suggests that the sensitivity value may still lower, in which case the date when the world would be 2˚C warmer would be even further into the future.
Well, yes, but there are many reasons why their ECS estimate is probably too low. Just because you’re proud of your own work, doesn’t mean you get to dismiss everything else. That climate sensitivity could be lower than we currently think is likely, does not mean that it probably will be.
There are numerous other examples of nonsense, such as
Meanwhile, the obsessive focus on CO2 as the driver of climate change means other research on natural climate variability is being neglected.
No, it’s not.
And,
solar experts believe we could be heading towards a ‘grand solar minimum’ — a reduction in solar output (and, ergo, a period of global cooling) similar to that which once saw ice fairs on the Thames. ‘The work to establish the solar-climate connection is lagging.’
Firstly, there isn’t some lag in work on the solar-climate connection, and the solar experts were rather clueless about climate.
The article finishes with
She remains optimistic that science will recover its equilibrium, and that the quasi-McCarthyite tide will recede:
Rather than it receding, Judith Curry appears to be helping it to start.
So, as far as I can tell, Judith Curry gets criticised because she says things that – for a senior scientist who has a record that is apparently second to none – are embarassingly wrong. She also appears to have ejected herself from a tribe that only exists in her imagination. Good thing there are credulous journalists, like David Rose, who are willing to write supportive articles.
...and Then There's Physics 
I think you are far too kind when you call Rose “credulous”.
Lars,
Maybe I’m using the wrong term 🙂
Actually, that Curry has become serial misrepresenter Rose’s “go-to scientist” is just as damning as anything she has said herself.
Let’s show my age. A tribe called quest.
You are part of the tribe if you join the quest for scientific understanding.
Lars,
Indeed, that pretty much sums it up.
Well said, ATTP.
And the proper description for Rose is ‘propagandist’, which probably makes Curry a tool for propaganda.
[Mod: It probably doesn’t need saying.]
With a relaxation time of centuries ECS does not matter.
At all.
Hans,
Really, not at all! You seem very certain. Both ECS and TCR are really model metrics. What really matters – in this context – is how much we’re likely to warm. In some sense whether it is something like TCR, or something like ECS, probably depends on whether we get emissions to zero, or just to something quite low.
Origin of the original image?
“Handling the Heat”
http://gtalumnimag.com/?p=4965
Melissa Bugg “OK, we need some pictures of you in a defiant pose” (I made that sentence up)
Curry seems to be turning into a case study in cognitive dissonance.
In rapid succession, a post bemoaning ideology in science, followed by an interview in an avowedly ideological magazine.
That interview lambasting witch hunts, yet curry writes on her blog of her support for Lamar smith’s witch hunt.
Her ability to hold mutually contradictory positions is breathtaking.
In that resect Judith may be second to none.
RE: cognitive dissonance …
” … she says she recognized that climate scientists needed to work quickly to regain the public trust.”
So Curry started a blog to do the exact opposite.
“What bothered me the most was how climate researchers looked to the public, especially to educated and technical people,” Curry says of posting the messages. “They expect higher standards.”
So Curry needed an audience of dumb DK Deniers to infest her blog.
“Needless to say, Curry lost her place in the IPCC clique.”
Translation? “clique” means “tribe”
“While scientists shouldn’t be afraid to engage with the public or policymakers, Curry says the climate debate reveals the downside of scientists becoming too involved in politics.”
Or the upside of Curry casting doubt on the science and becoming too involved in politics.
I’m sorry, but I can’t stomach it anymore after seeing this …
Well I’m back …
“Instead, she is trying to bring together the polarized sides of climate debate and return scientists’ focus to thorough research.”
“trying to bring together” now that’s worked out s-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o well for Judith over these past five years.
“I’ve gotten caught up in lots of little blogospheric tempests,” she says of her online forays. “I think the blogosphere can be potentially very important, but most scientists don’t like to do it because it can be blood sport.”
Judith loves blood sport, see for example Lamar Smith versus NOAA.
“One of the great frustrations over climate change is that it seems there would be consensus. Is the climate warming or not? Are humans causing it? Don’t the scientists have a conclusive answer?”
Judith got left out again?
“The question then naturally arises. What is Judith Curry sure about? …
“Climate always changes,” she says.”
James Inhofe put that one in a bill even, nope not political at all.
http://gtalumnimag.com/?p=4965
Perhaps Judith could have said, “I chose to hang out with people who are wrong and unpopular” ?
“Her record of peer-reviewed publication in the best climate-science journals is second to none”
But third or fourth to many.
Chill, guys.
@ Willard, I don’t know. Curry is implying that she is being blackballed for calling for accountability and engaging with skeptics, and that standing up for science and doing the right thing would end the career of a young scientist. I don’t think that claim merits an entirely polite response.
‘I started saying that scientists should be more accountable, and I began to engage with sceptic bloggers. I thought that would calm the waters. Instead I was tossed out of the tribe. There’s no way I would have done this if I hadn’t been a tenured professor, fairly near the end of my career. If I were seeking a new job in the US academy, I’d be pretty much unemployable. I can still publish in the peer-reviewed journals. But there’s no way I could get a government research grant to do the research I want to do. Since then, I’ve stopped judging my career by these metrics. I’m doing what I do to stand up for science and to do the right thing.’
> @ Willard, I don’t know
Here’s one thing you and everybody should know, Magma: whatever Judy may do or say, it does not make anybody not stay classy. I understand this is the Internet, and the Internet is the Land of the Snark. As long as it’s classy, anything goes.
I’d be the last ClimateBall ™ player to raise concern about snark anyway. Snark can become pedagogical if it contains other things than pure ad homs. Information, for instance. Links, citations, quotes, references, that kind of thing.
