Tuesday
Aug032010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Judy C at C-a-S
Aug 3, 2010 Blogs Climate: Curry Keith Kloor is interviewing Judy Curry at Collide-a-Scape about her recent treatment by the hordes at RealClimate and Climate Progress. She shows little sign of being bloodied, let alone bowed by the brickbats flung her way.
...the level of vitriol in the climate blogs reflects the last gasp of those who thought they could influence national and international energy policy through the power politics of climate science expertise.
Feels that way to me too.
Reader Comments (44)
I do honestly think that, though perhaps she hoped that things would be different, the eventuality has confirmed Dr Curry's suspicions - that there IS no valid and contradicting response to the HSI. The book, as an account of the illusion created by Mann and his cohorts, and the subsequent exposing of that illusion by Steve McIntyre, is definitive.
I think you did it, Bish. You told the story with exacting precision and the result is damning.
Few climate scientists come through the last 9 months since Climategate having greater insight, more perspicacity, more judgement and more common sense than Judith Curry.
C-a-S is not a blog I would frequent normally, but it has to be admitted that Kloor has provided her a permanent pitch at speakers corner, and she has willingly parked her soapbox there more than most. Just click on Judith's name on his tags list and you will find them all.
Agreed. Great summary from her too.
She deserves all the support she gets - which happily seems to be growing. She says she gets hundreds of emails from scientists "encouraging me to continue standing up for the scientific method and against the politicization of science."
Amen, Bish.
I have posted the following comment to Dr Curry's interview by Keith Kloor:
"Judy Curry and Steve MacIntyre should each have one day a plaque, a portrait or a statue erected in their honor in the Halls of Science, wherever these mythical Halls might be. Honesty, restraint, critical thinking, clear debate of methods and results, separation of Science and Politics, fidelity to data, and a dogged and relentless pursuit of Truth. Their virtues epitomize what Science should ever be..
Recommended reading:
Nearly a hundred years ago, Max Weber wrote two lucid essays, “Science as a calling” and “Politics as a calling”. Two essays, not one. That distinction, and the essays’ contents, say it all."
"Standing up for the scientific method".
If the scientific method were applied to climate science, what would be left?
Sadly you only have to glance at the vitriol and bile written about this honourable, sensible and true to science lady at the like of William Conolley's "scrote" blog to see just how much they are worried about such a respected individual daring to break the puerile "your in my gang" bullying tactics. RC et al are no better.
The wording they use is straight out of the playground! - Bullying is the only way to describe it. The good news is that the mainstream support for the political advocacy seems to be evaporating.
The die hards are still at it, but if you look at even the overtly warmist articles on the supposedly "dark" influences on sceptics, in the likes of The Guardian - you see that the recommendation scores for sceptical/anti advocacy views are considerably higher than for the warmist posts.
HSI is a great book - well written, insightful and attention grabbing.
I really do think it is on a bit of a roll!!! ;0)
I hate to nickpick, but Dr Curry seems to assume that Brazilians speak Spanish. They don't; they speak Portuguese.
I get weary when I read Curry (or Pielke or Fuller et al) acknowledge some or all of the gobsmacking problems being exposed in alarmist science, yet simply assure us that the science is somehow still solid. WTF?!
Why can't we get anyone to give us an honest, respectful, and serious answer to some simple questions:
1. The thermometers flunk basic standards, the scientists never even thought to check, they still haven't bothered to address the problem, and the supposed adjustment process is complete BS. Why do these folks have any credibility? Seriously, what competent scientist never checks his instruments or the quality of his data?
2. How can the science be solid if no one ever checks anyone's work? No transparency, no replication, no audit, no nothing. How can this be used as proof of anything? Even worse, the arguments defending this abandonment of the scientific method reflect a basic lack of logic that further undermines any claim to credibility. A lot of these people are just plain stupid! If you can't make a basic logical argument, you don't have what it takes to do science.
3. Those few times when we do get a very rare look behind the curtain, we see rank incompetence infecting everything. They screw up the data, they screw up the stats, they screw up the code, and they steadfastly refuse to get any help. If the few studies we can check turn out this bad, why would any conscientious scientist put any faith in the ones that have never been checked? If very apple we bite into is rotten, why would we assume the remaining apples in the same bushel are fine? Is science practice really that different from normal logic?
4. And after all the screwups have been identified, why don't the conscientious scientists demand the record be corrected? Where are they? And if they are too afraid to identify themselves, what does that say about the credibility of the whole charade?
