Curry: On the credibility of climate research

Judy Curry writes in as follows: (please comment here)

Having been riveted for the last few days by posts in the blogosphere on the HADCRU hack and the increasing attention being given to this by the mainstream media, I would like to provide an “external but insider” assessment and perspective. My perspective is as a climate researcher that is not involved directly in any of the controversies and issues in the purloined HADCRU emails, but as one that is familiar with this research, the surrounding controversies, and many of the individuals who sent these emails. While the blogosphere has identified many emails that allegedly indicate malfeasance, clarifications especially from Gavin Schmidt have been very helpful in providing explanations and the appropriate context for these emails. However, even if the hacked emails from HADCRU end up to be much ado about nothing in the context of any actual misfeasance that impacts the climate data records, the damage to the public credibility of climate research is likely to be significant. In my opinion, there are two broader issues raised by these emails that are impeding the public credibility of climate research: lack of transparency in climate data, and “tribalism” in some segments of the climate research community that is impeding peer review and the assessment process.

1. Transparency. Climate data needs to be publicly available and well documented. This includes metadata that explains how the data were treated and manipulated, what assumptions were made in assembling the data sets, and what data was omitted and why. This would seem to be an obvious and simple requirement, but the need for such transparency has only been voiced recently as the policy relevance of climate data has increased. The HADCRU surface climate dataset and the paleoclimate dataset that has gone into the various “hockeystick” analyses stand out as lacking such transparency. Much of the paleoclimate data and metadata has become available only because of continued public pressure from Steve McIntyre. Datasets that were processed and developed decades ago and that are now regarded as essential elements of the climate data record often contain elements whose raw data or metadata were not preserved (this appears to be the case with HADCRUT). The HADCRU surface climate dataset needs public documentation that details the time period and location of individual station measurements used in the data set, statistical adjustments to the data, how the data were analyzed to produce the climatology, and what measurements were omitted and why. If these data and metadata are unavailable, I would argue that the data set needs to be reprocessed (presumably the original raw data is available from the original sources). Climate data sets should be regularly reprocessed as new data becomes available and analysis methods improve. There are a number of aspects of the surface climate record that need to be understood better. For example, the surface temperature bump ca. 1940 needs to be sorted out, and I am personally lacking confidence in how this period is being treated in the HADCRUT analysis. In summary, given the growing policy relevance of climate data, increasingly higher standards must be applied to the transparency and availability of climate data and metadata. These standards should be clarified, applied and enforced by the relevant national funding agencies and professional societies that publish scientific journals.

2. Climate tribalism. Tribalism is defined here as a strong identity that separates one’s group from members of another group, characterized by strong in-group loyalty and regarding other groups differing from the tribe’s defining characteristics as inferior. In the context of scientific research, tribes differ from groups of colleagues that collaborate and otherwise associate with each other professionally. As a result of the politicization of climate science, climate tribes (consisting of a small number of climate researchers) were established in response to the politically motivated climate disinformation machine that was associated with e.g. ExxonMobil, CEI, Inhofe/Morano etc. The reaction of the climate tribes to the political assault has been to circle the wagons and point the guns outward in an attempt to discredit misinformation from politicized advocacy groups. The motivation of scientists in the pro AGW tribes appears to be less about politics and more about professional ego and scientific integrity as their research was under assault for nonscientific reasons (I’m sure there are individual exceptions, but this is my overall perception). I became adopted into a “tribe” during Autumn 2005 after publication of the Webster et al. hurricane and global warming paper. I and my colleagues were totally bewildered and overwhelmed by the assault we found ourselves under, and associating with a tribe where others were more experienced and savvy about how to deal with this was a relief and very helpful at the time.

After becoming more knowledgeable about the politics of climate change (both the external politics and the internal politics within the climate field), I became concerned about some of the tribes pointing their guns inward at other climate researchers who question their research or don’t pass various loyalty tests. I even started spending time at climateaudit, and my public congratulations to Steve McIntyre when climateaudit won the “best science blog award” was greeted with a rather unpleasant email from one of the tribal members. While the “hurricane wars” fizzled out in less than a year as the scientists recovered from the external assault and got back to business as usual in terms of arguing science with their colleagues, the “hockey wars” have continued apparently unabated. With the publication of the IPCC 4th Assessment report, the Nobel Peace Prize, and energy legislation near the top of the national legislative agenda, the “denialists” were becoming increasingly irrelevant (the Heartland Conference and NIPCC are not exactly household words). Hence it is difficult to understand the continued circling of the wagons by some climate researchers with guns pointed at skeptical researchers by apparently trying to withhold data and other information of relevance to published research, thwart the peer review process, and keep papers out of assessment reports. Scientists are of course human, and short-term emotional responses to attacks and adversity are to be expected, but I am particularly concerned by this apparent systematic and continuing behavior from scientists that hold editorial positions, serve on important boards and committees and participate in the major assessment reports. It is these issues revealed in the HADCRU emails that concern me the most, and it seems difficult to spin many of the emails related to FOIA, peer review, and the assessment process. I sincerely hope that these emails do not in actuality reflect what they appear to, and I encourage Gavin Schmidt et al. to continue explaining the individual emails and the broader issues of concern.

In summary, the problem seems to be that the circling of the wagons strategy developed by small groups of climate researchers in response to the politically motivated attacks against climate science are now being used against other climate researchers and the more technical blogs (e.g. Climateaudit, Lucia, etc). Particularly on a topic of such great public relevance, scientists need to consider carefully skeptical arguments and either rebut them or learn from them. Trying to suppress them or discredit the skeptical researcher or blogger is not an ethical strategy and one that will backfire in the long run. I have some sympathy for Phil Jones’ concern of not wanting to lose control of his personal research agenda by having to take the time to respond to all the queries and requests regarding his dataset, but the receipt of large amounts of public funding pretty much obligates CRU to respond to these requests. The number of such requests would be drastically diminished if all relevant and available data and metadata were made publicly accessible, and if requests from Steve McIntyre were honored (I assume that many spurious requests have been made to support Steve McIntyre’s request, and these would all disappear).

The HADCRU hack has substantially increased the relevance of Climateaudit, WUWT, etc. The quickest way for HADCRU et al. to put Climateaudit and the rest of this tribe out of business is make all climate data and metadata public and make every effort to improve the datasets based on all feedback that you receive. Do this and they will quickly run out of steam and become irrelevant ☺. Gavin Schmidt’s current efforts at realclimate are a good step in the right direction of increasing transparency.

But the broader issue is the need to increase the public credibility of climate science. This requires publicly available data and metadata, a rigorous peer review process, and responding to arguments raised by skeptics. The integrity of individual scientists that are in positions of responsibility (e.g. administrators at major research institutions, editorial boards, major committees, and assessments) is particularly important for the public credibility of climate science. The need for public credibility and transparency has dramatically increased in recent years as the policy relevance of climate research has increased. The climate research enterprise has not yet adapted to this need, and our institutions need to strategize to respond to this need.

105 Comments

  1. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 5:21 PM | Permalink

    Judith, obviously I agree with the sentiment here. As I’ve observed on many occasions, journal peer review is not due diligence as understood in other walks of life. Yes, science is “self-correcting” in the long run, but so are markets. The purpose of regulations requiring full true and plain disclosur for offerings of securities is to protect investors and to make markets work more effectively. If climate scientists want to fast track from articles in journals to policy with substantive implications, then they should expect and welcome due diligence wherever it arises.

    If data and code is organized properly at the time of submission to a journal, then this simply isn’t an issue. And once done, it isn’t a problem.

    FOI has been a last resort only because authors have refused reasonable requests. In most cases, multiple FOI requests have arisen only because of obstruction and untrue excuses. John Mitchell claimed that he acted as an IPCC Review Editor in a “personal” capacity and thus was not obliged to provide review comments. thus, a request for whether his expenses to IPCC meetings were paid by Hadley Center and so on. A straightforward initial handling of these matters, as you realize, would have avoided all of this.

  2. Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 5:35 PM | Permalink

    Courageous and brilliant, Judith. I would have been harsher on Jones, Mann, etc., but your historical explanation of how their clannishness arose in response to politicized attacks from the other side (CEI, etc.) is helpful. Moreover, the fact that you are communicating through Climate Audit speaks volumes about your courage and integrity in the current context.

    As someone who loves the idea of science as a noble pursuit, and who understands the importance of scientific integrity, I expect more from scientists than from politicians and lobbyists. To see a coordinated group of “scientists” stooping to the manipulative methods of politicians and lobbyists has been deeply disturbing. May more voices such as yours rise to the surface in the coming months.

    • MarkR
      Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 6:00 PM | Permalink

      Re: Michael Strong (#2), You think Judith isn’t a “manipulative voice”?

      While the “hurricane wars” fizzled out in less than a year as the scientists recovered from the external assault and got back to business as usual in terms of arguing science with their colleagues…

      Or, reality and Dr. William Gray saw you all off.

  3. Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 6:06 PM | Permalink

    snip – you’re introducing another incident that will distract from the matters at hand

  4. Follow the Money
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 6:09 PM | Permalink

    “There are a number of aspects of the surface climate record that need to be understood better. For example, the surface temperature bump ca. 1940 needs to be sorted out, and I am personally lacking confidence in how this period is being treated in the HADCRUT analysis.”