The bottom line is that this is AT’s venue. Moderation wastes time, his time actually. Time he could use to write other blog posts.
The Internet approximates an eternal process. Any rant runs the risk to remain forever in our collective memories. Let’s try to make sure what could remain forever stays classy.
“Be sure to link to the article, there is an astonishing cartoon.”
Which does look a heck of a lot like her pose for the Georgia Tech Alumni Magazine I linked to above. AFAIK, her website doesn’t even acknowledge the GTAM article. Short memory perhaps.
“It is indeed a travesty that climate science has become so politicized and that a large majority of the scientists visible in the public debate on climate change are partisans.”
Really? I would never have known that, except that she seems to have not noticed how ironic that statement is. Judith can’t possibly be partisan, what would possibly ever give someone else such an idea that she was partisan? Her blog and other public statements can’t possibly be partisan. Why? Because..
“For the sake of science, not to mention the policies that are being driven by the science, we need to open up the debate on the causes of the warming and scenarios of climate change for the 21st century.”
Open up the DEBATE? Wait a minute, I thought this was all about “saving” science from the scientists, oh, I see, Judith thinks all the scientists have been looking at the wrong things, like, for example, atmospheric CO2/CH4/NO2/CFC’s. It’s not like LBJ got a science report back in 1965 related to potential/hypothetical long term consequences of continued use of FF and the emissions of GHG’s. Nope that never happened. We’ve wasted 50 years on this “politically” motivated science, we need to get back to “real” science.
http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/26/climate-heretic-part-ii/
It sounds like a ‘poor me, may attention to me’ cop out. Whatever.
I don’t see what she’s concerned about at all. She can easily drop her tenure and get another job, hands down. No problem. Perhaps she’s just not used to the job market. There are plenty of institutions that will hire her.
The only thing that might be a concern is that reputable people in the field probably won’t want to work with her. I mean she hangs with the guys slinging poop at them. Would you wanna collaborate with that? I wouldn’t. That comes with the territory. (Profs are catty enough to work with.)
In any case there is all that extra cash she earns from oil and gas. Newbs apparently can’t earn that moola on the side. I mean how would they possibly compete with the weather services that offer the exact same data and understanding? Yeah. Hard to do.
In any case, I’ve been reading Storm World which is a book she has endorsed.
If you guys are not a tribe, then what are you? A clique, a mob, a religion, a cult, a form of mass psychosis? A team?
http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/25/the-team-defends-paleo-phrenology/
Canman, I am afraid you are projecting your own line of thinking onto others. You apparently feel the need to put people in particular boxes and name that box, so you can distance yourself from that box and proclaim it a “tribe, clique, mob, religion, cult, mass psychosis, team”, etc.
In other words, your comment says so much more about yourself than about others…
“record of peer-reviewed publication in the best climate-science journals is second to none”
Uhm…to the best of my knowledge Kevin Trenberth puts her record to shame (among others – I am sure also Pielke Sr has a better publication record in climate-science journals).
Marco said what I was going to say. Just because some people will choose to defend some reearch does not mean there is a tribe/team/cabal/….
Actually, that comment thread on the climateaudit post to which Canman links is quite interesting; especially the exchange between SoD and Judith Curry.
ATTP
How you find the time to read the comments I do not know, but that was indeed an interesting exchange between JC and SoD. Thanks for the nod.
SoD to JC:
Exactly my point to Kestrel on the previous thread.
Channeling Willard’s call for chilling and links.
Judith’s claim that she was “tossed out of the tribe” should be compared to the alternative hypothesis that she decided to exclude herself from rational scientific debate. There are far too many examples to cite them all, but here are a few choice ones.
Canman gives us a good start above.
Then we could move on to her labelling of colleagues as “high priests”
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/03/reversing-the-direction-of-the-positive-feedback-loop/
We can observe her characterisation of her opponents as “the equivalent of racists and anti semites”
http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/11/charlie-challenging-free-speech/
Then her promotion and subsequent defence in the comments of unscientific crank theories.
http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/quantifying-the-anthropogenic-contribution-to-atmospheric-co2/
There’s an inexhaustible supply of similar.
Tossed or jumped? Seems pretty clear to me.
BBD,
The Realclimate post is also a classic. In particular, this exchange between Gavin and Judith.
“there is no tribe”
Wotts disagrees with decades of research into the sociology of science.
I remember that 😉
Zap! Smell the ozone.
Richard,
Richard misses the point again. What a surprise.
VTG,
Let’s not forget an earlier example of “anthropogenic CO2-scepticism”:
I just finished listening to Murry Salby’s podcast on Climate Change and Carbon. Wow.
[…]
JC comments: If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science. Salby and I were both at the University of Colorado-Boulder in the 1990’s, but I don’t know him well personally. He is the author of a popular introductory graduate text Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics. He is an excellent lecturer and teacher, which comes across in his podcast. He has the reputation of a thorough and careful researcher. While all this is frustratingly preliminary without publication, slides, etc., it is sufficiently important that we should start talking about these issues. I’ll close with this text from Bolt’s article:
He said he had an “involuntary gag reflex” whenever someone said the “science was settled”.
“Anyone who thinks the science of this complex thing is settled is in Fantasia.”
Morning Richard
Physical climatology isn’t tribal. Right-wing politics is.
Indeed. I assume this is why Richard is reluctant to criticise Matt Ridley whenever he incorrectly quotes Tol’s now corrected meta analysis. Maybe he’s afraid of being ejected from the GWPF tribe?
@BBD
We’re not tribal! The other guys are!