5. Why aren't climate models required to meet the most basic principles of forecasting?
There are a bunch more I'd ask if I ever got to do an interview, but these will do for now.
JC quote:
Alas, I do not share some people's esteem of Judith Curry. The second half of the quote above directly contradicts the statement that there was was not "any actual scientific misconduct". "Sabotage of competing viewpoints" is scientific misconduct.
Keith, after fighting this for a while I came to accept that the act of "sabotage of competing viewpoints" may not necessarily fall into the defined category of "misconduct". That said, however, I'm confident that you and I, and many others, believe that it should.
Regardless, rather than reflecting any better on the scientists at UEA and their co-respondents whose actions are beneath contempt, this litmus test instead exposes an almost complete absence of any standards actually demanded of academics. But this does not pass unnoticed and is firmly Doug Keenan's domain. Things do have to change such that this kind of behaviour forces repercussions.
As far as I can tell, looking at it from the outside and all, Judith Curry has more stature in the field than most of the "insiders" taking potshots at her. She's from a high-ranking university with many strong scientific and academic departments, and she herself is the chair of a department there.
It seems to me that the honest researchers whose interest is in the science and not the politics should band together with one another and with their interdisciplinary colleagues, many of whom enjoy more rigorous disciplines, both at their own and other institutions, to get some papers with truly shoddy research retracted. Not rebuttals or corrigenda, retractions. It's a small enough field, and literature, that it will make a difference in the citation rate. If the methods used in a paper are demonstrably wrong, that paper's conclusions should not be cited. Funding should not be based on those results. It may take setting up an independent review in the more scientific disciplines to get it done.
Statistics, geophysics, oceanography, numerical analysis, computer science, fluid dynamics, history, economics, geology, agricultural science, just off the top of my head: it amazes me how few disciplines are actively involved in what should be the most interdisciplinary field ever.
Well, except for philosophy, which has had its share of politics. It is hard to fudge logic, however.
Three observations.
The planet has warmed since the LIA.
Man has contributed to this warming.
Computer climate models are fallible.
One certainty.
Ms Curry is a very brave person.
And Zero caveats.
Curry was hauled over the coals in connection with her review of the HSI.
Without wanting to draw any possible readers away from that magnificent work I strongly recommend that those who have an interest in the distortion of fact in pursuit of an agenda read Aynsley Kellow's book "Science and Public Policy: the Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science." - while it is a bit expensive ($110 at Amazon but presumably in libraries) it shines a light on the unacceptable, unethical, unprofessional and downright dishonest behaviour of many involved in promoting an environmental agenda.
Kellow is Professor and Head, School of Government, University of Tasmania. The book was published in 2007 and remains highly relevant today. Having read it I was not surpirised by climategate nor have I been surprised to see the misrepresentation of facts by the IPCC. An excellent read which should be a must for all those interested in seeing how we are being misled. An essential read for politicians.
Oh perfect historian of the Pelopenesian Wars
Ugh I hate this bit:
As far as I can tell, looking at it from the outside and all, Judith Curry has more stature in the field than most of the "insiders" taking potshots at her. She's from a high-ranking university with many strong scientific and academic departments, and she herself is the chair of a department there.
The above description is utterly without value.
Her stature is not relevent.
Dr Curry should be praised for her values, her courage and her pragmatism.
Hector M.
In my opinion at the moment Steve McIntyre stands head and shoulders above all simply because he has worked for over 10 years against all odds to destroy a lie that aims to destroy all our lives.
Second I would rank Ross McKitrick who worked with Steve and helped him along the way.
Third I would rank our Bishop for writing such a great book that has truly got the message out of the blogosphere and into main stream.
I admire Dr Curry but she is a late addition to the debate at the moment.
"I admire Dr Curry but she is a late addition to the debate at the moment."
Not really mate. Dunno how long ago it was that SMc reported that JC had been very helpful in giving him a platform to state his viewpoint.
I'm sitting with a GSM iPhone, just now, so am unable to seek the reference before bedtime!
I have been thinking about what could be the underlying motive for Dr. Curry's willingness to walk in the valley of the shadow of evil criticism. I think it is spelled out in the Dutch paper she references at Collide-a-Scape ..... "this paper" in her commentary (I cannot link it). I can't summarize it since I have only scanned it, but I think it has to do with acknowledging that climatology has become intimately intertwined with politics and policy, and that the attempt to form a "scientific consensus" has been wrong because it does not address the uncertainties and unknowns of the science.