    Bump management is currently being adjusted->

    Link 9/2009 corresp.,

  5. deadite
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 6:15 PM | Permalink

    Dr. Cury –
    “This would seem to be an obvious and simple requirement, but the need for such transparency has only been voiced recently as the policy relevance of climate data has increased…”

    Steve is too kind. He has been attempting to get transparancy for over half a decade – probably as far back as when he first read Mann. I have followed the issue for a decade myself – since the hocky stick first came out. As a engineering doctorate (with an early minor in history), I was dumbfounded by the lack of the Medieval Warm Period – the warm period had a huge influence on warfare, and the following cold period broke the back of the hold of the church in Europe….

    I was told by colleagues that the data was the data. I was doubtful – and when M&M was published, I was told that I was a nut for even further bringing it up….

    So, if this was just a bit of circling the wagons, and not being transparent, I would agree. But its not. These emails show a long term effort to prove a point that will have tremendous economic impacts to this country and others. I work in the energy industry, and deal with the fallout every day. Steve might disagree, but I think the behaviour boarders on criminal.

    I look forward to the transparancy you suggest, but doubt it. These are True Believers, and they have an agenda.

    • jae
      Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 6:53 PM | Permalink

      Re: deadite (#7),

      I agree completely.

      Judy, you say:

      politically motivated climate disinformation machine that was associated with e.g. ExxonMobil, CEI, Inhofe/Morano etc.

      I thought most of your comments were right on. But why did you taint your message with this all-too-typical warmer cop-out? Surely you don’t really believe that there is no “politically motivated climate disinformation machine” on “your side?” LOL!!! Let’s be clear here that there is a lot of politics on both sides of this fence!

  6. M Yoxon
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 6:16 PM | Permalink

    A very welcome response.

    It is of course important to contextualise ‘tribalism’ in climate science – personally, I do not wish to be part of any witch-hunt – whilst acknowledging that as the implications of research gather more and more political importance, transparency and cooperation across tribes is vital.

    As you say, the work of sceptics should not be suppressed out of hand; it is after all by careful and impartial scrutiny that science advances.

  7. Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 6:17 PM | Permalink

    This is incredibly embarrassing to every scientist. Climate scientists need to get their field in order because this is not how good scientists conduct their research. We do not hide data, We do not hide methods.

    I am also embarrassed for some of the journals that these scientists have published in. If they required methods and data be made available, much of this wouldn’t have happened.

    You praise Real Climate but they are well known for censoring opposing views. They haven’t this past week, but how long will that last? It is a propaganda mouth piece for some of the scientists at the center of this story.

    • Raven
      Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 6:29 PM | Permalink

      Re: Karl B. (#9)
      RC is still censoring posts.
      I make a post that made some of the same points as Judy but it never saw the light of day.

      • scp
        Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:10 PM | Permalink

        Re: Raven (#10),

        (I think) I’ve noticed a pattern over the years at RC. It seems to me that they censor less at the beginnings of threads and more at the end. Thus creating the impression for a future reader that a vigorous debate was held and the opposition lost.

  8. Michael R
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 6:30 PM | Permalink

    Off topic, i was just about to leave a message saying the attempts to alter the message links wasnt currently working only to refresh the page and the new comment is gone. :)

  9. ianl8888
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 6:32 PM | Permalink

    While Judith Curry’s belated point concerning the need for availability and transparency of data, interpretations etc is obviously welcome, there is still a self-serving theme manifested in her letter

    This is demonstrated simply with two quotes from the letter:

    1)” … but the need for such transparency has only been voiced recently as the policy relevance of climate data has increased.”

    Not at all recent, I’m afraid. I remember being astonished in 1995 at the difficulty encountered in obtaining the actual temperature readings from various weather stations across the globe that were being used in mass media reports to increase public awareness (a euphemistic word) of the AGW position. Amazingly, a birthday present in, I think, 2006 from my son of a Michael Crichton fiction novel actually contained an obscure NASA web address in it’s references. That’s 12 years of deliberate data obscurity while the mass media were fed increasingly strident, simplistic stories pandering to the media’s desire for sensationalism. Using this NASA address, I began to understand the difficulties of clean data, data holes, proxies, grid cells for models and so on, together with the assumptions underlying the AGW position

    Judith Curry completely underestimates, even ignores, the frustration and suspicions aroused by this deliberate burial of data from common access

    2) ” … climate tribes (consisting of a small number of climate researchers) were established in response to the politically motivated climate disinformation machine that was associated with e.g. ExxonMobil, CEI, Inhofe/Morano etc.”

    Again, Judith Curry ignores the intelligent agnostic position – we are not fooled by propaganda from anywhere. In 1995, I attended a lecture done by a visiting climate scientist from the US (sorry, I have no hope of remembering who that was now) which was deliberately organised by the Senior Management of the Company I was then the Geology Manager for. After the lecture, which was reasonable given the time allotted, I approached this person quite open-mindedly to ask some simple questions to infill my then ignorance. This innocent approach was met instantly with arrogant, sarcastic hostility. This was the first time in my life that a scientist had responded like this to my insatiable curiosity and at the time it puzzled me mightily. Not now, of course

    Very difficult to convince someone of the integrity of your position when you hide the data in obscurity and then respond to genuine questions by insulting the intelligence of the questioner

    In my view, the self-serving theme manifested in Judith Curry’s letter is that climate scientists (another branch of Applied Science) responded tribally to disinformation from vested interests and then unhappily lost the plot. I disagree – they went public early feeding the media deliberately simplistic and scary stories because the data and modeling had holes which they were not prepared to acknowledge publically. Public support was deemed necessary to overcome this. That they believed their position was correct despite the blemishes is not the issue, but rather that admission of such blemishes would weaken their public support. This is politics

    The CRU emails show this

    I agree with Judith Curry that this pathetic trail of poor decisions weakens public trust in science. The agnostic position remains one of integrity

  10. Theo Goodwin
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 6:33 PM | Permalink

    Ms. Curry is writing as a kind of vicarious tribal member. As such, her views are quite understandable. However, she gives no thought to those who are not tribal members and do not want to be. We would really have liked to have seen the data put together by Phil Jones when it was first put together. Ditto for the additional data put together by CRU and Hadley. We would like to feel that the data is objective. You know, it’s like going to the bank to withdraw money; you really want the money rather than an excuse. Hadley and CRU are in the position of a bank that offers only excuses. It is time for them to put up or shut up.

  11. doug
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 6:37 PM | Permalink

    Dr Curry,

    Thank you for posting over here.

    One of my greatest concerns is the peer review process, something I have participated in in other fields. Collusion, pressuring journals and editors, and other actions documented in the emails is not normal, or even tolerated in other fields. If climate science is to have any credibility, this atmosphere must change. I have posted at Realclimate and Gavin feels that all is pretty much ok. It is not, and we need people like you to help fix it.

  12. Mike Lorrey
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 6:50 PM | Permalink

    Please don’t even try to present Real Climate as any kind of model of transparency or fair/balanced discussion. I think over the last five years possibly one of my comments there was allowed through. Their censorship of skeptical/inquiring minds is legendary among everyone who has spectatored this field. If Gavin is changing policy, he needs to first offer a mea culpa for the email in the hacked data proving that he and Mann intentionally offered RC as a biased forum which would intentionally censor skeptical commentary.

    As it is, I’m going to see that he and his ilk are investigated on ethics charges with their employers. These emails are such a smoking gun that if we’d had anything similar from Bellisiles (who faked probate records to try to prove early Americans didn’t own guns in significant numbers) email box back in the day, getting him fired from his university would not have taken two years. If the entire Hockey Team has to be ejected from the scentific world to clean things up, so be it. The degree to which these people have allowed their personal political agendas to commit boundary issue ethical violations of their scientific objectivity makes them unfit to be scientists.

  13. Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 6:57 PM | Permalink

    Karl B,

    Yes, they have censord comments also these recent days at RealClimate. And comparing the very moderately phrased questions och critical viewpoints the chose to block out, with the tone and rancid rancor of some of the comments the let through ..

    .. has removed all doubt about them not being interested in clarifying the science or furthering knowledge, at least o me. And judging from those leaked emails, that was never the purpose either.

  14. Ivan
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:00 PM | Permalink

    While the blogosphere has identified many emails that allegedly indicate malfeasance, clarifications especially from Gavin Schmidt have been very helpful in providing explanations and the appropriate context for these emails. However, even if the hacked emails from HADCRU end up to be much ado about nothing in the context of any actual misfeasance that impacts the climate data records, the damage to the public credibility of climate research is likely to be significant.

    This is an obvious attempt of damage control. Gavin Schmids’ “clarifications” put emails “in context”? Please, give me a break! He tried to cover up and minimize the damage, nothing else. For example, to explain that to “hide the decline” was unfortunate wording. What kind of “clarification” was that? Another fellow climate scientist from these letters complained he was unable to “milk out anything” of the data from Kyrgistan, and gave an advice to others to not try to manipulate statistically further because data is not good. In another letter, Jones promises to Mann he is going to keep skeptic papers out of IPCC report even if he has “to redefine what peer-review means”.

    Further still, madame Curry obviously accepts the logic of these people – if there was a blip in temperature cca 1940, and models did not predict that, we must “sort out” the data, not models. That’s exactly how Wigley and Jones are thinking.

  15. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:00 PM | Permalink

    When Judith Curry says:
    .

    While the blogosphere has identified many emails that allegedly indicate malfeasance, clarifications especially from Gavin Schmidt have been very helpful in providing explanations and the appropriate context for these emails.

    .
    and:
    .

    As a result of the politicization of climate science, climate tribes (consisting of a small number of climate researchers) were established in response to the politically motivated climate disinformation machine that was associated with e.g. ExxonMobil, CEI, Inhofe/Morano etc. The reaction of the climate tribes to the political assault has been to circle the wagons and point the guns outward in an attempt to discredit misinformation from politicized advocacy groups. The motivation of scientists in the pro AGW tribes appears to be less about politics and more about professional ego and scientific integrity as their research was under assault for nonscientific reasons (I’m sure there are individual exceptions, but this is my overall perception).