Richard,
Well, you seem to think it exists somewhere, so presumably that’s your experience. Far be it for me to comment on the standard practice in the social sciences.
“Tol’s law of blogs ”
“Any thread with Richard as a contribututor inevitably ends with Richard as the subject”
Could I suggest that now would be a good opportunity to prove this wrong. By not responding? Please?
vtg,
Yes, fair point. A good suggestion.
I think perhaps some sociologists don’t understand science. In statistics, you could argue that there are two “tribes”: the Bayesians and the
wrong-headedfrequentists. This means that there are statisticians who have different ideas on how statistical inference is best performed. However that doesn’t mean that either side is departing in any way from ATTPs comment:“ If you’re a scientist/researcher, then you should be aiming to do research that is honest and objective, the results of which should not depend on who you regard as being your contemporaries.”
Most statisticians have a preference for one school or the other, but most have a good grasp of both. Of course that doesn’t mean there isn’t some banter, but I don’t think many statisticians take it that seriously, at the end of the day what matters is the strength of the argument.
The idea that you need to belong to the mainstream to get on is also nonsense, the majority of scientists want to be iconoclasts and cause some (perhaps minor) paradigm shift in their field and so have impact. You don’t get that by just agreeing with your mainstream chums. Sadly most of those that think they have something paradigm shifting actually don’t. Sadly if they can’t see the flaw in their argument, end up marginalizing themselves by not listening, rather than by their arguments. A really good way of not listening is to dismiss criticism as the result of tribalism.
Anyway, I have a paradigm that needs shifting so I’d better get back to it. ;o)
Indeed, and a potential indicator of this is complaining about being thrown out of the tribe.
“Needless to say, Curry lost her place in the IPCC clique.”
I recall she said a few years ago that she was offered the chance to be an author on AR5, essentially because of her perceived contrary views, but she turned it down. She wasn’t involved in AR4 so it seems she may have actually increased her chances of being in the “IPCC clique” through her actions.
“…solar experts believe we could be heading towards a ‘grand solar minimum’ — a reduction in solar output (and, ergo, a period of global cooling)”
If there is a period of global cooling isn’t it far more likely as a consequence of a shutdown of the Gulf Stream/AMOC, which would be a consequence of increased inflows to the North Atlantic of fresh water from ice melt and increased rainfall, in turn as a consequence of a warming climate?
Ken,
I’m not even convinced that that would lead to global cooling. It might lead to cooling in parts of North America and parts of Western Europe. I think the only way it could lead to global cooling would be if it produced an expansion of the NH ice sheets, and I suspect that that is implausible if CO2 is above 400ppm.
If RichardT can find examples of sociologists of science who use “tribe” in a neutral manner, that would be nice. Meanwhile:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe
Are scientists an ethnic group or a nation?
‘Also, the target is fixed in the sense that it is defined according to giving us some chance of keeping warming below 2oC; normally a 66% chance’
Sensitivity estimates don’t usually quote the 33-67 interval so that’s a pretty unintuitive/confusing way to look at the issue, especially when they do quote the figures for 50% probability and 5-95 intervals (and sometimes also the 10-90 or 17-83 intervals). And now that I think of it, I don’t ‘normally’ see the 67% probability bandied about… in fact I think the only other time I’ve seen it mentioned was in this blog, though I might be wrong. Honestly it smacks of goalpost moving – the 50% mark went down so let’s go for 67% which will keep the ‘required’ emission policies intact.
Of course a stat guru can download the data/code for any specific estimate and work out the 33-67 interval… but how many are actually going to do that?
To follow up on Very Tall’s examples, here’s one that may be of some actuality:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/11/charlie-challenging-free-speech/
If Judy associates Mark with the Charlie Hebdo satirists, and herself by extension, with whom does she associate Mike?
If you believe something that goes against the mainstream and you can’t get your mates to accept your ideas, it’s inevitable that you’ll start to think they’re ganging up on you. That’s just human nature. Judith Curry appears to run her blog as an emotional support network where sycophants like Josh, the cartoonist who represents her as a knight in shining armour, cling to the hem of her dress, butter her up and egg her on. If this wasn’t all about the serious issue of climate change, she’d be sitting her life out, forgotten, in an academic backwater.
In November 2010, Judy was into another D-word:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/05/no-dogma/
The “heretic” like is still in vogue today.
A few days later, it was time for the I-word:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/07/no-ideologues-part-iii/
So does this make more sense?
A few days later, there’s the mention of a BIG TABLE:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/10/uncertainty-gets-a-seat-at-the-%E2%80%9Cbig-table%E2%80%9D/
The BIG TABLE got some air time with part II, III, IV, and V.
That testimony is linked in Judy’s About page.
“How we can go about responding to an issue in the face of uncertainty, dissent, and disagreement” looks like a good paraphrase of what we usually call politics.
PS: Seems that the commenter calling himself “Don Monfort” (whom I prefer to call Don Don for obvious reasons) appears at Judy’s around that time.
A few weeks later, Judy uses another I-word:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/04/education-versus-indoctrination/
There’s a part II and III to that I-word.
A few weeks later, it’s the L-word:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/14/lies-damned-lies-and-science/
How to swiftly switch from lies to bias to politics in a few paragraphs.
The most important I-word in Judy’s repertoire might appear a few days later:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/22/washington-update-science-integrity/
One might even say that I-word has supplanted Mr. T (i.e. the Uncertainty Monster), which is a good thing since uncertainty’s not Judy’s best friend.
INTEGRITY ™ – Bravo!
@Willard
Google “anthropology of science”, “ethnography of science” or “culture of science”.
