I guess the big news in the climate blogosphere is that Judith Curry has resigned (retired from?) her tenured faculty position at Georgia Tech. One reason appears to be that Judith is disenchanted with today’s academia. I actually have some sympathy with this; there are many issues that I think we should be addressing. Univerisities have become much more corporate than they once were. What is valued isn’t always high quality research, or teaching. What is incentivised does not necessarily lead to high quality research or teaching. There’s also a tendency to over-hype some research results and we almost certainly publish too many papers. There are many issues that we should be addressing, some more serious than others.
Where I part ways with Judith is when she says
How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide
and
At this point, the private sector seems like a more ‘honest’ place for a scientist working in a politicized field than universities or government labs
Even though there are issues within academia/universities that we should – IMO – be addressing, I’ve seen little to indicate that there is some kind of tendency to sacrifice scientific integrity in order to build an academic career. It is quite a difficult career path, and some very good people don’t manage to build careers, while some who aren’t as good do, but that’s because it’s not perfect and really can’t be; it’s not because those who have built careers have done so by sacrificing their scientific integrity. There are some who value big grants and building research empires over quietly undertaking careful research, but not only are academics human – like everyone else – there isn’t a one-size-fits-all route to a successful academic career.
If anything, many of the problems we do face are probably because universities have tried to become more like private industry than they once were. There are buzzwords like impact and excellence that noone can really quantify but that we have to try and satisfy anyway. There are metrics that try to measure productivity and quality that few regards as reasonable but that are used anyway. There are games that universities play so as to score well on league tables that few actually trust.
However, this doesn’t really suggest to me that somehow universities are full of people who have sacrified scientific integrity so as to build a career, or that research in the private sector is somehow more honest than research in the university sector. Judith seems to lament her fall from the ivory tower and, although I have some sympathy, it’s hard to see why she would expect her colleagues to embrace her accusations that they lack scientific integrity and are working in an environment that is intrinsically dishonest. I don’t think that people who make accusations against others should be applauded simply because they claim to believe what they’ve said is true.
I guess it’s possible that Judith will eventually be vindicated and that we’ll discover that climate science (or academia in general) is rife with people who are putting their careers ahead of scientific integrity and honesty. However, that will probably be more by luck than design and, given what Judith seems comfortable promoting on her blog, I’d be extremely surprised if it were to happen.
...and Then There's Physics 
Rewarding scientists for writing many papers slows down science by forcing people to spend more time writing and reading papers rather than doing research. Rewarding universities for having a lot of soft money funding reduces the pressure to spend money efficiently. Having people without skin in the game making important funding decisions and calling that soviet system a competitive system is a rhetorical travesty.
All these things slow down science. They do not make the findings wrong.
The private industry is not too keen on funding climate science. If the oil and coal multinationals thought there was a minute possibility academic science was wrong or even just somewhat biased against them, they would fund a lot of science. That would be the best investment they could ever make.
http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2014/03/big-oil-industry-funding-alternative-climate-research.html
I think its cowardly to try to claim the moral high ground by implying that everyone who thinks differently than you lacks integrity. It’s a weasel’s way out.
This is science. Scientists are open to new data, better data, new ideas, and better theories — it’s why science has been so successful. Judith hasn’t provided any of those; instead, she’s retreated to becoming a conspiracy theorist.
She says she isn’t going to a university or government position. That still leaves denier “think” tanks, which I’m sure, at this point in time in time, would be happy to have her “consult” for them.
I wonder what sacrifices to Judith’s integrity were made to avoid career suicide? She was certainly free to spout all kinds of nonsense: https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/
Victor,
Yes, I was thinking the same. The system may not be optimal, but it doesn’t mean that our understanding of what we’re studying is somehow flawed.
David,
What strikes me about all the recent woe is me stories (Pielke Jr and Curry) is how they take virtually no responsibility for the position that they’re in; it’s all other people’s fault etc.
“At this point, the private sector seems like a more ‘honest’ place for a scientist working in a politicized field than universities or government labs”
Yes, if the high road to utopia is “The Virtue of Selfishness”, that must be true.
This is an argument that is being pushed as orthodoxy in many quarters, despite the lessons of the “Tobacco Institute”, and of Mobile-Exxon’s anti-AGW propaganda which they have since quietly backed away from.
And re Victor Venoma’s “Having people without skin in the game making important funding decisions and calling that soviet system”, casually flung epithets by those who should know better, like N. N. Taleb (“skin in the game” and “Harvard-Soviet” are both his phrases) sell books while helping trash distinctions between institutions designed to get at the truth (however imperfectly) and those that scream “First Amendment” when anyone criticizes their integrity.