    .

    I think we are getting a little spin around the block in an attempt at damage control.
    .

    The emails in question and Judith’s efforts here all seem to me to be an over reaction to and estimation of the influence welded by skeptics and auditors like Steve M. It is the uncertainty in the results of their studies that they continue to give too little attention in my estimation. The frustrations of climate scientists/advocates appear to me to be more connected with the failure of the politicians/voting constituencies to act with the immediacy that these scientist/advocates judge they should and they use the bogeymen of disinformation, that Judith has resurrected here, towards which they vent that frustration.

    As I have said before the emails in question have provided me with no new insights into what makes some of these climate scientists click, although I have gotten a chuckle or too out the defenses and defenders.

  16. Barclay E. MacDonald
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:02 PM | Permalink

    As always, thank you for your contribution Dr. Curry.

    You say, “Climate data needs to be publicly available and well documented. This includes metadata that explains how the data were treated and manipulated, what assumptions were made in assembling the data sets, and what data was omitted and why.”

    Indeed, this is the issue. Denial of global warming is irrelevant! It is the science of global warming that is the concern. The science must be transparent and reliable. Than let the chips fall where they may. We can deal with that.

  17. GTFrank
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:07 PM | Permalink

    Thank you Dr. Curry, for responding in a thoughtful manner with positive suggestions.
    Hopefully, your voice will be heard, respected, and acted upon.

    Frank Stembridge
    GT BEE 77

  18. malcolm9
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:07 PM | Permalink

    It is good to hear your views, Dr Curry, but I think we’ll soon discover that a very large reason for the “tribalism” (aka circle the wagons) behavior was not attacks from outside but rather internal incompetence, i.e., data and methods that were anything but transparent even to the tribe themselves. Have a look some time at the travails of the insider “Harry” in the 200K Harry_Read_Me.txt file.

  19. deadwood
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:10 PM | Permalink

    Dr. Curry:

    I hope you don’t get hammered again for posting here. I do think however that this is much more than simply tribalistic wagon circling.

  20. Jason
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:12 PM | Permalink

    Until this moment, I hadn’t realized how drastically my opinion of RC has changed over the past year.

    One year ago, after reading Judith’s email, I would have immediately headed over to RC to investigate Gavin’s explanations of the various emails.

    Now, I’m not going to do that unless I’m bored (unlikely), or I become interested in a specific email based on something I see on some other website.

    What’s changed is that a year ago I expected to read things on RC which I might disagree with, but which I nonetheless believed represented the honest views of the RC authors.

    After this past year, I now expect Gavin and Mann to say only that which advances what Judith would refer to as their tribal interests, even when their own views are different.

    There is something intellectually stimulating about understanding the views, logic and arguments of somebody you disagree with. Somewhere between Steig and Ya-mal, that thrill disappeared.

    Its not any fun engaging somebody who doesn’t honestly represent their own views. [Sorry if personal pleasure isn’t supposed to enter into these things. I wouldn’t be here at all if not for that element.]

  21. kuhnkat
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:15 PM | Permalink

    Apparently Judith needs to check on what the general CLIMATE opinion of the US and UK happens to be. SHE may think those disagreeing with the IPCC and Associates are irrelevant, BUT, their opinions have been steadily gaining acceptance in the place it matters most, with VOTERS and the majority of PEOPLE!!!

    Instead of cloistering with those of similar opinion, it would be good for her to sample the broad diversity of opinion in the REAL world where there are many emergencies all of which exceed the importance and urgency of Climate Change as espoused by the IPCC and Associates!!!

  22. CBDenver
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:16 PM | Permalink

    Re the “politically motivated climate disinformation machine that was associated with e.g. ExxonMobil, CEI, Inhofe/Morano etc.” — and of course the AGW proponents are not politically motivated?!? What a bunch of claptrap. Looks like they have sent the “little woman” out to try and smooth things over with soothing words.

  23. BarryW
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:16 PM | Permalink

    associating with a tribe where others were more experienced and savvy about how to deal with this was a relief and very helpful at the time.

    Dr. Curry, the above quote leads me to believe you are somewhat blinded by a form or Stockholm Syndrome. Your puzzlement at the vicious attacks on no-believers is colored by this. It’s obvious from the emails that there are gaping holes in their research that they are aware of but they are wedded to a fanatical belief in the righteousness of their cause. This is not just a tribe but a cult: Isolation of members, attacks on anyone who strays, and unbelievers/outsiders are fair game for any and all actions even if unethical or legal.

    In other words don’t drink the kool-aid.

  24. Brian B
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:16 PM | Permalink

    Dr. Curry is always reasonable, but it seems somewhat odd to simultaneously complain of tribalism and then give a pat on the back to one of the chief headhunters of the tribe because he interprets for us what the sound of the drums means.

  25. Jim
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:20 PM | Permalink

    Judy

    Could you let us know which of the following were part of the politically
    motivated attack machine.

    McIntyre, McKitrick, Wegman, Pielke, Ball, Pilmer, Michaels, Gray, Daly,
    Spencer, Landsea, Singer

    The problem with this is that SM was identified almost immediately
    as part of the big oil cabal by those whose work was being criticized.
    One of the first instances of the big oil theory was over a decade ago
    by Bert Bolin. One of the issues here is “projection”. Mann is obviously
    very political since he seems obsessed with the political implicatons
    of research that does not march in lock-step with the the AWG he
    is trying to promote. From the emails, he seems to regard scientific
    criticism as politically motivated.

    Here is an example, Barton is a politician. He called Wegman in to
    analyse MBH. Was Wegman a political attack dog motivated by the
    inevitable oil company payoffs?

  26. TJ
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:23 PM | Permalink

    Climate data should be publicly available, agreed, but so should all computer codes that are used to operate on the data.

    The idea that a researcher can publish results without showing their computer code is unacceptable in a modern world where science relies so heavily on computer calculations.

    As to the “need to increase the public credibility of climate science.”, I would only say that many involved in the climate debate, from Al Gore down to the researchers themselves, have done a disservice to the reputation of science in general.

    It is for this reason that I dislike these individuals immensely.

  27. Jeff Id
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:25 PM | Permalink

    Climateaudit and the rest of this tribe out of business is make all climate data and metadata public and make every effort to improve the datasets based on all feedback that you receive.

    Rather than out of business, I think they would find collaboration for improvement. It’s not like people will suddenly loose interest in climate science. However, one detail Judith missed is that there is a massive failure of the paleoclimatology branch of climatology to produce any useful product. The whole field would be unable to make a proper conclusion if reasonable methods were used. It’s kind of the hidden point of the angst. Paleoclimatolgists MUST use selective data suppressing and amplification techniques to get the answer they now obviously want.

    There simply isn’t such a thing as a good proxy for a thermometer so this is what we get. The real answer right now is we don’t know and we can’t know. Unfortunately for the unwashed, a whole billion dollar branch of the climate industry depends on knowing.

  28. Allen
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:25 PM | Permalink

    Dr Curry,

    Please continue the spin. It is all the more damaging to the credibility of climate science. The conduct of the individuals, if the emails are authentic, is at best unethical and at worst aiding and abetting plagiarism.

    The activity on the blogosphere is telling. People of ethical quality can smell a rat, and they are all over this scandal even if the mainstream media is reluctant.

    If the politicians and governments funding climate research feel the heat of the electorate due to these emails, I guarantee that they’ll throw the book at these individuals at CRU first before acknowledging that they were had.

  29. Jerry Haney
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:26 PM | Permalink

    The good that Steve McIntyre has done for climate science cannot be fully measured as yet, although it is considerable. But, the key point in this important issue is whether or not carbon dioxide (CO2) can cause the warming that is claimed by the IPCC and its scientists. That issue will decide whether or not we destroy the global economy for a good reason or because of polictics.

  30. Barclay E. MacDonald
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:26 PM | Permalink

    “Gavin Schmidt’s current efforts at realclimate are a good step in the right direction of increasing transparency.”

    Geez, Dr. Curry that’s a tough one. In fairness I think in your above statement you must reach out to Gavin and his “tribe”. But it is difficult not to see him as the Rowdy Yates of “the team”, responsible for circling the wagons. Gavin, please convince us your not just circling the wagons.

  31. Richard Henry Lee
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:26 PM | Permalink

    Dr Curry,

    I appreciate your sentiments, especially about transparency. But I looked at your web page at Georgia Tech and could find no reference in a perusal of some of your papers where the raw data and computer codes were available. I did find a Supplementary Information page at Science for one of your papers, but it did not include raw data and computer codes. Would you commit to placing all of your raw and intermediate data, final results, and computer source code for your programs online?

    Most academics are very possessive of the details of their programming methods and datasets because of the amount of work that goes into producing them. Would you be an exception?

  32. Stephen Shorland
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:26 PM | Permalink

    Yes,it’s a way to try and regain control of the agenda by trivialising the important information and making it about personalities.Attempts to subvert peer review.Attempts to edit out awkward data.Attempts to…Attempts to…

  33. Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:27 PM | Permalink

    This would seem to be an obvious and simple requirement, but the need for such transparency has only been voiced recently as the policy relevance of climate data has increased.

    If this has only been voiced recently, then we have a failure if science. Were all previous papers just accepted at face value? I know they weren’t, so the above statement doesn’t seem to compute.

    • Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:32 PM | Permalink

      Re: Jeff Alberts (#35),

      What Jeff said.