Dear Richard Tol,
Your claim, your proof.
Show us an example of the word “tribe” in a sociology of science paper.
Until you do, I might look into the sociology of think tanks such as the two to which you collaborate.
First hit:
Click to access Medvetz.2012.Murky+Power.pdf
Can Bjorn’s gig be considered an American think tank, Richard?
Perhaps when Richard says “tribe” he means “epistemic community”:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2346.00195/abstract
Not sure how Richard can spin “does not imply conformity of opinion,” but what’s quite sure is that there’s no hit for “tribe” in that paper.
Another interesting concept is the one of circuit of culture:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00692.x/full
Would be interesting if Richard could recall the dominant ideological standpoint in David Rose’s newspaper.
It’s not going to warm much by 2030 because of natural variation… the stadium wave!
@Willard
One of the first to do this was Axel Leijonhufvud, but he’s an amateur:
Click to access life_among_the_econs_leijonhufvud_1973.pdf
Since then, there is a bit of a cottage industry in anthropology proper. This is a popular science account of recent research in high energy physics:
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/december-2007/life-among-the-physics-tribes
Arpita Roy’s work has since been published in Dialectical Anthropology and Cultural Anthropology.
Richard,
So, the first seems to be about economics. The second seems to be an article in which the word “tribe” is used in a somewhat colloquial fashion.
@Wotts
We can of course start a discussion on the exact definition of the word “tribe”. We can also, perhaps more fruitfully, acknowledge that we did read our Kuhn and Latour when we were young.
JCH,
Stadium wave
Undersea volcanoes
Clouds
Magick
Not necessarily in that order
Richard,
I have no interest in either, to be quite honest. If you really think that there are tribes within the sciences to which you need to belong in order to do what you regard as interesting and important science, go ahead. It wouldn’t be the first time that you’ve spent time savaging these strawmen that you so like to knock down. Continue defending denialist nonense if that’s what you wish to do.
vtg,
Basically anything that could cause cooling, whether real or imaginary.
@Wotts
You have no interest in acknowledging that you read Kuhn and Latour?
> We can also, perhaps more fruitfully, acknowledge that we did read our Kuhn and Latour when we were young.
If we did, dear Richard, we would also need to acknowledge that the two authors share incompatible views on science.
There’s no need to convene on the meaning of “tribe,” BTW – you just need to point out to an article in the sociology of science lichurchur where it’s used as a theorical construct.
Meanwhile:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00188.x/full
No hit for “tribe” in that research.
Richard,
I have no interest in playing your silly games. Do you have any interest in acknowledging your defense of denialist nonsense and your tendency to spread misinformation?
I thought this was a pub.
FYI, Canman is a free market zealot. He’ll regurgitate what ever the PR slogan is popular at the moment. He’s afraid of regulations, and makes the most extraordinary claims that he can’t back. His nick name is Conman.
@Wotts
I take it you haven’t read Kuhn and Latour. Maybe you should. They write about one of your favorite subjects: Physicists.
Richard,
When did you stop beating your wife?
I have to say that being tossed out of the tribe doesn’t seem to have prevented Prof. Curry from publishing, or reduced the rate at which her work is cited (presumably by the “tribe”)
http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=rC8rY4EAAAAJ&hl=en
Of her 13722 Google scholar* citations 6197 were since 2010 (Phil Jones, for instance has a pretty similar ratio, although the absolute volumes are higher). This suggest that perhaps the rest of the “tribe” have yet to be informed of her expulsion?
Again according to Google scholar, her publication record in climate could perhaps be described as “second to about fifty-something”, but that in itself is pretty impressive, without the need to indulge in the hyperbole of “second to none”.
* yes, I know Google scholar has its problems, especially not being able to distinguish blog articles for scientific articles on occasion, but > 13,000 suggests they are likely to be in the noise.
Did Kuhn write about tribes? I don’t recall that from “the structure of scientific revolutions”, perhaps Richard can give a page reference (it is a long time since I read it, so it could be my memory at fault)?
There is an old stats joke, which is that statisticians are like artists and have a tendency to fall in love with their models; I think Kuhn’s work is a bit of an example of that as well (some truth, but a perhaps rather overstated).
@dikran
I don’t recall Kuhn using that word. He is pretty adamant, though, that research takes place in a social context, and that many of the things that are going on in the lab are easier understood as humans interacting with humans than as rational and emotionless researchers doing objective science.
Following through what I called at Judy’s her political turn, I’ve rediscovered one of the first occurence of my INTEGRITY ™ brand a few weeks later than the last ClimateBall ™ episodes I underlined earlier:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/11/politics-of-climate-expertise-part-ii/#comment-31820
In the comment thread of a post that mentionswas called politics of climate expertise. Fancy that.
Richard,
Yes, that all seems patently obvious. There is no claim that scientists are somehow automatons and that science takes place in some kind of emotionless vacuum. None of that, however, means that there is some kind of over-arching tribe to which you have to belong in order to do scientific research and that you can be ejected from it if you somehow says things with which other people disagree.
The politics of climate expertise don’t go up to XI, only to at least IV (I’m just following along):
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/20/politics-of-climate-expertise-part-iv/
So far, we’ve only covered 2 months of loaded words at Judy’s. It goes on and on and on.
But “heretic.”
Richard Yes, that is what I thought, in which case citing Kuhn doesn’t really support what you were saying. “Social context” is not the same thing as “tribalism”.
> research takes place in a social context
Does it mean any social context can be called a tribe and that any phenomenon occuring in a social context can be called tribal, Richard?
But “heretic.”