It is certainly the more profitable way to go as a Ph.D. scientist (see http://therealtruthproject.blogspot.com/2015/01/what-to-make-of-judith-curry.html).
It will be interesting to find out the identities of the NOAA whistle blowers. Karl seems to already know who they are. I asked recently at CE what was up with the whistle blowers, and responded responded to stay tuned.
Anyway, Professor Curry’s first article post retirement in on SSTs.
Hal Morris says: “And re Victor Venoma’s “Having people without skin in the game making important funding decisions and calling that soviet system”, casually flung epithets by those who should know better, like N. N. Taleb (“skin in the game” and “Harvard-Soviet” are both his phrases)”
It still works because the idea that humans are self-interested first and self-interested last is so tragically wrong. That is one aspect, but if that were all we could never have build a civilization. Altruism is just as human. Although there are no incentives for reviewers and decision makers to make good decisions, their passion for scientific progress means that they still do a decent job in an adverse system.
JCH says: “Anyway, Professor Curry’s first article post retirement in on SSTs.”
There is just a new review paper out on the uncertainties in the sea surface temperature record.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00251.1
I hope it will be a guest post.
Sure there are issues with universities (and there probably always have been, to be fair) and how scientific research is funded and prioritized.
In the end it is still a meritocracy, even if flawed, and the important hypotheses that rise to the top have survived close and sometimes hostile scrutiny by peers and competitors as well as being checked against nature.
The bitterness expressed by Curry, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Pielke (and few more who could be added) may stem partly from their ideas being rejected or ignored and partly from their own knowledge that this is justified. None of them are stupid, and I don’t think they can actually fool themselves completely.
Last year I attended a public lecture on climate given by a contrarian geoscientist who gave a presentation filled with worn-out denier talking points and graphs. It was remarkable just how fast he switched from affable condescension to a brittle, angry defensiveness when challenged by a polite but pointed question by someone (*cough*) who knew the subject. I don’t think this would have been the case if he had been genuinely confident in his story.
SB – Professor Curry responded to stayed tuned… as though the sham congressional investigation still has legs.
Looking ZH’s video… how can it still have legs?
> Looking ZH’s video… how can it still have legs?
How can you srsly be asking that question non-rhetorically, JCH? 🙂
JCH, it has legs because Republicans are in charge, and they plan to shut down and/or defund every bit of climate science they can. I’m a hothead, but honestly, I think it is past time to be hotheads about these monstrous ethnic cleansing-like plans to get rid of real climate resesarch and researchers. Judith Curry is one of their assets.
Treating this stuff as based on scientific integrity gives them a lot of rope, and they will use it. The whole climate science denial infrastructure is created specifically for this purpose. Trump’s cabinet, from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, EPA attacker Pruitt, Attorney General Jeff Sessions (climate science “offends” him as it usurps god), and all the others to some degree, are climate science deniers (skeptics won’t do, that’s what they want you to call them) undiluted by curiosity or open-mindedness. They have a majority in both houses and the Supreme Court very soon. Our only hope is that a few Republicans will come to their senses and realize destroying the environment is contrary to the goals of real Republicans.
Last year’s Congressional denialfest (Rep. Lamar Smith in the House and Sen. Cruz in the Senate) was supported by “whistleblower” Judith Curry. Is the government tinkering with global warming data?. Democrats were able to get some people in, but the accusations that Obama was in league with the usual suspects were unambiguous and now they are to be made the law of the land, absent some miraculous interference or road to Damascus moments for some rational Republicans.
My opinion, by now we should be able to recite all this stuff in our sleep. They’re very hot against SkepticalScience because they don’t like their opposition to talk to each other or organize the standard arguments. Remember the Rove summary: Entangle, Demoralize, Attack, Confuse, Contain, Intimidate, Insult, Deceive, Demean.
There’s an article about Judith Curry retiring. A number of people are up in arms on Twitter because Michael Mann is apparently said
However, Judith Curry has apparently repeated Lindzen’s suggestion that
which is essentially a suggestion that we get rid of (fire?) a significant fraction of current climate scientists and somehow start again.
From Professor Curry’s hatchet job when Karl came out:
…In my opinion, the gold standard dataset for global ocean surface temperatures is the UK dataset, HadSST3. A review of the uncertainties is given in this paper by John Kennedy http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/uncertainty.html. Note, the UK group has dealt with the same issues raised by the NOAA team. I personally see no reason to the use the NOAA ERSST dataset, I do not see any evidence that the NOAA group has done anywhere near as careful a job as the UK group in processing the ocean temperatures. …
Have to question her radar…
I don’t really want to see Dr Curry on the pundit circuit. Although a double-billing with Lord Monckton would have entertainment value…
JCH.