Clearly the AGW Movement suffered a major setback at Copenhagen, and the damaging influence of Climategate has been far worse than what can be publicly admitted. Obviously the skeptics have undermined the US political scene to the point that a climate bill of significance is probably dead; skeptics have probably gained the upper hand.
So what can be done? Discard the consensus approach, insist on complete transparency, be open about the uncertainties of the science, and allow for dissenting opinions in IPCC reports ... so that proper policies can be formulated by the politicians. First of all, that means opening up constructive dialogues with the skeptics -- I think that is what Dr. Curry is attempting to do. My opinion only. Other thoughts?
As I said, it is all about rhetoric not facts.
At least Judith gets a fair hearing on the main sceptical blogs and I think she is spot on when she says,
"how the consensus was actually built: upon human judgment that was influenced by petty rivalries, a sense of self importance, a political agenda, and the brutal dismissal and even sabotage of competing viewpoints."
RC etc shows it to be true with its ongoing moderating rejection of comment that does not line up with the green religion they preach.
Until "Climate Scientists" listen to the voices against the politics they preach listen, climate science is going nowhere and I do find that sad.
We all know the people involved that really should have no part in science, simply because they moderate over at RC!
There's a fight song from Georgia Tech with the words: 'I'm a ramblin' wreck from Georgia Tech and a heck of an engineer'. Well, Judy engineered a ramble through RealClimate, and wrecked it.
======================
Stan: "Standing up for the scientific method".
If the scientific method were applied to climate science, what would be left?
A lot more than you seem to think, mate. Much of the real Climate Science is going on outside the official temples. And most of the most important science has been emerging "under persecution" (unpaid, unrecognized by the official science, and often rubbished and worse by the official science) because people actually care about truth and put time into their own science work. Not just Climate Audit and Watts Up now, these two blogs have spawned the next generation of highly interesting, competent work eg Jeff Id, E M Smith, Tallbloke, Lucia, Jo Nova, the Rev (this one, not Watts!) etc etc. I taught myself the science because I was so concerned about the scam but then found I really enjoyed the science itself (click my name). Roy Spencer's graduated to his own blog. Pielke's been blogging awhile. Then the blog frissons are being written up as books. Science is not just math-crunching though that's an essential part. It's also about a lot human values that enable creative openness to develop interesting ideas freely. Until I came to these blogs I would never have grasped the importance of courtesy in the whole scientific process.
In about a century's time, this will of course be taught by the universities, and they will be moaning at the unbelievable intolerance of their forebears.
DrCrinum, I'm also only part-way through the paper referenced (http://www.collide-a-scape.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/this-paper.pdf) but the summary abstract confirms your assessment.
What does Dr Curry stand for? I think her action is to open the debate to legitimate questions and concerns from the "other" or "dark" side, i.e. the science sceptics. Importantly this is distinct from the "deniers" which are the equal opposite of the activist scientists. The cause underlying this action, I think, is to restore the scientific method in climate science. It's to identify the advocacy, potentially with a mind to eliminating it from the science. I don't think her intention is to eliminate it herself, but by examining motive and juxtaposing with sceptic viewpoints I think her idea is to lift "fingerprints" of advocacy which are contaminants in the scientific method employed in climate sciences. Her hope seems to be that once identified, these contaminants will be disowned by scientists and the science can thus be lifted out of the mud.
Of course I could be wrong, and really she's trying to build a nuclear bomb...
I agree with Lucy Skywalker, there is still value in climate science even if it turns out that we're not headed for a catastrophe. The whole point of science is supposed to be the pursuit of knowledge purely for the sake of attaining that knowledge. That scientific research should be performed for the purpose of achieving an end-goal with regard to AFFECTING world politics etc. is a very modern and very faulty view of what academia is supposed to be about. I blame the paleo/dendro team for their part in doing damage to the standing of the entire arena of academic sciences because it's through them that so many of us have been left with the impression that much of academic science exists solely as an instrument of political activism. It really isn't supposed to be that way, and this is what needs fixing.
I have no sympathy for Judith Curry.
Pre-Climategate she was a fully signed up member of the consensus. She may have not indulged in personal attacks on sceptics but it is clear like many others she was content to leave the debate to ranting warmists.
In expressing doubts and trying to have a considered debate she herself became subject to the same level of seething rage that others have experienced.
She now takes solace from scientists and engineers from other disciplines who have now wakened up to the fact that public faith in science, all science, is being wrecked by a flawed ideology that has hijacked a young discipline.