Perhaps there’s a tribe;
To return to think tanks:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644010802055576
These numbers may not include reports such as Nic & Marcel’s for the GWPF and rubberstamped by Judy:
Click to access Oversensitive-How-The-IPCC-hid-the-Good-News-on-Global-Warming.pdf
Coincidentally, Judy has been more open in her green-bashing recently.
dikranmarsupial, in the Web of Science “Curry JA” has 8 thousand citations, about 700 a year currently, Hirsch index of 42. (cleaned a few highly papers by people with same initials, but not all.) The top 10 articles about about the Arctic, clouds and hurricanes. The topics of her expertise.
No climate papers in the top 10, although in the introduction of an article you normally try to get the full span of opinions in. Thus such papers would be expected to be cited more than you would predict based on their scientific value.
“No climate papers in the top 10, although in the introduction of an article you normally try to get the full span of opinions in. ”
I think that is a good example of the sort of “tribalism” found in science ;o)
“He is pretty adamant, though, that research takes place in a social context, and that many of the things that are going on in the lab are easier understood as humans interacting with humans than as rational and emotionless researchers doing objective science.”
This is a good example of the sort of overstatement to which Kuhn seemed rather susceptible. If you are interested in the sociology of science (which is what Kuhn really discusses) then of course many of the things of interest to Kuhn are easier to understand in that way (rather than the Spock caricature/straw man). However that doesn’t mean that the progress of the science itself needs to be understood in that context, in most cases it doesn’t, but those were not the cases that illustrated Kuhn’s thesis. The point about artists/statisticians/sociologists falling in love with their models is just as much a part of how human nature influences the progress of ideas, and why in science we try to inculcate the sort of self-skepticism that guards against it (even though we don’t expect to achieve it in an absolute sense).
Following our guided tour of Judy’s, Jan 2011 marks the Lisbon agreement:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/24/lisbon-workshop-on-reconciliation-in-the-climate-change-debate/
Judy’s political turn starts to take shape.
***
Also note that January 2011 centers around Trentberth at Judy’s, which gryposaurus illustrated so:
> This is a good example of the sort of overstatement to which Kuhn seemed rather susceptible.
Quoting Kuhn might be preferable than assuming Richard Tol’s relaxed reading of Kuhn.
Willard, I do believe you’re enjoying yourself.
Everyone else, I might say “I Tol you so” soon.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/there-is-no-tribe/#comment-67674
Indeed I do, Very Tall.
The Lisbon reports don’t go up to XI, only up to X, the Xth being about a pair of letters sent to Congress:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/08/lisbon-workshop-on-reconciliation-part-x-alarmists-vs-deniers/
And of course “deniers” (Judy’s term) have no responsibility in this insane little battle. What they do can’t affect climate science credibility at all.
A bit later, Judy about herself:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/09/on-being-a-scientist/#comment-41186
This objective has changed since then. One can argue that it was already changing at the time, and that this response carries more rationalization than anything.
Notice the title of the thread.
Sometimes, the word “scientist” can carry a normative meaning.
I was wrong, the Lisbon reports do indeed go up to XI (that’s a This is Spinal Tap reference, folks):
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/16/lisbon-workshop-on-reconciliation-part-xi-convinced-or-unconvinced/
So more taxonomy navel-gazing, right in the middle of the O’Donnell affair:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/antarctica
Contrarian c. establishment carries less cognitive load and works just better, in my opinion.
@ vtg
You are of course right (upthread) wrt nil by mouth for RT, but I have to admit I’m enjoying watching Willard enjoy himself 😉
Here’s a great video about rising temperatures in an office to which standard denier answers are offered;
We can’t control the temperatures…
I don’t think the thermostat is accurate…
All we’re missing is Richard Tol telling us its too expensive to turn down the heat.
At long last an epistemology of disagreement confirms everything Judy so far believed:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/18/epistemology-of-disagreement/
A bit later in February 2011, we get part XII of the Lisbon reports (Jerry’s Return) and the month ends with Hiding the Decline stuff.
You just can’t make this up.
***
A flashback on a little thing I did a lot at the time:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/26/agreeing/#comment-49269
Denizens always had the very good idea of pontificating about climate scientists’ on a climate scientist’s website.
So, scientists are human in every respect except for the human tendency towards tribalism?
Willard: “(That is a This is Spinal Tap reference)”
There are people who don’t understand this implicitly? Heretics!
Off with their heads!
Evening Richard
So what, exactly, does this have to do with physical climatology?
Richard, it is a shame that you are unable to admit that Kuhn doesn’t actually directly support your contention. As human beings we may have a tendency towards tribalism, but that doesn’t mean that tribalism is a significant issue in science, and it certainly doesn’t mean that Kuhn was making the case that it is.
verytallguy (a while back)
Stadium wave
Undersea volcanoes
Clouds
Magick
Not necessarily in that order
A meaningless list without the unifying paradigm, Climate Elves.
So, because Kuhn did not use the word tribal, Curry cannot say she feels like having been tossed out of the tribe?
The notion of a “tribe” is of course central to the study of Latour and Woolgar.
Seems that BartV traces back Judy’s political turn around the same time I did:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/26/climate-heretic-part-ii/#comment-746763
Oh, and Richard Tol, I assume that your rhetorical question means you have no evidence to offer regarding the usage of the word “tribe” as a valid theorical construct in sociology of science?
***
I’ll try to build a timeline of the topics at Judy’s. My retrodiction is lots of psycho-pop and moralistic claptraps.
Magma:
Oh dear, it’s a low blow, but you forgot gremlins.