      The processes and procedures that are applied to all technical-issue decisions which have a potential to effect the health and safety of the public are well known and have been in place for decades. Independent Review and Verification by means of Independent agencies of the federal government is the only standard. Examples are the FDA, FAA, NRC and there are 100s of others.

      Climate “science” continues to insist that it be the sole exemption from these processes and procedures.

  34. Craig Loehle
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:28 PM | Permalink

    Judith, thanks for stopping by. A couple of questions.
    1) Why would you get involved at all in responding to “disinformation”? Why would you care?
    2) When extreme disaster scenarios are broadcast, such as 20 ft sea level rise by 2100 (repeatedly in the media) or most life on earth extinguished (Lovelock I believe)–do you spring into action to counter this disinformation?
    3) The major enviro groups like WWF and Greenpeace together have hundreds of millions of $ they spend every year–so why do people have a fit about retired gentlemen with no budget like Fred Singer, William Gray, and Steve McIntyre? Marc Morano has hardly any budget but is the devil incarnate and needs the troops to be rallied? Are these few guys that brilliant? Or is it that they are pointing out how sparse the emperor’s clothes are, and you are afraid people will take a look?

    • CBDenver
      Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:39 PM | Permalink

      Re: Craig Loehle (#36), Great points. Of course, since Ms. Curry is associated with the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences and her career is dependent on continued funding of climate studies, she has a vested interest in minimizing this controversy. As a citizen and taxpayer I am not going to accept just sweeping this crap under the rug any more

  35. Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:28 PM | Permalink

    This is a very positive message from Dr. Curry. I totally agree.

  36. Dialla
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:29 PM | Permalink

    Something as large as the reshuffling of the global economy requires complete transparency.

    All the data should be traceable from its source so that the complete linage of each piece of data is understood.

    In the age of Open Source Development where we are able to do the same with computer code, why couldn’t we do the same with Climate Science?

    If every man woman and child on the planet are going to be impacted by the decisions being made this this data, why isn’t available to everyone?

    How selfish and elitist is this? Just trust?

  37. Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:30 PM | Permalink

    As a graduate student about to earn my PhD in meteorology from Florida State in the next month, I am completely disgusted by the behavior of several of the so-called esteemed scientists at the center of this email hack. However, I am not the least bit surprised and suspect an email dump from some other computers, whether at NCAR or another lab or University would elicit a similar mountain of conspiratorial material. I guess researchers might start taking Phil’s advice and start deleting or scrubbing their servers.

    Judy, what are are you talking about here: ???

    The HADCRU hack has substantially increased the relevance of Climateaudit, WUWT, etc. The quickest way for HADCRU et al. to put Climateaudit and the rest of this tribe out of business is make all climate data and metadata public and make every effort to improve the datasets based on all feedback that you receive. Do this and they will quickly run out of steam and become irrelevant ☺. Gavin Schmidt’s current efforts at realclimate are a good step in the right direction of increasing transparency.

    “Increasing transparency” — there is NO transparency NOW. That’s the whole point of this apparent exercise in futility to get senior climate scientists to understand. Small groups control the funding, review process, etc. and outsiders are not welcomed into the clan without someone vouching for them, or only researching and publishing pro-consensus views. In these echo chambers, it should be refreshing or required to have some external points of view once in a while.

    Sunshine is the best disinfectant, especially here in Florida.

  38. edrowland
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:35 PM | Permalink

    As a result of the politicization of climate science, climate tribes (consisting of a small number of climate researchers) were established in response to the politically motivated climate disinformation machine that was associated with e.g. ExxonMobil, CEI, Inhofe/Morano etc.

    As opposed to Shell International, which seems to have a financial interest in bringing about carbon offset trading. Shell’s apparent interest: the large fortune to be made in trading of carbon offsets. Their interest in CDM (trading carbon offsets from the third world to the first world) are particularly telling.

    See documents/uea-tyndall-shell-memo.doc

    Shell International would give serious consideration to what I referred to in the meeting as a ‘strategic partnership’ with the TC, broadly equivalent to a ‘flagship alliance’ in the TC proposal. A strategic partnership would involve not only the provision of funding but some (limited but genuine) role in setting the research agenda etc. … Shell’s interest is not in basic science. Any work they support must have a clear and immediate relevance to ‘real-world’ activities. They are particularly interested in emissions trading and CDM.

  39. ali baba
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:36 PM | Permalink

    I agree with everything the article says, from top to bottom: that the stolen files are much ado about nothing; that all science should be “open science”, even if that means for governments to take up the slack in order to contain increasing corporate influence on universities; and that the politically motivated denial of AGW is almost wholly to blame for the development of tribalism in climatology.

  40. Steve
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:38 PM | Permalink

    Ms. Curry,

    Thank you for speaking up. It showed great courage and insight. However, I think you missed a critical part of this whole issue. It is the way these scientists have tried to steer the public, not merely the way they have behaved towards other scientists.

    The main reason CRU is obligated to make its data and methods public is not due to the public money they receive (though that is important). Rather, they need to do it because they are trying to drive global policies that will change they way we all live our lives and cost the world trillions of dollars. You cannot expect the world to make huge changes in the way it behaves on the say so of a few people who will not make their evidence public. That is not just “circling the wagons” defensively, but arrogance of biblical proportions.

    The character assassination of global warming skeptics is now part of Al Gore and Barack Obama’s standard speeches on the subject. It has become a staple in the entertainment world too. Just a few days ago, for example, the TV show “30 Rock” made jokes about the ignorant people who are skeptical of man-made global warming.

    This “tribe” of scientists has not only poisoned the scientific discussion, they have poisoned the public discussion. While you attribute it to defensiveness, given their ambitions for influencing public policy, there is a great deal of agression in their behavior.

  41. Robert Wood
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:38 PM | Permalink

    I’m not willing to give Ms. Curry an easy passage. Yes, she says words, and very soothing ones. Yes, she issues some sort of, well, not mea culpa, but um, well, we’re all human; and her bit about tribalism regurgitates the “Big Oil” canard. Hey Ms. Curry, we see before us evidence of “Big Government” payments being saught by YOUR TRIBE.

    And, let’s not forget this is not some argument in a laboratory test tube; this is an argument about the destruction of civilization and impoverishment of the people of the world.

    No Small Thing.

  42. vboring
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:39 PM | Permalink

    Yes. Transparency. Obviously. How can this have gone on for so long?

    I don’t give a damn about wagons or tribalism.

    But, the idea that policy of any variety could be based on data and methods that can’t be inspected is beyond offensive. It is by definition unscientific.

    Everyone involved should have their PhD’s revoked, since they obviously do not understand the nature and purpose of science as a search after truth.

    They are Climate Scientologists.

  43. edrowland
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:40 PM | Permalink

    To make the point explicitly: one needs to also beware of the politically motivated climate disinformation machines associated with Shell International as well.

    See documents/uea-tyndall-shell-memo.doc

  44. SteveF
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:45 PM | Permalink

    Dr. Curry,

    Thank you for a thoughtful and balanced post. I especially noted:

    “The integrity of individual scientists that are in positions of responsibility (e.g. administrators at major research institutions, editorial boards, major committees, and assessments) is particularly important for the public credibility of climate science.”

    The problem as I see it from reading the released email messages is that the personal integrity of well known climate researches appears (in all honesty) to be inversely related to their prominence. Those in positions of responsibility seem to have the strongest and most destructive “tribal behavior”, as you describe it.

    Lastly I agree that some of the most damaging emails relate to obvious interference with the process of publication and peer review. Much of this seems to me nothing less than professional misconduct, for which most researchers would simply lose their jobs.

  45. Physicist_PhD_Aus
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:45 PM | Permalink

    Very good points. I’m thankful for this site and others for helping to expose
    these glaring flaws in the scientific methodology and practices within this field.

    As part of a Condensed Matter research team here in Melbourne Australia, I can also
    testify that this dishonest and obstructive behavior shown by the above team, is
    an anomaly and an embarrassment to scientists everywhere.

    Regards,
    Physicist from Downunder

  46. HankHenry
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:50 PM | Permalink

    Is it possible climate science got seduced by too big and too relevant a thesis? Rather than trying to prove that whole darn world is gonna get too warm – maybe some smaller questions?

  47. Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:51 PM | Permalink

    Documenting data now becomes providing access to all relevant documents to understand it: memoranda, reviews, comments, reports, correspondence, e-mails, attachments, etc.

  48. Barclay E. MacDonald
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:52 PM | Permalink

    Steve M. I really admire the great job you are doing managing this blog. The third-party contributions of threads is brilliant. Snip if you wish.

  49. Jeremy
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:58 PM | Permalink

    Am I the only one who considers this far too little, far too late? It should be obvious to any real scientist that when you have entire blogs of people asking for basic information (such as data and methods as Steve and others do) that you are not dealing with politically motivated well-funded oil barons seeking to destroy your research. Politically motivated organizations don’t ask for your data, they tend to just invent their own and then throw money behind it to give it credibility. If what Steve found through his persistence was so foul tasting to the team, then obviously the team had some significant emotional stake in what they wanted climate research to say. This alone is poor form. I also do not buy that the explanation given for the teams self-protective mentality is anywhere near the whole story, and even if true I find it a very poor excuse for bad behavior.

    A good scientist finds the humor within himself to recognize where he might be wrong and self-correct. Einstein did this when Edwin Hubble showed him data that proved what he believed could not be, and had altered his own equations to get rid of. Was Edwin Hubble a bigtime scientist at the time? No, but Einstein was one of the worlds best. That’s the kind of humility we should EXPECT from publicly funded scientists. Sorry to bring up such a trite example, but we’ve all been given such a galling example of scientists trying to personally own and control what is regarded as truth, and further doing it on public money.