“It will be interesting to find out the identities of the NOAA whistle blowers. Karl seems to already know who they are…”
Have I missed something? Was this the reference to an upcoming Guest post in Climate Etc?
No, when Smith versus NOAA thing fired up, Professor Curry said there were two NOAA whistle blowers… presumably communicating with Smith’s investigation.
It seems obvious to me that Curry was one of them. The Fox OpEd (linked in my 3rd paragraph above) supported the tortured claims of bias. Splitting hairs is on the wrong end of the action with battle clubs, I’d say.
Though one might say that claiming a publication in a scientific journal is underhanded and political is not whistleblowing, it’s attacking the referee.
Honesty is being turned against itself by devious means.
Can anyone think of an example of greater ‘honesty’ in science done in the private sector on a politicised subject, than universities or government labs? Statements like Curry’s would be so much more persuasive if they could cite a real example of such assertions…
Science R&D in the private sector is disproportionately concentrated in the biomedical field. Compared to which Climate science looks like a paragon of honesty and virtue.
Given some of the other well known debates in sciences such as Steady State vs Big Bang and Out of Africa vs Multiregional, I am trying to remember any where a group were so thin skinned and held in such low regard by their peers. Both these debates were finished off by sudden bits of evidence, the cosmic microwave background killed steady state and the genetic evidence, especially mitochondrial, killed multiregional in the early 90s.
Fred Hoyle and Milford Wolpoff (the two most well known proponents of those two failed theories) seem to have been held in high regard even after their theories had died.
Not really a specific thought but just comparing the Currys, Christys and Spencers to others who have ploughed their own furrows in other fields.
==> Compared to which Climate science looks like a paragon of honesty and virtue. ==>
It isn’t exactly coincidental that fetishism of the private sector is positively associated with “skepticism” about climate change.
“Looking ZH’s video… how can it still have legs?”
Now that there was science communication..
From Curry’s blog post, apparently she’s requested emeritus status.
*cough*
==> Now that there was science communication.. ==>
And look at the dramatic difference that it makes in the reaction from “skeptics.”
See, all it takes is for non-activist authors who leave out the term “denier” (and who aren’t fat like Al) and “skeptics” stick to the science and leave out the accusations of fraud and what not…
Just look at the reaction Zeke’s paper is getting at WUWT…nothing but respect…..
Wait…
Er…
Nevermind.
> Univerisities
I like that.
Joshua.. science communication is not aimed at skeptics.
If not for the magic of commodity and energy futures, derivatives instruments and unlimited financial arbitrage I wonder if Curry would be going full time into the private sector? Considering her political and institutional connections she should make out like a bandit. Loved the quote about private industry being more “honest”. Our soon-to-be businessman president has been involved in over 3500 law suites so “honest” might be in the eye of the beholder (or more likely blind).
In which she summons up the spectre of underwater volcanoes* to explain climate change.
It is quite appaling that the scientific community vilify her so without reason.
*Not made up. Honest. Read the article.
> which is essentially a suggestion that we get rid of (fire?) a significant fraction of current climate scientists and somehow start again.
Curry leading from the front, then. Excellent.
” … a suggestion that we get rid of (fire?) a significant fraction of current climate scientists and somehow start again.”
That is Bush, Blair and the WMD all over again … “Give me the answer I want, or I will find someone else who will …. “. With Trump in the White House, it is not beyond belief that it might happen.
Steven M sez:
If we turn this round, it is to say that ‘sceptics’ reject science communication. Self-evident, you might say, but it really does sum up the problem. This is denialism.
Already happened: Teh Donald has replaced all US intelligence services with… Julian Assange.
But the more vexing issue is the discrepancies in the recent record — the last two decades and even the last 5 years. – Professor Curry
First, when the Karl paper came out she basically suggested somebody do what ZH has done.
So ZH tests and affirms the Karl adjustments/new NOAA record with three independent records, satellite, ARGO, and buoys, and she is vexed that the records that confirmed her horrifically bad intuitions on this matter, her favorites, are at odds?
Is that what she means?
Stephen –
==> Joshua.. science communication is not aimed at skeptics. ==>
What are you doing when you write comments at WUWT or CE?
Not communicating? Communicating something other than science?
Communicating science but aiming somewhere else than in the direction of those you’re exchanging comments with?
Stephen –
Actually, I withdraw my question: It isn’t particularly important what you do in the “skept-o-spheric” climate blog comment sections, or why you do it.