Richard,
Is this too complicated for you? Scientists are human. Clearly they behave as humans do, with all the normal failings and idiosyncrasies. That does not mean, however, that there is some kind of over-arching tribe from which you can be ejected (well, unless you suddenly stop being human, but that seems unlikely to be relevant) in such a way that it prevents you from doing what you regard as important and ground-breaking science. On the other hand, if Judith wants to feel that she’s been tossed out of the tribe, she’s welcome to. It doesn’t somehow make it true, though. It also makes it seem that she’s simply making an excuse for not doing the supposedly important and ground-breaking science.
Rcihard wrote “So, because Kuhn did not use the word tribal, Curry cannot say she feels like having been tossed out of the tribe?”
It was you that used Kuhn to support your argument AFAICS, not Prof. Curry. Besides, I am not specifically asking whether Kuhn used that particular word, just whether he wrote anything that directly supported tribalism (or words to that effect) being part of his thesis.
Also she may feel that she has been tossed out of the “tribe”, but that doesn’t mean it is actually what happened. Science tends to be rather critical, if you start to make arguments that are not well supported by the observations (or indeed the sources you cite), you are likely to come in for some criticism. This doesn’t mean the “tribe” has turned against you, the “tribe” behaves this way to everybody, and it is the strength of your argument and your willingness to address criticism that decided the outcome.
==> “So, because Kuhn did not use the word tribal, Curry cannot say she feels like having been tossed out of the tribe?”
Yes. She cannot say it.
So no one can question the logic behind Judith saying that she feels like having been tossed out of the tribe?
Willard – what’s the name for that fallacy?
==> “Also she may feel that she has been tossed out of the “tribe”, but that doesn’t mean it is actually what happened.
I just hate it when people like you say that that she cannot say that she feels like she’s been tossed out of the tribe – like you did in that quote I excerpted.
Why do you say that? Doesn’t Judith have a right to say that she feels like she’s been tossed out of the tribe?
Why do you deny her that right?
Lysanko. McCarthy. Genghis Kahn!
BBD,
Could I take the liberty of suggesting something?
If a scientist wants to add a new floor due to natural variation, etc., then it seems to me there should be a new ceiling added to account for the possibility natural variation could accentuate AGW during the period.
vtg
Sorry, I f***ed up. Forgot meself, innit? I just seed the geezer and let go.
When I bring up the book, “The Hockey Stick Illusion”, on comment threads, people still respond by linking to the RC post, “The Montford Delusion”. I don’t know how any of you can read that exchange between Judith and Gavin without cringing! I picture Julianne Moore from the movie, “Hannibal” and Joe Pantoliano from just about any character that he has ever played.
> When I bring up the book, “The Hockey Stick Illusion”, on comment threads, people still respond by linking to the RC post, […]
I don’t, and usually stick to the words we can read in our beloved Bishop’s political hit job, and Denizens usually move onto another subject, Canman. In any case, please stick to Judy’s “tribe” meme.
Thank you for your concerns.
Look, to be a scientist, there is really only one thing you have to do–science that is useful to your fellow scientists. Period. That’s it. Judy chose to stop doing science because it was too hard and the “uncertainty monster” was too scary. That isn’t the response of a scientist. A scientist acknowledges the difficulties, challenges, and yes, the uncertainties, but perseveres and does what he or she can to make sense of it.
Judy hasn’t been doing that. And climate science has been progressing without her, and it will continue to do so. Aunt Judy is crucial to the denialists. To real scientists, she’s a minor embarrassment.
When anybody brings up Hannibal and Julianne Moore, the lambs all:
The dominant of March 2011 at Judy’s should be the Congressional Hearing on EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulations, with Judge Judy’s verdict:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/03/08/extreme-testimony/
***
After a small post about the psycho-pop metaphor of foxes and hedgehogs, there was also the UK SciTech peer review inquiry, with this interesting remark about Donald Gillies’ testimony:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/03/17/uk-scitech-peer-review-enquiry/
I don’t know how Judy can know that. Besides, the concept of research programme is more in line with Lakatos’ stuff. I’m not sure I’d go as far as Gillies and “to eliminate the use of peer review as much as possible,” but I think there is merit in this idea, even if it’s backed up with appeals to hindsight.
***
By the end of the month, there was a call for comments :
http://judithcurry.com/2011/03/24/reasoning-about-climate-uncertainty-draft/
Scientists really ought to hire editors.
I might be biased.
***
Oh, and by the end of the month, there was another Congressional hearing:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/03/28/congressional-hearing-on-climate-change/
And then Judy will claim that she’s not into politics.
IEHO, it’s not so much there is a tribe as there is a nomenklatura, and Judy has been tossed. As Eli hears it when she started going weird folks just edged away.
From Wikipedia: Epistemic community
An epistemic community in international relations (IR) is a network of professionals with recognized knowledge and skill in a particular issue-area. They share a set of beliefs, which provide a value-based foundation for the actions of members. Members of an epistemic community also share causal beliefs, which result from their analysis of practices that contribute to set of problems in their issue-area that then allow them to see the multiple links between policy and outcomes. Third, they share notions of validity, or internationally defined criteria for validating knowledge in their area of know-how. However, the members are from all different professions. Epistemic communities also have a common set of practices associated with a set of problems towards which their professional knowledge is directed, because of the belief that human welfare will benefit as a result. Communities evolve independently and without influence of authority or government. They do not have to be large; some are made up of only a few members. Even non-members can have an influence on epistemic communities. However, if the community loses consensus, then its authority decreases.
I’ve bolded the last sentence because it might in large part explain why those of a certain stripe have spent so much time attacking the scientific consensus on AGW. Negative advertising, personal attack ads, swiftboating – we know how successful these tactics are.