    Sorry Dr Curry, nothing less than a complete about-face to total openness and cooperation should convince anyone of any huge change in heart, imho. This would include a total end to character assassination that goes on in the press whenever research conclusions are questioned publicly. In plain english, if those within the circled wagons really want the help of the rest of the science community, there are no half measures, they must play by the right rules or continue to see little needles like Mr McIntyre poke and prod.

    • CBDenver
      Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 8:08 PM | Permalink

      Re: Jeremy (#54), Nope, you are not the only one who sees this a “too little, too late”. This is damage control, pure and simple. “Nothing to see here, move along…”

  50. Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 8:06 PM | Permalink

    I appreciate the overall tone of Ms. Curry’s statement. Unfortunately, I’m a bit perplexed that she can view Gavin’s work as increasing transparency.

  51. Gene Nemetz
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 8:07 PM | Permalink

    I sincerely hope that these emails do not in actuality reflect what they appear to

    I know this hack, more likely leak, is an explosion that is taking time to process. There are many, including me, who have been looking in to ‘manmade global warming’ for themselves and what we have been feeling instinctively about what is going on in it was only confirmed by what we read in these emails. There was no delay in time for coming to terms with what we saw reflected in the emails.

    Also, I agree with Steve McIntyre: if there had been transparency from the beginning none of this would have happened. None of it could have happened.

  52. eo
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 8:13 PM | Permalink

    I think one aspect of the debate that has not been mentioned is professionalism. What qualifies a person to be a climate scientist ? Where there is money, a large number of people are interested to join the bandwagon. In the late 1960s when I was doing my master is public health engineering ( as the call environmental engineering then) the popular joke in the campus was ” no mothered raised a son to become a public health engineer or sometimes garbage collector. When money started pouring into environmental engineering I was surprised a lot of professionals started calling themselves environmental engineers. With their shallow knowledge of the subject this were the group that easily formed tribes for protection. They dont want to discuss the science and if forced with shift the discussion to other fields especiall politics or religion like foregoing beef. On the oher side, their are politicians who would sieze the opportunity to get into the forefront of a popular issue.

  53. Dr. StGeorge
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 8:18 PM | Permalink

    I have not posted on this site but have read it regularly the last couple of years. Steve’s efforts have been shown now to have definite purpose. The things, as a scientist myself, that disturbed me about climate research was the obvious attempts to suppress any dissenting research and pushing the consensus can’t be wrong approach. This is not how science operates. What this hack shows is that there is indeed collusion involved to push theories that are not supported by the evidence. I would have to wonder, since it is not unprecedented, how many warming climatologists have businesses or are invested in businesses aside from their academic endeavors that make money from climate alarmism. It’s probably more common than one might think.

    Add to that, scientists can be quite the egotists. They all believe they are correct. Good science is to recognize the failure of one’s hypothesis but in the case of climatology failures of the theory are blamed on anything and everything other than the failure of the theory. This has lead to what Dr. Curry refers to as tribalism. These scientists band together to force forward their theory even without the actual evidence to prove their theory not to mention adjusting actual data that goes against their theory to make it agree with their theory. Mr. McIntyre has been on this for a while with his research and analyses. What is the result of Steve’s work? These scientists assault him endlessly and basically try to belittle his work as much as possible. The same thing borne out in the email trail.

    In the end, healthy skepticism which is at the core of good science turns out to be a very good thing. The emails have shown this fact clearly. The defense of “out of context” or “I don’t recall” are weak excuses for these emails by those who wrote them. They have been caught redhanded. Now they are circling the wagons and will probably launch a full bore attack on anyone that questions them as their last line of defense. The fact is that real scientific data is not supporting the claims of climate alarmists and the climate alarmists have apparently known this for a good while. It also is a good psychological experiment if you will since it shows how well a propaganda campaign can work on so many people that believe themselves intelligent, enlightened and reasonable. I would say those who do believe themselves intelligent, enlightened and reasonable are probably those most easily influenced by an orchestrated campaign as we apparently have been seeing when it comes to climate science.

    The moral of this whole sordid tale: Question everyone and everything or you will end up paying for it out of your own pocket.

  54. Judith Curry
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 8:30 PM | Permalink

    Thanks for all of your comments, i have time to reply to a few.

    I regard McIntyre, McKitrick, Wegman, Pielke, Gray, Spencer, Landsea as honest researchers that have provided a skeptical perspective to IPCC and related assessments and climate research. An example of what i was referring to in the context of the disinformation machine was Peter Webster debating Myron Ebell (a lawyer from the Competitive Enterprise Institute) on the Lou Dobbs voice, as if they were both equally legitimate voices on the subject of hurricanes and climate change.

    I am not defending the writers of the hacked emails. I am concerned with impact of these emails on the credibility of the broader climate community, the vast majority of whom do not behave in the manner that is reflected in these emails

    With regards to Realclimate, Gavin has taken a big step in the right direction in terms of explaining some of this.

    In terms of my own publications, i am including as supplementary material any new data set that we create that is used in our analyses. My web site is badly out of date (victim of budget cuts), but our most recent paper by Belanger et al. on hurricane induced tornadoes does include the data as supplemental material.

    In my own presentations on the subject of climate change, i do my best to present a balanced view and the sources and nature of uncertainties. I find that skeptical audiences find such a presentation with uncertainties far more convincing than “alarmism.” But i have a small voice and a small audience. I’m sure i’ll reach more people this weekend on CA than in all the talks/seminars i’ve given over the past year.

    • Jeff Id
      Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 8:45 PM | Permalink

      Re: Judith Curry (#60),

      The emails gave a good impression of several scientists.

    • Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 8:51 PM | Permalink

      Re: Judith Curry (#60), budget cuts? I am going to suggest you enter a line item in your next NSF grant for a web programmer. ;-)

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:11 PM | Permalink

      Re: Judith Curry (#60),

      I’m sure i’ll reach more people this weekend on CA than in all the talks/seminars i’ve given over the past year.

      Judith, this is something that I’d appreciate some feedback on. As you know, I’ve always been open to providing a forum for people with IPCC views to express them to the audience here. It is very much my impression that there’s more or less been a fatwa against climate scientists expressing their views here. Rob Wilson is criticized by his colleagues when he ventures here.

      I don’t understand what is gained by this form of sanction.

      It seems to me that the audience here is the most rational of the “skeptical” audience. This particular thread and these particular events will draw out more strident views and it’s hard for me to manage the threads right now as the blog is still slow and my time is finite. But most regular readers don’t have very firm views on the “big picture” though they are quite confident that the “Team”, taking that in its narrowest sense, haven’t come anywhere near proving their case. It’s an educated and interested audience and one well worth the outreach.

    • Richard Henry Lee
      Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:47 PM | Permalink

      Re: Judith Curry (#59),

      Thank you for committing to placing your data online as Supplementary Information. It would be helpful if you placed your computer codes online as well. Many times there is a lot of hand waving going on and the computer codes would provide all of the details necessary to understand the processes used to massage the data.

  55. TJA
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 8:41 PM | Permalink

    the stolen files are much ado about nothing -ali baba

    From the files:

    Unfortunately I find your explanations lacking in scientific rigour and I am more inclined to believe the analysis of McIntyre ([7]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7588) Can I have a straightforward answer to the following questions

    1) Are the reconstructions sensitive to the removal of either the Yamal data and Strip pine bristlecones, either when present singly or in combination?

    2) Why these series, when incorporated with white noise as a background, can still produce a Hockey-Stick shaped graph if they have, as you suggest, a low individual weighting?

    And once you have done this, please do me the courtesy of answering my initial email.
    Dr. D.R. Keiller

    I understand how confused Schmidt sycophants like ali baba can spout their nonsense, but it is pretty clear that Dr Curry is either unaware of the contents of these emails, or chooses not to understand their implications

    For a really good summary, go to Powerline

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024995.php

  56. Steve
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 8:45 PM | Permalink

    Dr. St. George,

    You wrote:

    I would have to wonder, since it is not unprecedented, how many warming climatologists have businesses or are invested in businesses aside from their academic endeavors that make money from climate alarmism. It’s probably more common than one might think.

    From what I have read, funding for climate research has increased by an order of magnitude since the hysteria over global warming began. Researchers who would have toiled away in obscurity now head large laboratories, their advice sought by Presidents and Prime Ministers and frequently appear in the media.

    Their business investment is in their career.

    However, this does make them wrong.

    But they have profited handsomely from their opinions and are in no position to impugn the motives of the skeptics.

    • Dr. StGeorge
      Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:15 PM | Permalink

      Re: Steve (#64),

      This is my point entirely. Whether invested in a business or building an academic empire, which was the reason for my statement about ego, this has driven some of the climatologists in my view. While I do not work in climatology but in other scientific areas, I have seen similar things occur in my field of endeavor. Being a scientist does preclude one from being human and what we are seeing are very human reactions to money and a modicum of power. I believe one of the most difficult things for most any scientist to do is admit their theory is not correct. Many scientists will toil and spin to prove a theory they believe even though that theory may not be valid based on the evidence. I have found this website interesting in that Steve McIntyre is not a scientist per se but an analyst and practicing a form of verification and validation. Science should welcome V&V activities such as this and not attempt to discredit them.

      Make no mistake, climate science right now is a big business. Very big business. Billions of dollars worldwide are being spent with many billions more being proposed to be spent not to mention billions more to be redistributed all based on science that is dubious at best. These emails demonstrate that dubiousness clearly.