It is an interesting question as to whether ZH’s efforts to communicate science are likely to represent any particular dynamic within the climate wars. It is notable that unlike some blog exchanges, his communication in the video (and in the comment section at WUWT) is not (much) about “the other” (i.e., about what “skeptics” or “alarmists” do or say), but (mostly all) about the science itself.
But wasn’t that the case with Karl also? And where did that get Karl? The chance to be the subject of a Congressional investigation, for which one Judith Curry wrote a Fox News editorial in support (a non-advocate editorial calling for a scientist to be investigated for conducting science, of course).
So my guess is that ZH’s science communication won’t represent a dynamic that is particularly distinct in meaningful ways – because (IMO) the climate wars aren’t only, or even predominantly perhaps, about science communication: They’re largely about identity-aggression and identity-defense. And, IMO, unless people begin to directly address the cultural cognition component of the climate wars (which I think is unlikely to happen), that nature of the exchange won’t change until the weather (short term climactic phenomena) makes it unambiguously clear that the climate is changing in undesirable ways. The climate wars will continue to be about identity-aggression and identity-defense until when/if it is simply too painful enough to continue with BAU that people won’t just find it more interesting use the climate to hate otters.
…or climatic phenomena either….
“Actually, I withdraw my question: It isn’t particularly important what you do in the “skept-o-spheric” climate blog comment sections, or why you do it.”
You could just say touche` and have some class
“It is an interesting question as to whether ZH’s efforts to communicate science are likely to represent any particular dynamic within the climate wars. ”
What does this even mean?
“represent a particular dynamic”
I think Zeke does a great job communicating.For some reason you cannot simply bring yourself to agree with a simple compliment to another human being.
Instead you write vapid crap.
“What are you doing when you write comments at WUWT or CE?”
1. Amusing myself
2. Brake checking
3. Instigator
4. Enforcer
5. Testing.
“First, when the Karl paper came out she basically suggested somebody do what ZH has done.
So ZH tests and affirms the Karl adjustments/new NOAA record with three independent records, satellite, ARGO, and buoys, and she is vexed that the records that confirmed her horrifically bad intuitions on this matter, her favorites, are at odds?
@@@@@@
Not only that I think its fair to say the project grew out of her suggestion.
Perhaps you could remind her
==>I think Zeke does a great job communicating.For some reason you cannot simply bring yourself to agree with a simple compliment to another human being. ==>
I thought Zekes’s video is interesting. He wrote what I thought is a good article recently that I linked here…it was clear enough that even I could understand some of it.
But what difference will it make in larger context, the quality of his “science communication?”
As I see it, this special focus on “science communication” suggests that it is how a scientist communicates that makes a difference in outcome, and I don’t think that focus gets to the crux of the biscuit. It’s like when Kahan says that calling people a “denier” makes a meaningful difference – as bad “science communication” – or when people claim the reason for the climate wars is Al Gore or Real Climate moderation, or Climategate.
People focus on Climategate, (as an example, some even write books on the topic) because it satisfies the natural tendency to focus on identity and substitute that focus for a focus on the science. Why do people focus on something that isn’t the science?
Does the quality of Zeke’s “science communication” have a signal in the noise of the climate wars? I doubt it.
And so I think that focusing on the quality of “science communication” is sort of a red herring. Yes, “science communication” is a factor, but often that focus is pointing in the wrong direction. What’s lacking, IMO, is a focus on the lacking dynamic of high-quality listening, and how to get people to account for “motivations” nested in their listening process. In the end, the focus on “science communication” is often an opportunity lost, or in some cases, a mis-direction (whether specifically intended or not) that suggests that the root of the problem in how scientists communicate, and that only further solidifies the identity-oriented dynamic of the “debate” about climate change.
I found the quote yesterday and intended to do just that, but other stuff came up… memorizing the lyrics to a love song called Rock Salt and Nails.
I read this as: deniers deflect blame from their own behaviour by pretending that science communication is the problem, not denialism.
Would that be about right?
1) When she “came out” as “heretic” in Keith Kloor’s blog in 2010, she:
a) Completely bought McIntyre’s claims.
b) Mentioned Wegman, falsely claimed Wegman Report as an NRC request
c) Got pushback, including menion of plagiarism then accumulating
d) Attacked Deep Climate as “reprehensible” twice, essentially for exposing plagiarism, which of course is the easiest of the academic frauds to display, once found
e) Eventually admitted she hadn’t really looked into it, blamed others for drawing her into this, did NOT apologize to Deep Climate.
f) asked Kloor to rule out any further discussion related to this.