It’s easy to laugh at Richard Tol. His obsession with the 97% consensus – trying to denigrate it at the same time agreeing that it’s likely correct – makes popcorn a staple food for many blog readers. Of course this is reinforced by his criticisms of others while gremlins kept popping up in his own work. Yet a more serious question arises: What would motivate him to attack Cook et al, or call the Stern report “alarming and incompetent” ?
Just a few years ago Tol was telling anyone that asked that the Social Cost of Carbon was $2/ton. More recently he’s been touting a carbon tax “that is in the order of 10, 20, 30 dollars per ton of CO2.” The $2/ton number now seems like an absurdity, though it’s difficult to square even his more recent number(s) with the latest research. Meanwhile that “alarming and incompetent” Stern Report generated a SCC that looks very reasonable – and conservative compared to more recent research..
Of his own field and the SCC Tol has written, “This literature does not suffer from confirmation bias. Instead, the received wisdom is regularly challenged. A consensus has yet to be reached.” That last sentence is ambiguous; of what value is a consensus? Perhaps he means that there is still widespread expert disagreement on the SCC as opposed to a consensus position where experts would be in pretty much agreement on the SCC. An odd position to take given some of his past comments on ‘consensus’ in science.
Maybe someone should start an annual Ivar Giaever Award for people who have lost their tribes/nomenclatura/sheep?
So, getting back to the the Rose/Spectator headline …
‘I was tossed out of the tribe’
So far we’ve adjudicated that Judith was not ‘tossed’ (literally or figuratively) and that there was not a ‘tribe’ (well actually the deniers defined the tribe as those who are not them, that happens when you use your brain stem for your entire thought process, its savage and its primitive, but, well, you get the picture, I hope) so that leaves …
‘I was out of the …’
That statement is missing a word at its end and I submit or adjudicate that that word is ‘picture’ so that statement now reads …
‘I was out of the picture’
We do know that Judith wasn’t in the CRU emails (well I’ll need some confirmation on that one), wasn’t involved in the IPCC (ditto) and from all appearances has a distinct dislike for other more well known climate scientists (e. g. Mann, Hansen, Schmidt, etceteras), mostly anyone who has better publication records wrt actual climate science.
We also know that there was a long standing ‘debate’ mostly related to policy and politics of the science of climate and its long term implications.
OK, so Judith was out of the ‘picture’ as it were, so the question in Judith’s mind was ‘How do I insert myself into this picture?’ or some such.
We also know that the easiest route to notoriety for deniers is not through the decades long processes of peer reviewed scientific literature, but rather, through the public sphere of rhetoric and debate.
So Judith was not ‘tossed’ rather, Judith ‘deserted’ the science via various and numerous rhetorical devices (we could also use the metaphors of ‘jumping ship’ ‘left the building’ ‘left the reservation’ or ‘jumped of the ledge’ given her rather juvenile view of how science could, should or would conduct itself).
‘I was out of the picture’
We now know, six-seven-eight years later, in the specific case of Judith, how one goes about inserting oneself into the ‘picture’ as it were. There is no there there, there has just been there. There being the ancient and time honored traditions of rhetoric and debate.
Judith’s primary mission and vehicle for that mission was/is/will be FUD. The only thing that Judith is certain about is her uncertainty (consonant dissonance) and that she thinks it would be a very good idea if the rest of humanity would get the ‘picture’ and join her inner ‘tribe’ of certainty. BAU. QED.
This is when Judith was tossed out of the tribe:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-heretic/
Paywall. November 2010. Fancy that.
RickA/Willard,
Climate heretic: Judith Curry turns on her colleagues
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html
I’m trying to remember Judith’s 1st few appearances at RC (or all of them) prior to the CRU emails (circa 11/19/2009). Or her interactions elsewhere in the climate blogosphere prior to CRU.
There’s an unauthorized autobiography to be had here.
Thanks, Ethan.
So the “heretic” word appears nowhere but in the title, and the author remains as charitable as one can be. Interestingly, there’s this quote from Judy:
Another interesting quote by the Auditor:
Both religious tropes can be understood by this commentary by S. Alexander Haslam:
What’s missing from this analysis is that Curry herself uses that “heretic” line. The immediate effect is to enhance her social status right up to what she calls “the big table.” Doing politics is fair and square to me – what’s not is to pretend that this self-victimization isn’t used as a political ploy.
***
It would be ridiculous to think that academics have no political savviness. One does not become a chair by pure chance. A record based on publication piggybacking also provides a tell.
Captains Hindsight and Foresight reporting for duty …
Full Committee Hearing – The President’s UN Climate Pledge: Scientifically Justified or a New Tax on Americans?
Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 – 10:00am
Location: 2318 Rayburn House Office Building
https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/full-committee-hearing-president-s-un-climate-pledge-scientifically-justified
Dr. Judith Curry, Professor, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
Click to access HHRG-114-SY-WState-JCurry-20150415_0.pdf
“Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change:
• The hiatus in global warming since 1998 … ”
So perhaps Judith has some ‘skin in the game’ as it were, maybe this gave Lamar Smith his latest input wrt the ‘hiatus’ and perhaps a potential conflict on Curry’s part wrt the Lamar Smith versus NOAA and her rather very public opinion on said matters? Don’t know. But this is wrt COP21 is it not? Inquiring minds want to know.
Full Committee Hearing: The Administration’s Empty Promises for the International Climate Treaty
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 – 10:00am
Location: 2318 Rayburn House Office Building
https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/full-committee-hearing-administration-s-empty-promises-international-climate
Mr. Paul C. Knappenberger Assistant Director, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute
But this is wrt COP21 is it not?