      I totally agree that these scientists may not benefit directly monetarily but they do benefit significantly. They also wish to benefit more including the fame that goes with a great scientific discovery. They wish to be the next Darwin or Einstein perhaps and that quest has tossed real science aside.

  57. deadite
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 8:45 PM | Permalink

    Ahh, Ali Baby shows his troll like head. “That the politically motivated denial of AGW is almost wholly to blame for the development of tribalism in climatology.” Yeah. Sure. Not a deliberate attempt to eliminate troublesome periods like the greening of iceland, because they show that the current claim that this is the warmest century in millenium might show GW in a poor light. No, that’s not politically motivated. Even though the emails now seem to bear that mission out.

    I applaud Richard Henry Lee: November 22nd, 2009 at 7:26 pm. Dr. Curry – place your data and methods for others to examine. As Steve has shown, despite the claim that most codes are propriatary, they are essentially the same. That’s what makes the “R” paradigm so powerful to begin with.

    When Dr. Curry releases her old data and codes, then I will feel that her heart is in the right place. When she stands with Steve and demands transparancy at AGU and other forums, then I will believe she stands against tribalism. Until then, spin baby, spin.

  58. Tom C
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 8:45 PM | Permalink

    #60 Judith Curry

    OK. You’re not defending the writers of the E-mails. Great. Can you maybe go one step further and…gasp…criticize them? Or is your tribal status and funding at risk if you do so? Can any of your peers bring themselves to denounce Mann for his appalling behavior? No? Why not? Maybe you folks have more political interests than Myron Ebell?

    As far as Gavin Schmidt “explaining” anything, the whole idea is incoherent. How can he “explain” things that other people wrote? Why was he able to “explain” things within a day or so of the release of thousands of E-mails? It’s obviously clumsy damaage control that doesn’t fool anyone.

  59. deadite
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 8:49 PM | Permalink

    Oops. Mea culpa. Dr. Curry, I missed your recent posting. My apologies, and best wishes. You are on the side of the angels. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

  60. TJA
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 8:49 PM | Permalink

    Another point is to look at the polls. Simply put, Jones Mann and their cabal have been a PR disaster for the warmer side, as can be seen by the polls in the US and abroad.

    Here is an example

  61. OzzieAardvark
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 8:52 PM | Permalink

    My take.

    Dr. Curry has leaped directly to a variant of the last line in the old saw about project phases. That would be (self)-promotion of the non-participants. Referring to Gavin Schmidt’s “explanations” as helpful and pulling out tired lines about a vast fossil fuel funded conspiracy under the current circumstances tells me that politics are more important to her than the ethics (or lack thereof) involved. We’ve been hearing this nonsense for years and she is simply another partisan handing out spin to try and paper over what’s clearly a disaster for her “tribe”, with some cleaver self-promotion for accompaniment.

    Shame on you Dr. Curry.

    OA

  62. bernie
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 8:53 PM | Permalink

    Dr. Curry:
    Many thanks for your useful statement. However, I see no difference in the activism of environmental groups and industry groups. Such activism tends to be damaging to science regardless. I do not believe that environmental groups have any automatic superiority either in their practices nor in their mission or principles. Part of the difficult with fields like climate science is that they are so inter-woven with public policy issues that it is diffficult for practitioners to separate the two. The emails certainly do indicate a high level of advocacy and a potentially unseemly involvement with environmental groups.

    Transparency and ready access to previously closely held data will undoubtedly help.

  63. deadite
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 8:53 PM | Permalink

    I’m as mean a critic as anyone, but Dr. Curry now has my support. By logging onto this site, standing for transparancy and against tribalism, and agreeing to start posting data and codes, she has opened herself up to attacks from the other side. I used to blog under my own name, and stopped it after several activists tried to get me fired. Liberal activists. I wasn’t commenting on my own work area, or even on anything where I worked, but I became a target. So, give her you support now. I believe her, and she will need all the defenders she can muster at this point.

    God Speed, Dr. Curry!

  64. Richard Hickey
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 8:54 PM | Permalink

    Dr. Curry,

    Thank you for taking the time to not only write an article here, but to also read the comments and reply. Right now is an interesting time for Climate Scientists and researchers. Hopefully, out of bad can come some good. I am not now, nor have I ever been as knowledgeable in the climate sciences as many of the readers here. However, over many years of watching and reading I have seen the frustration caused by the “Don’t look behind the curtain” attitude within the field. How this would lead to assuming something is being hidden, when that may or may not have been the case.

    I truly hope that you and others in your field will take the time to make your data and metadata available. I know there is a lot of work and personal worth tied up into this data. And it won’t be easy to expose it to others who may or may not seek to tear it apart. All I can say is I hope that, at least as much as possible, the data can be made available and transparent. This and this alone will go a long way to fixing this broken fence.

    Cheers. Good luck, and thanks again for the article you have written here. It says more that you did it than what you wrote. (-:

  65. Bill Hunter
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 8:58 PM | Permalink

    Dr. Curry, tribalism and a lack of transparency does sum this up quite nicely. The science community has a challenge in front of itself to fix this problem. Science is not likely to drive less policy in the future unless the profession itself allows itself to be badly discredited.

    It is very clear the science is not settled in this matter and for some that is precisely the problem. They are unwilling to accept that the democratic majority wants better science before action is taken. Therefore, it might be a bit optimistic to look to the same leaders to fix the problems they created no matter what their motivations or excuses were.

    The fact is leadership is where you find it and true leadership is true and consistent in pursuit of a cause. You have identified a true cause here worthy of pursuing. However, the most uncertain element of it is who is going to lead the way out of the wilderness. I certainly hope you stay actively engaged in this matter and continue to actively call for a better and more transparent way of doing the business at hand.

  66. Judith Curry
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 8:59 PM | Permalink

    Bernie and others, AGW alarmist activist groups have employed the same inappropriate tactics as ExxonMobil et al., but far less effectively (at least in recent years). Advocacy is expected on topics of high public relevance, and lots of noise will be generated. That is why assessments such as the IPCC are so important, and why it is imperative that the process be as clean and transparent as possible.

    • CBDenver
      Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:06 PM | Permalink

      Re: Judith Curry (#75), “Advocacy is expected on topics of high public relevance, and lots of noise will be generated. That is why assessments such as the IPCC are so important” — aarrgh!. Don’t you get it? The IPCC is not above the fray and objective — they are as politicized as the AGW alarmist activist and industry groups that you condemn. Those governmental agencies are eager to propose new bureaucracies that they will manage to “solve” the global warming problem. They are not objective — they have a HUGE vested interest in claiming that global warming is a a terrible problem that needs draconian measures to resolve.

    • bernie
      Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:13 PM | Permalink

      Re: Judith Curry (#75), True, but how do you ensure that the foxes are no longer in charge of the hen house?

    • mpaul
      Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:57 PM | Permalink

      Re: Judith Curry (#75),

      …AGW alarmist activist groups have employed the same inappropriate tactics as ExxonMobil et al., but far less effectively …

      Dr. Curry, with all due respect, the US Congress is getting ready to debate the largest tax increase in the history of this country on the basis of the AGW Alarmist’s activism. On what basis do you make the claim that the AGW Alarmist activist have been ‘less effective’.

  67. BV
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:02 PM | Permalink

    I think there is a more fundamental problem. Scientists in general appear to me to be falling into two camps: 1) those who believe that data is concrete and the story is subject to the concrete data; and 2) those who believe that the story is concrete and the data can (and should) be manipulated to fit the concrete story.

    the gang at CRU seems to fit 2). They believe that the AGW/ACC story is concrete & consider whether the data can be flexed to fit the story. Thus, the attempt to see whether they could “hide the decline”, i.e. can the data be manipulated to fit with our story?

    I argue that “science” and scientific understanding is better accomplished under 1). We must be willing to abandon our story when it does not fit the data.

  68. romanm
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:03 PM | Permalink

    Dr. Curry and her department have been criticized in the past for graciously inviting Steve to come and talk to them. I see her contribution here as an admirable contribution.

    Having saad that, I have to say that I disagree somewhat with her statement (yes, I saw the smiley face):

    The quickest way for HADCRU et al. to put Climateaudit and the rest of this tribe out of business is make all climate data and metadata public and make every effort to improve the datasets based on all feedback that you receive. Do this and they will quickly run out of steam and become irrelevant ☺.

    The openness and transparency on the data are not just the end, but a necessary first step. These are needed to allow a proper evaluation the methodology used in the subsequent analyses. A willingness to accept this evaluation and possible further cooperation from outsiders competent to do so could provide a positive enhancement to climate science.

  69. Squidly
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:06 PM | Permalink

    With all “due” respect to Dr Curry, this is some of the most pathetic spin I have read yet. I guess I have just read WAY too many of the emails, email chains, code and in particular comments within the codes (I am a computer scientist, the codes are my home). Sorry Dr Curry, not buying one word of it. Pure spin and CYA. (IMHO)

  70. Bad Andrew
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:07 PM | Permalink

    “…it is imperative that the process be as clean and transparent as possible.”

    Perhaps you should be telling this to the people who are actually involved in the process, so we (CA readers) can see how clean and transparent the prcoess has become when the people involved in the process have made the process clean and transparent.

    Andrew

  71. Tilo Reber
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:12 PM | Permalink

    “Gavin Schmidt’s current efforts at realclimate are a good step in the right direction of increasing transparency.”