Pattern: strong statements without knowing the facts, attacks on others, retreat but without apology
2) Salby (one of these years, I’ll finish off the massive analysis that is mostly done)
a) She gave Salby’s silly claims credence, and totally ignored the strong evidence of othe4r problems.
b) She claimed not to know him personally, which was vague, but odd, given
– He and she were both senior members of modest-sized CU department for a decade
– She was Ack’d on one of his papers
– Salby filed complaints against her husband, who was the Dept Head at CU.
c) She claimed Salby was good teacher … but the CU student reports didn’t support that well.
This is the Professor Curry comment… which includes mutilating the data@
This post and the exchange arising from it remind us that science communication has much to learn from other disciplines, like landscape design:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/01/science-communication-lesson-from.html
Industry is not more honest in any fashion.
First.. industry doesn’t do research. It just doesn’t. What a scientist will do there, is… not research.
Second, what little research you do get tends to get bogged down in IP agreements and non disclosures etc. Its never shared, and its never reviewed outside the organization. You won’t hear about what other people are doing until they flash an industry crushing new feature. (You are out of a job.) By definition you are not permitted to speak of what you do in public. (Is that more honest?)
Third, what papers and info are shared, tend to be sales glossies. No detail, and long on bragging.
In my field and I see this non stop. Currently China is pulling ahead of the west because its businesses allow open communication and publishing, while in the US we are closed minded and falling back.
Hopefully some day I’ll be permitted to show other companies my ground breaking work. I just have to console myself with the fact that I’m crushing the competition.
In the mean time, will Curry continue getting big paychecks from the oil industry? Is she planning to continue her career working for oil and gas as she has been all along?
simpler Curry: victim bully.
In the original exchanges on RealClimate and then Kloor’s Collide-a-Scape, she showed up with a devotion to Montford, and claimed that every must read it; apparently it was a revelation to her and she found it utterly persuasive. She was treated with kid gloves and respect, diminishing over time, by Gavin Schmidt (I followed this in real time). Being maths-challenged, I used to be much more careful about what I say, but there was no question that Dr. Curry evaded technical questions with excuses disguised as evasions. I would have been ashamed to claim I was being attacked as a woman because I couldn’t answer straightforward technical questions in my own field.
Kloor provided two fora, one for her and one for Gavin Schmidt. He continued to act like a gentleman, and gave her every opportunity to support her material, while she descended into ever more obvious tactical maneuvers. He continued to be respectful over time as well. Her, not so much.
From my point of view, her worship of Montford was key at the time.
“He” above was Gavin Schmidt.
BBD –
==> I read this as: deniers deflect blame from their own behaviour by pretending that science communication is the problem, not denialism.==>
That is basically how I see it. With one addition.
In typical non-skeptical fashion, some “skeptics” (1) blame the poor state of exchange on poor “science communication” on the part of “alarmists,” (because, for example, the “alarmists” call people “deniers”), (2) complain that “alarmists” are focusing on communication rather than on the science and then, (3) blame the poor state of the exchange on poor “science communication” on the part of “alarmists” (because, for example, the “alarmists” call people “deniers” ).
That is the self-sealing logic of some “skeptics.” They construct their vision in such a way that they can’t be wrong.
Then there can be no harm in referring to them as deniers.
The positive side of such clarity is that it helps identify and exclude such irrational behaviour from the public discourse. Something long overdue.
@Joshua and BBD
Ease up a bit. I just realized I can blame my weak command of differential equations on the poor communication skills of some long-retired professors rather than on my own laziness.
This is promising.
BBD needs something to read…
•These records suggests that intermediate waters were 1.5–2 °C warmer during the Holocene Thermal Maximum than in the last century.
•Intermediate water masses cooled by 0.9 °C from the Medieval Climate Anomaly to the Little Ice Age.
•The records suggest that dynamic processes provide an efficient mechanism to amplify small changes in insolation into relatively large changes in OHC.
Or:
During documented episodes of global warmth, he says, the method reveals relatively low CO2 values, nothing like the levels of 2000 ppm or more suggested by other proxies. If these downward revisions hold, Earth may be even more sensitive to injections of CO2 than current models predict. “Temperatures are going to climb further for less carbon and we better be mindful of that,” Franks says.
JCH
There are problems with Rosenthal et al. (which I remember well from 2013, but thank you anyway).
The article about Franks’ research into stomatal proxies seems to blur the distinction between ECS and ESS (this is *not* to say that Franks did!).
Says published Jan 1, 2017… same problems?
For sure. If Rosenthal was correct, then MWP sea level would have been *higher* than modern. But it wasn’t –
Source: RealClimate
Pingback: Derek Parfit, Ex-Philosopher – Stoat
Pingback: Derek Parfit, Ex-Philosopher – wmconnolley: scienceblogs.com/stoat archive