Full Committee Hearing – Pitfalls of Unilateral Negotiations at the Paris Climate Change Conference
Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2015 – 10:00am
Location: 2318 Rayburn House Office Building
https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/full-committee-hearing-pitfalls-unilateral-negotiations-paris-climate-change
Dr. Bjørn Lomborg, President, Copenhagen Consensus Center
But this is wrt COP21 is it not?
I’m beginning to get a clue, I’m beginning to get a raging clue. This whole Lamar Smith versus NOAA thingie has always been about COP21 and nothing else as Smith would have others believe.
All the letters to NOAA? COP21 and nothing but COP21. All of this and I do mean ALL OF THIS has to do with nothing but COP21.
Where’s the effin’ MSM when you need them?
I’d say more, but I’m just an itsy bitsy teeny weenie PO’ed right now.
Speaking about Lamar Smith, here is his latest rant at the Washington Times: NOAA’s climate change science fiction – The environmental intelligence agency ignores satellite data.
I guess it will never occur to Smith to investigate the massive corrections done to the UAH satellite data.
Indeed, Lars. It would be fun to hear a NOAA administrator ask Lamar Smith why Spencer & Christy have not been called in front of a congressional committee, despite the fact that their latest update involves *much* larger changes than those recent NOAA changes (let’s not even discuss all those corrections in the first decade of this century). Or why he ignores Po-Chedley’s version.
Ethan: “This whole Lamar Smith versus NOAA thingie has always been about COP21 and nothing else as Smith would have others believe.”
I strongly agree. Might I also suggest that David Rose’s article is timed so that he might do his bit before COP21.
The bottom line is that record high temperatures is an awfully difficult card to trump. What strikes me most about these recent attempts to whip up a new ‘Climategate’ is how weak they are.
Mark,
Indeed, there seems to be a clear attempt to undermine the Paris meeting. What is remarkable, in my view, is that we still see serious people criticising scientists for presenting what they think are unrealistic scenarios, and saying things like “it’s time to stop arguing about the science and start talking about solutions”. Where’s the criticism of these pretty blatant attempts to stop us from making some scenarios reality and actually discussing solutions?
Now that you mention it…
“What is remarkable, in my view, is that we still see serious people criticising scientists for presenting what they think are unrealistic scenarios, and saying things like “it’s time to stop arguing about the science and start talking about solutions”. Where’s the criticism of these pretty blatant attempts to stop us from making some scenarios reality and actually discussing solutions?”
ATTP could you expand on that thought just a little bit? Because at my end I’m doing a little head scratching, what scenarios, what solutions and what people? Don’t need specifics just some further clarity wrt the above. Thanks.
Ethan,
My comment was partly motived by what I wrote in this post. There’s a reasonable amount of current criticism of climate scientists presenting what some think are overly rosy scenarios. Well, they can only present what is physically possible. It’s for others to decide if they’re no longer politically feasible. Criticising scientists for presenting these scenarios seems to be missing the point.
Reading back BartV’s thread, I now recall where this “heresy” bit started:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/03/reversing-the-direction-of-the-positive-feedback-loop/
How many graduate students were appointed as lead authors of the IPCC?
Dogma. Religious. Priests. Big tables. Yes, big tables. The same size as the Last Supper, I guess.
It’s not the first time Judy mentions big tables. Notice the date. Also notice the article right before the Loop:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/02/the-balancing-heretic-2/
Which means we need to dig before. Here’s another one:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/25/heresy-and-the-creation-of-monsters/
It also appears that Lemonick had to justify why he wrote about Judy:
http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/why-i-wrote-about-judith-curry
I don’t think RickA can seriously argue that the Scientific American piece started any of this.
Going back in time a few weeks, we get to this post:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/09/02/test/
Well, clearly her feelings are hurt. There’s nothing else to do but accept Judith’s complaint. Here’s the form;
Press hard, you’re making 10,000 copies for the old tribe…. Once received we’ll be sure to mail a response to the 2 or 3 scientists in your new tribe.
Related (emphasis in the text):
http://righteousmind.com/where-microaggressions-really-come-from/
Source: http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/11/24/the-yale-problem-begins-in-high-school/
Interestingly, Judy participates in the Heterodox Academy project.
Willard… interesting… There is a group of people feel the pain of victims.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Willard,
Yeah, I tripped over that particular heterodox article a week or so ago. Can’t remember exactly why but I think it had to do with this season of South Park …
http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/Stunning_and_Brave/Script
Janitor: Well, looks like thangs are gettin’ all PC again. [a shot of the PC frat house again]
Friend: Well how long d’you think this will last?
Janitor: Lasted about six years last time. We got at least [checks his watch] 5.9 years to go.
This is their 1st season with a very major story arc devoted to a single issue: microaggressions.
I’m sort of thinking that the whole Heterodox Academy thing is somehow related and a form of pushback to current college campus PC life.
Chef: There’s a time and a place for everything and it’s called college.
A bit of a belated reply to ATTP above on my comment on AMOC (rather than Maunder minimums) and global cooling –
“I’m not even convinced that that would lead to global cooling. It might lead to cooling in parts of North America and parts of Western Europe. I think the only way it could lead to global cooling would be if it produced an expansion of the NH ice sheets, and I suspect that that is implausible if CO2 is above 400ppm.”
I was thinking of this Nature paper “Competition between global warming and an abrupt collapse of the AMOC in Earth’s energy imbalance”, Sybren Drijfhout, http://www.nature.com/articles/srep14877 which seems to say it would trigger decades of global cooling. Not saying Drijfhout is correct of course, or even speculating on the likelihood of such an AMOC collapse.
Pingback: Dogma? | …and Then There's Physics