    I’m afraid that your opinion on Gavin Schmidt and his efforts at transparency are completely misplaced. Instead, Gavin tries to appear transparent while at the same time doing his best to obfuscate and defend against any challenge to the AGW orthodoxy. And he has a crew of loyalists that reinforce and back up all of his efforts with comments to his posts. Having attempted to post objections on Gavin’s site many many times, I have noticed a clear pattern emerge. If Gavin thinks that his supporters are up to the task of taking apart your post, he will post it. If not, but he thinks that he himself can answer your post, he will also post it and he will tell you why you are wrong. But if he knows that he cannot rationally answer your objection to the AGW orthodoxy, then he will simply censor your post. I’m sure that there are dozens of commenters here that can testify to his methods.

    To illustrate RC’s dishonesty I took some screen shots of posts that I submitted to RC. They are shown in the “awaiting moderation”. And of course they were moderated out. So look at my post under “Tilo Reber”, and compare it to the one that Gavin saw fit to post just above it.

    Here is another example. It was written as a response to an article that tried to make the argument that temperature over the last decade has continued to rise. I tried to answer the main points of the article, and of course I was censored.

    To me, these examples, as well as the emails and the work of M&M show that Gavin and his entire tribe are not in the least interested in having a transparent discussion of AGW.

    At one point in the past I also tried to make the point on RC that temperature is no longer rising, even though CO2 still is. I said that I would accept natural variation as being an overriding factor to the CO2 effect, but I wanted to know what elements of natural variation were the cause. Gavin had created an ENSO corrected data set that showed basically flat HadCru temperature for the last decade. He didn’t display a plot, so I plotted it myself and I asked Gavin to explain it’s flatness. He of course said, “natural variation”. But when I made the point that there were no known elements of natural variation that could explain the flatness, he censored me.

    Now, take a closer look at Gavin’s explanations with regard to the exposed e-mails. They may look like explanations, but they are, in fact, just rationalizations. If I thought I could get posted I would challenge him on them. But I know that I would just be wasting my time writing those posts.

  72. Steve Geiger
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:13 PM | Permalink

    Thanks Dr. Curry. I dropped in again to RC today. I see things getting back to ‘normal’….numerous posters telling us how none of this really matters..etc. And, I notice, Gavin is nowhere to be found adding his little editorial comments in on the posts of these knobs (whereas, for all us ‘skeptics’ he always gets his two cents in to, as you say, put it in proper context for us).

  73. Bill Graham
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:15 PM | Permalink

    Great comments among the above. Not being a trained climate specialist, I cannot understand all the details. But as a trained and experienced scientist and engineer that has dedicated 35 years of serving the environment, I am greatly disappointed with what I have learned so far. Those who have squandered the public trust need to be drummed out of the tribe of scientists, dedicated to discovering truth. They discredit us all and discredit science. Let the peer pressure, public apologies and consequences begin! And thanks to God, that what we all KNOW to be true is apparent now more than ever: a minor component of our atmosphere, CO2, never has had and never will have any measurable effect on weather or climate.

  74. Dishman
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:25 PM | Permalink

    It seems to me that at least this crew of Climate researchers is more afraid of being shown to be wrong than being wrong.

    Please be afraid of being wrong. Being wrong can get people dead (and cost a lot of money). Maybe a lot of people. Take it seriously.

    Other industries have learned to minimize and mitigate mistakes that might kill people. Learn from them, please.

    The first step is evaluating what happens if you, your data, your tools or your models are wrong. Write it down.

    Identify your work product. What is it you produce? Papers? Tools? Datasets?

    Identify the work product lifecycle.

    If you’re writing a paper, does its lifecycle end with publication? If it does, can anyone else use it? How long a warranty (free from known defects) do you offer on it?

    What level of quality assurance does it require? What happens if its flawed? How many millions of dollars of research are going to depend directly on it being right? How about indirectly? GISS never evaluated this for Model E or GISTEMP, in spite of that being a requirement for all NASA software. I filed a FOIA for that document. It came up empty.

    Transparency helps. Independent verification helps. Formal process helps.

    None of that will suffice, though if you don’t first emotionally commit to not getting it wrong.

    Yours might end up being the critical mistake that gets a billion people dead. Take it seriously.

    Chew on it until you can set your ego aside and do what has to be done to get it right.

  75. oliver
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:32 PM | Permalink

    Problems with the peer-review process in the field of climate science are nothing new. A relative of mine had issues getting papers accepted 20 years ago based on the fact that the results were not aligned with the global warming orthodoxy. Historically, the emergence of computer models (and their high runtime costs) created a natural split in the climate research community – the modellers vs. the observationalists. The modelers ended up being the primary ones in control of the research dollars, and here we are.

    The defense of these scientists based on a need to circle the wagons against the Exxon/Mobile deniers/attackers is completely bogus. The warming bias in the R&D and publications pre-dated their involvement.

  76. Calvin Ball
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:34 PM | Permalink

    This is a bit odd:

    In summary, the problem seems to be that the circling of the wagons strategy developed by small groups of climate researchers in response to the politically motivated attacks against climate science are now being used against other climate researchers and the more technical blogs (e.g. Climateaudit, Lucia, etc).

    The implication is that circling the wagons is an appropriate strategy for dealing with anyone deemed to be politically motivated. Isn’t good science always the answer regardless of what the question is? And isn’t it the job of the AWG polemics to counter anti-AGW polemics? The very notion that a “strategy” is even called for doesn’t make any sense.

    I would think that scientists would try to stay above it all. It’s not as if the political debate is one-sided; there are plenty of organizations to go around on all sides. Could this attitude not actually be indicative of a basic problem, that the scientists see their mission as political?

    Many of the great scientists, Einstein, Feynman and others have made a point that there should be no investment in the outcome. It seems to me that the core problem here is scientists who care about the outcome. This is indeed a problem, no?

  77. vboring
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:34 PM | Permalink

    When the same kind of bad science hit physics with the whole cold fusion debacle, the scientists making wild unsupported claims were ostracized for their anti-scientific practices. Specifically, for publishing claims and not releasing their methodology. Their careers were ruined because they practiced bad science. Not because they came to incorrect conclusions.

    How is it, then, that Climate Scientologists actually gain influence in their area of study by making wild unsupported claims?

    Anyone remotely interested in the good of humanity or the sanctity of science has to find what they have done offensive and unforgivable. They deserve to be mocked and ostracized for pretending to be scientists, while undermining it’s basic principles.

  78. Chris S
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:40 PM | Permalink

    I find myself feeling quite depressed after reading this post.
    While I fully respect Ms Curry’s views, it reads as a partisan, albeit well worded attempt to defuse and trivialize the issue.

    I’m sure the the behavior of the Scientists in question is no different to what might be found in many Universities or organizations. However, it is the current intense, political focus which relies on the Science, that demands integrity from those involved.

    To me, this is more of the same old same old that I’d expect to find over at RealClimate.

    BTW; Try anonymously posting a polite but contrarian comment at RealClimate and you’ll soon see what a schmidt Gavin is.

  79. Gordon Ford
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:40 PM | Permalink

    As a member of a peer review panel when I worked for the British Columbia Ministry of the Environment in the 1990s I thought that I was cut from the panel because I was too picky about the limited amount and aereal extent of data often used to spport the authors’ conclusions. Now I know I was cut because I’m from the wrong tribe. Thanks Dr. Curry for your lucid explanation.

  80. Wannabe
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:45 PM | Permalink

    Reasoned appraisal by Curry, and grateful for the term “tribalism,” which perfectly reflects the mindset of the “team,” hardly a term itself that engendered feelings of objectivity. I must add, however, that the tribe formed much earlier than when external pressures were being applied by the oil companies, etc. This has been going on from the get-go. I remember Steve Schneider being dismissive of an outsider questioning “the science” in the run-up to the first IPCC. There has been a team agenda to prove AGW from the beginning. What did we expect? The climatologists had been on the outside of the NSF funding gravy train since the MWP. This was their chance for 15 millennia of fame. Moreover, the entire climatology debate, especially the paleo part, has been rife with sloppy and slippery statistical manipulation and glibly dismissive rejoinders to any naif who dared to question data so squishy and unreliable that any real scientist, dispassionately seeking to learn which way they really do trend would have approached the whole question with a great deal more humility.

  81. Craig Loehle
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:47 PM | Permalink

    It is common for scientists to fall in love with their data/theory and never change their mind. This can lead to debates in some fields that are only resolved when the parties die. Sad but true. I have had discussions with colleagues like that and they had no idea what I was saying because it did not compute with their world-view. And I forgive them all for that….BUT when people of this mindset are given huge power, when they are not like Feynman and are unable to be objective AND are part of the IPCC and head of a huge lab and in charge of world-changing datasets and try to control the journals—That is big trouble.

  82. Buddenbrook
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:48 PM | Permalink

    I like the polite and co-operative tone of Mrs Curry’s opinion piece, but like many other commentators I don’t think she confronts the key issues of the case. But rather tries to explain them away with rhetoric, which amounts to spin even if the tone is polite. Gavin’s recent comments on realclimate have not been consiliatory at all. But arrogant and self-serving as per usual. I do not see any open consideration of the (for them) difficult questions about transparency, open data access, using RC as a propaganda machine with systematic screening out of all critical comments, politicization of the IPCC process, and above all manipulating data to fit the pre-concieved conclusions and so forth. At the bottom line it is all about damage control, trying to downplay the signifigance of the CRU hack, like Judith’s post attempts to behind the polite rhetoric.

    I commend her general attitude, but but informatively I found her post rather disappointing.

  83. Gene Nemetz
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:49 PM | Permalink

    I just wanted to suggest that some commenters lighten up a little on Judy Curry. It looks like she really is trying to grasp what is happening in AGW and come to an unbiased conclusion. She’s just coming from a different world than you.