Until the Hansens, the Manns, the Joneses, the Monbiots, the Romms and even the Currys have been expunged from the record science, all science, will continue to take huge hits to its credibility.
I agree with your last sentence, but I'm bound to disagree otherwise, Mac. I don't think that, until Climategate, and in fact probably not until she'd read HSI, Curry really understood the extent of "the problem". Until then, I don't think she considered "the dispute" relevant to her own subject or particularly relevant perhaps to much of the science. There's a lot of science to do and being done in the fields of environmental and climate sciences, some of which is interesting to individual scientists and other parts not so much. Curry was, then, not well informed.
She'd perhaps still argue now that she's not particularly well-informed in respect of paleo reconstructions, but to argue that she wilfully remained silent while sceptics were vilified is to ignore the fact that, until Climategate and until the release of HSI, this topic could be regarded as "fringe" and not really relevant in the great scheme of climate science things.
The revelations in Climategate and in HSI are, on one hand, pretty microscopic on a scientific level. On the other hand - and this is, I think, recognised by Curry - the implications of Climategate and HSI with specific regard for the politicising of sciences and the impact of that politicising are widespread. I feel you can forgive Curry not recognising their importance until the proverbial fan and the proverbial doo-doo were introduced.
Willis Eschenbach thoroughly raked Curry over the coals after her post on WUWT, and I think the body of his criticism was justified if one assumes that her silence had been complicity rather than that her silence was a result of Curry's tendency not to pontificate on subjects she has little or no knowledge. Willis invited Curry to step up to the plate, and I think she has done so. Her position is in many respects no different from many of the climate science sceptics here.
Sympathy and forgiveness are of course entirely subjective. I totally accept your unwillingness to cut Curry some slack. Conversely, though, if we cannot offer a safe-haven - a get out of jail card - to climate scientists who wish to reject politicisation now they're aware of the extent of it, I just don't see how we can move forward.
There are scientists who are clearly determined to retain their political influence, and you list some of them, but I think that rejecting ALL climate scientists for their apparent histories of complicity is far from being a path to advancement, and if our goal is scientific advancement (as I think it should be) then I think we need to work towards providing a route out of the quagmire for those scientists who reject the "tenets" of the "consensus".
Academics traditionally humour each other and give fellow-academics the benefit of the doubt.
Just imagine you are a Professor of Metallurgy - a 100% kosher subject. You are doing ground-breaking research into new metals and making exciting discoveries most weeks.
Across the corridor is the School of Medieval Textiles. You have no way of knowing if their work is valuable - or even true. They always seem affable - and look busy. There is no real-world output from their work.
Round the corner is the Department of Wimminz Studiz. You know the whole thing is a crock - bogus qualifications in a bogus field.
But next week all of these people get to vote on the University Budget - and you're hoping for another $5m for a neutron smelter.
So do you call them out or do you just humour them and give them the benefit of the doubt?
#SH
Hurricanes are getting fiercer (Global warming blamed for growth in storm intensity.)
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080903/full/news.2008.1079.html
Quote, Judith Curry, 2008, "It'll be pretty hard now for anyone to claim that cyclone activity has not increased,"
Updated WMO Consensus Perspective on Tropical Cyclones (Globally tropical cyclone frequency is likely to either decrease or remain essentially the same Landfalling tropical storm and hurricane activity in the US shows no long-term increase)
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/updated-wmo-consensus-perspective-on.html
Quote, Roger Pielke Jnr, "The latest WMO statement should indicate definitively (and once again) that it is scientifically untenable to associate trends (i.e., in the past) in hurricane activity or damage to anthropogenic causes."
Has Judith Curry changed her stance or corrected any statement regarding cyclone activity?
She doubts others, but it appears she does not doubt herself.
It's a fair question, Mac, and I'm curious to know the answer too. Perhaps there will be an opportunity to ask this specific question at some point.
About a year ago, Dr. Curry's pitch seemed to be that the problem Climate Science had with skepticism was poor PR. The practitioners needed to get better at explaining their work.
I suspect that she had confidence in her own work and other work with which she was familiar, but not the work most frequently challenged, Mann (xxx).
She seems to have come around to the idea that the problem with some of the science wasn't in the PR, but in the science itself.
I agree with Mac. "Scientist" JC's high-visibility swimming against the tide now, as opposed to then, is obviously motivated by politics.
Triangluation, is what they call it over here. Pull the string again and the Chatty Cathy Doll says something else. ;)
Andrew
Judith Curry has had a change of heart comparable to that of St Paul, and so in the eyes of Skeptics she currently does not carry the status of Steve Mc, Bish etc, that goes with the territory and as an extermely lapsed Catholic I know it still affects the status of St Paul vs St Peter. But if you never allow people to change their minds how are Skeptics to win the argument and stop the madness, it can hardly come down to when and who you changed your mind but the simple fact you did.
"Judith Curry has had a change of heart comparable to that of St Paul"
JohnH,
As a (former) Catholic, you should understand that humans can't read each other's hearts. How do you know she's had such a change?
Andrew
History and metallurgy can sometimes combine in scientific ways though. There's a continuing riddle of Damascus steel, especially after finding carbon nanotubes and wires in original blades. We still don't really know how they were made and can't completely recreate the orginals. That's still a bit of a contentious subject between metallurgists, archaelogists and historians. Just like the MWP saga, we know it existed, we're not entirely sure about all the details. Unless you're one of the RC deniers of course, who argue way beyond the certainty and confidence levels that can be scientifically supported as McIntyre et al and Hockey Stick Illusion have shown.
Whether or not Dr Curry has had her own Damascene conversion though I think is not that relevant and is part of the ongoing tribalism. She may not have been aware of the blog battles before and the level of tribalism, but she is now. Comments on pro-AGW blogs make that clear, saying she's converted to the "dark side" (and worse), which is faith-based rhetoric and nothing to do with the science.
I think she's held a pretty consist message that factions in climate science are behaving improperly, and aspects of climate science have been exagerated and distorted. Post-Climategate, we've heard promises of more openness and transparency, but thus far little action. RC's just demonstrated it's entrenched position and unwillingness to engage in reasoned debate, which is good for sceptics but bad for science given they're supposedly the go-to place for the truth in climate science. Maybe something will take it's place to become a less partial blog. Has the IPCC considered an AR5 blog? If it existed, would we trust it?
There's a good guest post on Pielke Jnr's blog about wider issues, namely stakeholder management;
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/08/guest-post-no-fluid-dynamicist-kings-in.html
which seems to be a big problem with climate science given conflicts of interest, conflicting objectives and the sheer number of interested parties. That's lead to scientists moving away from traditional roles as trusted advisors or honest brokers into advocacy, at a time where trust in politics and science is falling. If that's not reversed, then that's bad for science and I think Drs Curry, Pielke and others are right to speak out against bad science.
@AH RealClimate has been a PR / activist website from the get-go. Google for links between Al Gore / Fenton Communications/ EMS and Realclimate.
A false flag operation - fronted by scientists but publishing propaganda, not science
As a (former) Catholic, you should understand that humans can't read each other's hearts. How do you know she's had such a change?
Andrew
Yes you are right Andrew I don't and never will be able to, but treating people who on the surface are willing to change their mind like RC does will do no one any good. RC is one of the best Skeptic recruitment websites I know, up there with WUWT, I can't stand reading it for more than 5 mins.
Jack Hughes
A false flag operation - fronted by scientists but publishing propaganda, not science
A degree does not a "scientist" make. I have see very little at RC to suggest that there are any scientists there.
I am particularly irked by them stomping all over my Holy Grail -- The Scientific Method.
@Jack that's always been one of the puzzling things.
Given the history and connections between Fenton/EMS and not just Gore, but also the Environmental Defence Fund. Since Schardt retired, it morphed into the 'Science Communication Network' who don't mention RC any more. I can understand why Fenton/EMS would want RC to give it's greenwash a veneer of credibility but not why the distinguished cast of experts mentioned in the launch mail:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=446&filename=1102687002.txt
needed EMS's help to set up and run a blog. Or why Gavin neglected to mention EMS's involvement which may have raised alarm bells about it's impartiality and credibility. SCN may have distanced themselves from RC given it's negative PR and reaction when it turned into a Team publicity site and hospice for sick hockey sticks.
Gavin is interviewed at Collide a scape.
Gavin's perspective, following Judith's interview...
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/08/04/gavins-perspective/comment-page-1/#comment-12861
Why not ask about the above.
My take on Judith Curry is that she does not yet deserve a place in the Pantheon along side McIntyre. Her claim appears based on her publicly standing aside from the Establishment to defend the scientific principal of open, honest discussion of ideas. What troubles me is that as a tenured academic, a departmental head and ostensibly secure in her career why has she and so many people like her taken so long to stand up and defend the scientific method. Why is she receiving credit for doing something so late in the game and something she should have been defending in the first place?
The climate science debate is a symptom of a much larger sickness infecting the academic industrial complex. Why have there been so few junior scientists unwilling to make a name for themselves asking difficult questions? Is their silence from fear for future advancement, is it a lazy pursuit of easy funding, or is it the politicization of science?
If Judith Curry is to be important it will be as a representative of the open science side of the debate. Against her as the totem of the Establishment are the Manns and Schmidts, who at present define the public path to success for junior scientists - post-docs spawned from an incestuous family of researchers, bred to attack any perceived threat to your bosses and science fiefdoms. To be raised in time to a tenured den, safe with groomed publications and fattened by citations, ready to only reproduce the next generation of like-minded scientists. Such an opposition will continue to argue from authority, to petition for closed access and to restrict data to self selected experts.
The debate has now moved beyond the shouting over the actual science of paleoclimate reconstructions - it has become a much larger question of how science will be permitted to evolve into the future. How science results are published, the review process, how data is made available are some of the many questions before us. The internet age has smashed existing industries of publishing, retailing, and communication - why should science be removed from the revolution? The academe has featured prominently in the climate science debate and to date it has not come out well. I hope Professor Curry accepts the mantle of academic science reform before her, for if successful her contributions could have a far greater and lasting significance that the skirmish decisively won by Stephen McIntyre.
Lucy,
I should have written "consensus" climate science rather than climate science. The intent was to identify that body of belief used by the Michael Tobis types (e.g. the ongoing debate at Pielke jr) to try to bludgeon those who disagree. If you limit what is considered solid science to: a) data from instruments which have been properly calibrated, b)studies which have been replicated, c) databases which have been examined closely by skeptics, and d) climate models which meet the basic standards of forecasting, you'd have almost nothing.
For policy making purposes, is it moral to make world-changing policy on the basis of anything less?
I became interested in this debate because of the AGW v none AGW debate but already it is at least three debates, the second being the disturbing abandonment of proven scientific method in climate science and the third being the politicisation of the debate. Did I miss any?
Recent admissions by gavin admitting that a paleo reconstruction of temperature can not go back farther than 1500 plus Bob Watsons stance at the Guardian debate that "all that matters is the last 150 years" tells us where the IPCC AR5 is going.
Arguments about the MWP are over, that is what realclimate's response to The HSI was all about.
The last 150 years argument will be all about radiative forcings and feedbacks. I cant fault their logic since pretty much everyone who posts here admits that this is an area of uncertainty. What better area to issue their next set of predictions than one where nobody can "prove" that they are wrong?
@ Lucy Skywalker, August 4, 2010 :
Agree wholeheartedly with your post above.
But - you've been too polite to blow your own horn, because I , for one, would most certainly add your blog to that list of blogs from which I've learned amazing things in the last year.
At http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/08/04/gavins-perspective/
93 James Evans Says:
August 5th, 2010 at 1:24 am
Gavin #6 “I’m sorry but I have to disagree. The reason why climate policy is an issue because greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere due to human activities at a very rapid rate. We know how the greenhouse effect works, and we have evidence that climate sensitivity to increasing GHGs is significant. It has nothing to do with whether it is warming now, or whether it was warmer at some earlier point (both of which are true though). ”
Seriously? So if the temperatures were dropping now, and the modern period was seen to be comparatively cool this would have no relevence to climate policy? Wouldn’t it be hard to argue that CO2 was a problem if the temperature of the last 50 years couldn’t be shown to be doing anything unusual?
96 Gavin Says:
August 5th, 2010 at 1:46 am
#93 Look up the references I gave, people were warning of the issue in 1975 and 1979 right at the minimum of the 1940-1970s cooling. Of course, we did not know as much then, and we’ve had 30 years of correct predictions, so it is appropriate that we should be more confident now. Note that our concern as scientists has always been because of the physics of the greenhouse effect – it has not been based on linear extrapolation of temperature trends.
So MWP does not matter any more, neither does the temp record showing a stall in temp increase since 1998, all that matters is that in a lab C02 is shown to be a greenhouse gas.
Are the foundations crumbling ?
Dung, I had no intention of advancing an argument from authority. There were no graduate programs in my namesake's day. It mostly struck me as ironical.
It also struck me that JC was well-positioned to advance the clean-up of her field, which given her earlier position about janitorial duties, otherwise known as data keeping, was also somewhat ironical.