    To Judy Curry: may I suggest that what you are seeing in the emails is the reality of things–for whatever the reasons it became thus. It can be hard to believe, I know.

  84. vboring
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:49 PM | Permalink

    In scientific discussions, nobody cares what your qualifications are – only your ideas matter.

    In sociology and other half-sciences, people first ask what your qualifications are before deciding if they are interested in your ideas.

    In Climate Scientology – like religion and politics – people only care about whether or not you agree with them.

    In communist Russia there was a prominent biologist who was well funded because of his research opposing the idea of genetically inherited traits because it fit the communist political idea that everyone is created equal.

    Even though I think AGW is a plausible theory, the way the debate has proceeded so far smells more like politics than it does of science.

  85. marek
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:50 PM | Permalink

    Re Judy Curry

    By education I’m mostly a mathematician with a significant admixture of physics. Professionally I spent almost 40years in programming/analysis and design of big transaction processing systems. About 2 – 3 years ago I’ve become aware of AGW and started to follow the developments. And I’ve to say that I’m appalled by Judy’s letter.

    There are only two “sets” regarding AGW:
    – the believers active and passive
    – the “skeptics” aka “deniers” – I believe mostly passive

    The different “tribes” (Judy’s term) in academia of various believers are just this – regular groups created by common interest, be it scientific, philosophical, economical, political or even racial. Obviously a group usually shares more than one common interest. The other loci for believers are various NGOs, UN and organizations like WWF and “green” political parties.

    On the other hand, the skeptics form a much more amorphous set. I’m also not aware an organization like HADCRU, financed and supported by a government, but devoted to fight against the AGW idea.

    It should be noted that the believers are much more vociferous, better organized, financed and enjoy mostly sympathetic support of media and political parties.

    And back to Judy.

    A

    s a result of the politicization of climate science, climate tribes (consisting of a small number of climate researchers) were established in response to the politically motivated climate disinformation machine that was associated with e.g. ExxonMobil, CEI, Inhofe/Morano etc.

    I believe that Judy got this sequence in reverse. Bringing here the politically motivated Exxon climate disinformation machine (she is talking about you Steven M and Anthony W) is a red herring. I could accept perhaps an economic motivation. These were the AGW proponents that politicize the whole idea. How can you avoid getting involved in social and political aspects of AGW when the consequences are so dire? Yeah – it is more than 90% guaranteed.

    And again Judy:

    In summary, the problem seems to be that the circling of the wagons strategy developed by small groups of climate researchers in response to the politically motivated attacks against climate science are now being used against other climate researchers and the more technical blogs (e.g. Climateaudit, Lucia, etc).

    And to protect against the politically motivated attacks, HADCRU makes sure that inconvenient reviewers will be removed, violates FOIA rules, hides/discards inconvenient data, does some shady financial dealings and colludes with others to destroy the indiscrete e-mail. Being so busy with the defence it obviously has no time to properly maintain the raw data, the software and the documentation.

    And last but not least, Judy’s true colors:

    The quickest way for HADCRU et al. to put Climateaudit and the rest of this tribe out of business…

    Why to quickly put Climateaudit and WUWT out of business? They are needed today as they were needed yesterday. And even Judy admits they will be needed tomorrow too:

    The climate research enterprise has not yet adapted to this need, and our institutions need to strategize to respond to this need.

  86. bender
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:54 PM | Permalink

    Dear Dr. Curry,
    Thank you for the contribution. Would you be willing to tell me why you think Lindzen’s anti-alarmism is unwarranted? Specifically: what is wrong with his idea (and evidence) that clouds are a strong negative feedback that partially (or even largely) offset the positive feedback associated with water vapor? Would you be willing to engage on the broader question of GCMs and the role of faith in their structure and parameterization? If not, could you briefly explain why not? Thanks for reading and your writing.

  87. AKD
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 9:55 PM | Permalink

    Admirable, but a little too early to be drawing conclusions and moving on, don’t you think? I’m sure no one has looked at the information released in enough detail to draw such broad conclusions. No one could have (or should be doing so) in such a short period of time.

  88. mondo
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 10:00 PM | Permalink

    I would like to add my support for Dr Curry. In standing up and stating her position, she is making a clear statement that she is not part of the Gore/Hansen/Schmidt/Mann/Jones ‘tribal’ clique (at least thats what I think she is saying), and that she personally values sound scientific practice. I hope that we will see more scientists in the area of climate science so stand up and be counted.

    I cannot let pass though her comment on IPCC: “That is why assessments such as the IPCC are so important, and why it is imperative that the process be as clean and transparent as possible.”

    The problem is that the IPCC is a self appointed supra-national body accountable to noone. Their work is not subject to any real form of independent due diligence. They have played the governments of the world for suckers in advancing their clearly political agenda. That is a big part of the problem here.

  89. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 10:06 PM | Permalink

    Please continue comments at CA mirror here. It’s MUCH faster.

26 Trackbacks

  1. By Elitism & Science « SoftestPawn’s Weblog on Nov 23, 2009 at 1:00 AM

    […] Update:Judith Curry (I think this climate researcher), talks about tribalism and the duty of public release here […]

  2. By FT.com | Clive Crook's blog | Further reading on Nov 26, 2009 at 12:15 PM

    […] On the credibility of climate research. Climate audit. Read the comments too. […]

  3. […] Judy Curry: On the credibility of climate research   […]

  4. […] days later, Curry posted a critique of her colleagues on, of all places, a skeptic-run blog called Climate Audit. If mainstream scientists stopped […]

  5. […] theme manifested in her letter “This is demonstrated simply with two quotes from the letter:..Curry: On the credibility of climate research by Steve McIntyre on November 22nd, 2009 ________________ Sometimes, to maintain your story, you […]

  6. […] researcher Judy Curry has some proposals to undo the damage of the leaked emails of climate […]

  7. […] Judith Curry auf http://www.climateaudit.org […]

  8. […] Judy Curry writes on climatologist credibality.  Eduard Zorita’s page declaring the CRU researchers unfit and their work not credible has moved (probably on his new blog somewhere), there’s a copy here with a rather enthusiastic skeptic. […]

  9. […] Hago referencia al siguiente documento que urge a la comunidad científica mundial hacer a un lado estas barreras y poner la información al acceso público: Curry: On the credibility of climate research. […]

  10. […] participant in the blogosphere since 2006, and recently posted two essays on climategate, one at climateaudit.org and the other at climateprogress.org.  Both essays were subsequently picked up by other blogs, and […]

  11. By Discussion of Trust « the Air Vent on Feb 24, 2010 at 10:05 AM

    […] participant in the blogosphere since 2006, and recently posted two essays on climategate, one at climateaudit.org and the other at climateprogress.org.  Both essays were subsequently picked up by other blogs, and […]

  12. By PlazaMoyua.org on Feb 24, 2010 at 7:08 PM

    […] en la blogosfera desde 2006, y recientemente he publicado dos ensayos sobr el Climategate, uno en  climateaudit.org y el otro en at climateprogress.org.  Ambos han sido colgados en otros blogs [por ejemplo […]

  13. […] participant in the blogosphere since 2006, and recently posted two essays on climategate, one at climateaudit.org and the other at climateprogress.org. Both essays were subsequently picked up by other blogs, and […]

  14. […] participant in the blogosphere since 2006, and recently posted two essays on climategate, one at climateaudit.org and the other at climateprogress.org. Both essays were subsequently picked up by other blogs, and […]

  15. […] contrast, circling the wagons and ‘protecting’ the work from public scrutiny, in order to defend it against hostile […]

  16. […] and manipulated by Morano? Yes. Does this mean Revkin was wrong to delve into issues raised by Judith Curry and Mike Hulme? No, not even in the wake of the latest news. Still, you get the feeling from RC and […]

  17. […] whose  outspoken commentary on Climategate has put her at odds with many of her colleagues. (See here, here, and here, for Curry’s most recent and widely circulated essays on the issue of climate […]

  18. […] has engaged her peers, critics, and the public at well known web outlets, such as Climateprogress, Climateaudit, and Dot Earth, among others. Additionally, she has been a participant in lively comment threads […]

  19. By Phil Manger » Climategate: why it matters on Jun 14, 2010 at 8:35 PM

    […] AGW hypothesis — see Judy Curry’s open letter on the Climate Progress website; also her post on Climate Audit), the line was changed to, “this is just a few scientists behaving […]

  20. […] Given the importance of East Anglia’s data and correspondence in shaping climate policy, including via IPCC reports, some mainstream scientists now say they find the evidence of efforts at data withholding troubling. “The problem seems to be that the circling of the wagons strategy developed by small groups of climate researchers in response to the politically motivated attacks,” Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta wrote in an internet posting this week. […]

  21. […] Georgia Tech, a climatologist who has gained a reputation for engaging climate change skeptics, has written that “climate tribalism” could seriously damage the scientific process and the public […]

  22. […] scientists have come out acknowledging that the emails reveal serious problems in their discipline (here, here). George Manbiot of the Guardian newspaper, who is very strongly pro-warming and […]

  23. By Cool first, warm later | Climate Etc. on Sep 23, 2012 at 9:04 AM

    […] in terms of who is acceptable in terms of asking questions.  If this doesn’t define climate tribalism, I don’t know what […]

  24. […] She published that online. […]

  25. […] off the island, which was very visible with the publication of my post-Climagate essay ‘On the credibility of climate research‘ on McIntyre’s […]

  26. […] participant in the blogosphere since 2006, and recently posted two essays on climategate, one at climateaudit.org and the other at climateprogress.org. Both essays were subsequently picked up by other blogs, and […]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,419 other followers

%d bloggers like this: