BPSDB Judith Curry’s latest post Polyclimate is actually about an interesting and important topic that deserves real discussion, but that is apparently not the real purpose of her post, and as a consequence not of this one either.
The topic in question is the clear, effective communication of climate change science, and I just want to draw to your attention Dr Curry’s attempt to further undermine it.
Dr Curry is actually quite a clever misinformer, so a single blog post is not sufficient to document all of the errors, misrepresentations and cheap shots in the entire piece. Indeed may not even be sufficient to cover the introduction which attempts to frame the issue as being about flawed science. While masquerading as a serious discussion piece the fact is that a great deal of it is actually just juvenile swiftboating.
I suppose I should begin by thanking Dr Curry for the backhanded semi-compliment she gave in “it seems that few people read Greenfyre, but it is representative of the genre and more literate and entertaining than most“, but still note the typical gratuitous put down she felt obliged to insert. Moving right along:
“In short, the blame is being placed on “deniers,” the mainstream media, conservatives and libertarians, and tactics used by the environmental movement itself. The science itself is a non-issue in this matter: the incontrovertability of the Tyndall gas effect has somehow been translated into high confidence knowledge of what is going on with the climate system and what should be done about it.”
“Tyndall gas effect?” [ie greenhouse effect] Seriously? At one level this is just silly, a point more than adequately made by Eli Rabett so I won’t belabour it.
At another level it is a clever attempt to suggest that the physics and chemistry of CO2 has not been investigated since 1859.
Of course it has, over and over. In fact it’s very simple physics and chemistry that any High School student should be able to grasp.
“ … has somehow been translated into high confidence knowledge …” Somehow? Apparently Dr Curry is unaware that there has been some research on CO2 and climate since 1859 (time to renew that subscription to Nature I guess). Many tens of thousands of studies spanning many decades across multiple disciplines actually. Here are some sources to help her catch up on what’s been happening in the field:
- The science behind a climate change headline
- A brief history of climate change
- History/Discovery of Global Warming
- Most frequently cited authors of climate research (with links to their work)
I’ll take it as given that Dr Curry already knew that (many of her readers apparently do not however, hence the links), so why the completely disingenuous “somehow“? It seems a transparent and juvenile attempt to dismiss the science as anyone with even middle school level science knows how they are connected and why (the basics are taught in Grades 4 and 5 for pity’s sake).
Neither the scientists nor the state of the science gets any blame in these analyses. And Climategate is typically dismissed as an insignificant factor. This is despite these findings from three recent studies:
“Neither the scientists nor…” Let’s start by noting the bundling together of the scientists and the science as if they were somehow intermingled. It comes across as linguistic convenience, but is an important framing in that one might acknowledge that scientists have not been great at communicating, but in acknowledging some truth to her point you are necessarily conceding problems with the science itself as well, or at least seeming too. Clever.
Anyway, speaking for my own piece, the only one of mine that she referenced, she is right, they didn’t get blamed.
That would probably be because in my piece about corporate funding, the tea party and Denier irrationality I opted to talk about corporate funding, the tea party and Denier irrationality. I just thought talking about my actual topic and not wandering off on every possible tangent would be a good idea; I’m funny that way.
In other posts I have talked about the issue of messaging and scientists’ short comings in that regard, and will do so again soon. When I write those pieces I will also probably continue to try to stay on topic. I will also try to avoid Red Herrings, Straw Man arguments, and gratuitous put downs.
McCright and Dunlap (the Sociological Quarterly she references) apparently suffer from the same debilitation as I do. It is quite true that in a paper that looks at the polarization of attitudes with respect to climate change they do not “blame” scientists, or the science, or the media, or anybody. Why would they? Their paper does not make any attempt to examine causes because it’s not what they were looking at.
In the same vein The Gettysburg Address, Hamlet, Whitehead and Russel’s Principia Mathematica and Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time also did not blame scientists or the science. Shall we do a complete list of all works that were about something else? or have I made my point?
Now the really fun part. It is true that since Nesbit’s Climate Shift (the third reference) did examine “the factors shaping the recent decline in public concern and belief in climate change;” he might have mentioned “the scientists nor the state of the science”, so why didn’t he?
Well, for one thing that is only a minor part of a much bigger work that is focused on examining future communication strategies. The factors discussion is only one small part of it, and Nesbit was focused on the funded, professional communication strategies, a sector that does not involve real climate scientists (almost an oxymoron actually).
Now for a radical concept, maybe Nesbit didn’t mention them because in his analysis they are not to blame? or at least not in any meaningful or significant way?
Looking back at Curry’s framing, it’s a “have you stopped beating your wife” loaded question fallacy. That scientists and/or the science are not blamed in 3 (cherry picked and largely irrelevant) sources is not suggestive that they might not be the problem, instead it is seen as evidence of a conspiracy or collective blindness.
Obvious Alert! When pretending an objective discussion of communication strategies it helps if there are fewer examples of glaring a priori, unsubstantiated assumptions about responsibility. It would lend the piece some semblance of actual objectivity, and hence possibly even credibility.
She goes on “And Climategate is typically dismissed as an insignificant factor.” Ahhh, nice! Such clever wording. And just what does one mean by “Climategate?”
Is she referring to the emails themselves? the ones that showed no wrong doing, no tampering, no interference, no malfeasance of any sort? (links below) A fact that was glaringly obvious at the time to anyone with minimal literacy, a basic understanding of science, and who had bothered to actually read the emails.
Or is she referring to the entirely fatuous, ideologically driven campaign of lies and hysteria where the climate change Deniers (a group with dubious literacy skills, notorious for not understanding simple science and who clearly had never read the emails; attributes they apparently share with some churnalists) tried to claim it was evidence of the global conspiracy by climate scientists?
Obviously the former was insignificant, whereas the latter has played a central role in the problem of communicating climate science. But wait, if that is true then the blame must fall on the “deniers,” the mainstream media, conservatives and libertarians.” Opps, not Dr Curry’s point at all, better to imply that:
Ahh, but of course if the scientists had not written those private emails that the Deniers could then steal, cherry pick, misrepresent and lie about, then the CRU Hack could not have happened at all quod erat ignoratum. It’s a time honoured illogic known as victim blaming.
Wait a minute, if we are interested in root causes, what caused those emails to be written in the first place? Could it be the harassment? the environment where phony “skeptic” shills working for PR firms fronting for the oil industry that pose as think tanks distort and lie when not practising outright fraud?
If the logic is that we must look at root causes, then we would have to conclude that it is the fault of the ““deniers,” the mainstream media, conservatives and libertarians.” Oh wait, that’s the fact Dr Curry is trying to distract us from, better to just leave it in the air that “Climategate” was significant and not clarify what is meant by that.
This is despite these findings from three recent studies:
- Talking Past Each Other: this study found that science had a very high salience for both skeptics and “deniers” (which was not the case for the believers and convinced).
- Climate Change: Partisanship, Understanding, and Public Opinion: “Democrats and Republicans with high confidence in their understanding [of climate science] also stand the farthest apart.”
- In a Michigan State University press release on a new study, lead researcherAaron M. McCright said: “Instead of a public debate about different policies to deal with global warming, a significant percentage of the American public is still debating the science. As a result, we’re failing to significantly address one of the most serious problems of our time.”
OK, for the first study, “salience” is Dr Curry’s word, not the authors, and it is important to unpack that. Reading the actual study (Wow, what a concept!) the authors note that the “skeptics “and deniers obsess on the science only in an abstract sense, specifically their obsession is their unsubstantiated claim that the science is flawed.
In contrast, having demonstrated that the science is robust and that there is no rational reason to obsess on it, the believers and convinced are more concerned with policy issues and what to do about climate change.
As such, the authors quite correctly note that the two groups are talking at cross purposes.
The study is about “Cultural Framing”, and they “blame” the scientists only insofar as noting that it is socially, and hence politically meaningless to talk about the “science as settled” because that is culturally (ie socially and politically) not the case, even though it may be so scientifically (ie objective reality).
Now Dr Curry, IF you think there is any research that substantially undermines the facts of anthropogenic climate change in any significant way, why don’t you tell us all which papers those would be and exactly how they undermine the science? You have been blogging for over a year and yet the only thing that actually matters has yet to appear on your blog, or anywhere else for that matter, so how about it?
The second reference reports on the political divide between those who reject and those who accept the science. Here again it is utterly irrelevant to the point Curry seems to be trying to make, ie that somehow this study blames the scientists and/or the science.
It is important to note that in this study the designation of “high understanding” of climate science is based on self-assessment and has nothing to do with actual knowledge (can you say “Dunning Kruger”? I knew you could!).
The third reference is to exactly the same Sociological Quarterly article mentioned above, and it is still irrelevant despite being repeated here. Note that the study was first cited as an example of studies that fail to blame scientists and the science, and then cited as evidence that this alleged omission was wrong … ie the same study is being cited to prove opposites!
So despite what the convinced and believers say, climate science does “matter” in this debate,
The influence of skeptical scientists on political and opinion leaders is arguably substantial. So lets look at the failings of the climate scientists, in terms of making their case and garnering the public trust.
The millions of deaths that have occurred since are clearly the fault of the cancer researchers who failed to do something that was never their role in the first place, and now climate scientists are recklessly doing the same thing. It’s totally inexcusable!
In other words, you’re kidding, right?
IF the scientists and/or science are to blame (ie a significant factor), how about making a solid, rational case for it instead of complaining that no one else has? Because maybe, just maybe, there is no solid, rational case that can be made?
Dr Curry, my apologies for not getting to the actual alleged topic of your post; I meant to, I really did. I would very much prefer to be talking about how we improve the communication of science. It’s just that I find it’s very difficult to read a piece where every second statement has me slapping my forehead at the shameless misrepresentation of the facts, the transparent bad faith, and baldly disingenuous arguments.
To improve the communication of science I humbly suggest that objectively and accurately reporting the facts coupled with a rational, sincere and in good faith discussion would go a long way to helping.
The Denier fraud that was “Climategate”
Videos
Climate Change — Those hacked e-mails
Climate Change – “Those” e-mails and science censorship
Smacking the Hack Attack – Part 1
Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack – Part 2
Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack: The Wrap
Popular Media
Climategate: Anatomy of a Scandal
Climategate: What Really Happened?
Science Blogs
What do the ‘Climategate’ hacked CRU emails tell us? (and links)
Mann Bites Dog: Why ‘Climategate’ Was Newsworthy
Swifthack (blog devoted to the issue)
On Greenfyre’s
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Image Credits:
- who wants to play? by theloushe
- Blamegame by matt_leclair
- Stop the Blame Game by Oxfam International
- Blame Game by Dan4th
- Who’s To Blame? by Andreas_MB
- Blame by FatBusinessman
- blame by Scratchdaddy
- raoul moat game over by smemon87
Comment Policy
–
It is worth knowing and abiding by whether you comment on this blog or not.
- The “Mostly” Open Thread” is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
- The “Spam” Comment Thread is for comments posted by people who think that they can ignore site policy.
An easter egg of an essay … ! 🙂 But. how sad that pointing out the obvious never translates into others changing their tune in the face of raw reality — it remains denial of the state of denial. 😦
> Dr Curry is actually quite a clever misinformer
Yep. Scientists and clever tend to go together. Greenfyre, having studied her, do you find any credible explanation for an apparently somewhat competent scientist like her going emeritus like this — other than unmarked brown envelopes?
—-
I’m willing to come with an option:
Attention.
She’s somehow convinced herself she’s someone that should be noted more widely, and has been frustrated she didn’t get the attention she ‘deserved’. Now she has it.
—-
Excellent evisceration – A frabjous Easter to you!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
—-
While all the white conservative males in America are not climate change denialists, Aaron McCright confirms that denialists are almost all white conservative males with high educational attainment who ignore and distort information (especially the most current science) and instead base their arguments and beliefs in a shared neocon, free market ideology. It’s no secret — we’ve observed it for a long time — but Aaron confirms it in that sociological study.
Republican policy advocate and denialist supporter Judith Curry fits right in, as an ally, and demonstrates all the same behaviours and distortions.
I would llike to suggest that there is significant evidence of not only ideologically-based distortions, but personality disorder. And that it’s hard to say which came first: the chicken or the egg. 😦
—-
“We have a common objective with these conservatives, to restore sanity to the debate.”
I read that in your last post (linked by Judy Curry), and thought there might be some worthwhile discussion here. However, reading this post has convinced me I was wrong.
As a PhD engineer working in a climate measurement related field (IR instrumentation), I’m convinced AGW is a real effect. However, for it to go from a real effect to a crisis, a lot of numbers and cost/benefit issues need to be resolved to some level of confidence. [1]
Your inability to accept that knowledgeable people could have honest doubts about the quality of AGW science indicates a sane debate is unlikely here. [2]
—-
‘Steve’
As someone with a PhD in electrical engineering who specializes in sensors, you view yourself as able to intelligently discuss your economic perspective on climate science and emissions reduction through the lens of libertarianism, and expound on your beliefs about the corruption of funding to climate science and the exaggerations of AGW by scientists, as well as your concerns that emissions reductions (by the West) is not supportive of poor people in the most vulnerable regions. Correct? That is you? And you highly recommend climateaudit?
Greenfyre does state he feels there can be shared objectives. Just on the surface of it, I don’t see it. 😦
p.s. ‘Steve’, do you know why more than a few of Judith Curry’s conservatives have been Research Fellows at Georgia Tech or are retired engineers and/or past students of Georgia Tech? What’s up with that?
“Honest doubts” are not the same as “relevant doubts”. As you yourself point out later, ignorance is certainly a possibility. Problems enter the equation when that ‘ignorance’ is at least in part due to the ideological filter applied on any incoming information. Is it then still ignorance?
It is my personal opinion this is what is happening with Judith Curry: her ideological filter is starting to affect her judgments. But as long as she is reinforced in her ideas by many commenters, she will be unable to see it.
I’m seeing another Peter Duesberg in the making.
Excellent post.
I think this nicely pinpoints what causes so many of us dismay over Curry’s statements (and those of many in her camp or tribe or whatever): They insist on trying to open issues that have been settled for several to many decades, as if CC were some new-fangled notion that someone just cooked up last weekend.
It often comes across as a much less blatant but better presented version of a Gish-gallop. This is a formula for perpetual argument, as they can always find some other crevasse of the science to demand be proved, or even circle back and re-ask for proof of some previous discussed point “in light of the X, et al., paper just published in Science”. Yes, science should be a process of constant re-examination as new information and theories arise, but there’s a significant difference between that healthy and required process and what Curry, et al. are doing.
—-
“Pls show anywhere I have ever been unwilling to engage in a discussion of factual, rational, relevant arguments.
Most particularly, show in this post where you seem to have seen that.”
Since I’ve never read anything by you before, I’ll just go with what is in this post and your comments to illustrate my point of you not accepting the good faith of people with honest doubts:
“Dr Curry is actually quite a clever misinformer, so a single blog post is not sufficient to document all of the errors, misrepresentations and cheap shots in the entire piece…”
and “She’s somehow convinced herself she’s someone that should be noted more widely, and has been frustrated she didn’t get the attention she ‘deserved’. Now she has it.
—-
I suspect you are very close to the mark, but I don’t think it’s conscious.”
More on your other points later.
—-
Since you quote one of my comments, I’ll respond here:
Curry may have “honest doubts” (and so may you), but that does not excuse her from being wrong so often, and get all arrogant and dismissive when her errors are pointed out. There’s a growing list of really, really strange comments from Judith Curry, where she, despite some people trying to educate her, prefers to listen solely to those reinforcing her doubt.
What I indicate in my comment, and what greenfyre makes explicit for himself, is that we believe to have evidence she’s clearly enamored by the attention she receives. The fact that she’s criticised by her peers is (to her) reinforcing her idea that she’s right. The same goes for many of the people who react on her blog, it should be said.
IMO, a rational discussion has some requirements. One is a perception of good faith. If we disagree, we may view the other as making the points they do because of:
1. ignorance or mistake
2. evil intent – ‘actually quite a clever misinformer’
3. not being rational
Number 1 is fine; we are all somewhat ignorant. Maybe we will learn something from each other. My perception (based on very limited data) is that you appear to attribute reasons 2 or 3 to people (such as Judy) that are difficult to identify with ‘1’. [1]
Unless you are willing to accept that my points are made in good faith, discussion with you is pointless. If I can show I am not ignorant, I will just be labeled with 2 or 3. [2]
One quick point on climate science:
Do you know where the data for the graph on your ‘about’ page comes from? Do you know how misleading it is? Please see Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller explain:
[3]
—-
I read your link to ‘Dr Curry’s errors and misrepresentations’ but did not see any proof of such; I see you and she disagree on many things and your opinions about that. [1]
“Yes I do know where the data came from, and I know Muller is misleading you.”
I’m sure Muller is not perfect, but: “He’s also lying about the quote…”
Why do you assume he is ‘lying’? He could be mistaken or not think your distinction important. [2]
You did not answer about knowing how misleading that graph on your site is (characterized as such by the British investigation).[3]
From your own link:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Muller-Misinformation-1-confusing-Mikes-trick-with-hide-the-decline.html
“In creating the WMO graph, Jones cut off the tree-ring density curve around 1960 when it diverged from instrumental temperature and grafted the instrumental temperature onto the green line. This technique has been rightly criticised for failing to distinguish between reconstructed temperature and the instrumental temperature in a graph.”
Do you intend to remove this misleading info from your site? [4]
I see you removed my link to Muller’s presentation even though skepticalscience.com has it there. [5]
—-
Wow, I never saw that video before. Muller is slick, and despicable. The section showing the decline in the tree ring data was fascinating though.
Because it would really help this entire debate about “hiding the decline” – that seems if anything to intensify (even though the tree ring data is a minuscule part of climate science) – if people understood that the tree ring increase began diverging from the temperature increase because rising levels of background tropospheric ozone stunt their growth…for evidence of this, you can read reams of published research about the myriad ways that exposure to ozone damages plants and interferes with photosynthesis (listed on the basic premise link at the top of my blog) – or you could just stroll outside and look at any tree anywhere (of those still left standing) and note that in spite of the fact that many species should live for centuries, there are none left that don’t have branches breaking off; holes indicating interior rot; bark that is corroded, splitting and peeling, often oozing sap; and only a paltry mass of leaves or needles remaining.
It’s as if we were looking at members of our family and friends and realized their hair and skin and fingernails are falling off, they are bleeding from every orifice and dying from the common cold, insect bites, or from no apparent reason.
I should think it would be apparent that something is terribly wrong.
“…as with Muller, you feel a Denier grossly misrepresenting the facts is mere understandable error?…..”
Do you really consider Curry and Muller the D word? Shooting the messengers is not a very effective tactic. Ad homs against Muller won’t convince many that Jones did nothing wrong. [1] If you want unconvinced people to take you seriously about climate science, you need to admit errors in the science and misrepresentations communicating the science.[2]
“My graph is the for the global temperature record, NOT the for the specific tree ring proxy data that Brifa was working with.”
What global temperature record? Splicing questionable proxy reconstructions onto the instrumental record and smoothing the result to hide the boundary, and calling it ‘the global temperature record’ is misrepresentation. [3]
—-
‘Steve’
Since you are employed in education in addition to having various business interests and patents, it surprises me that you spend time running around the internet defending and recycling Judith Curry’s transparently dishonest, partisan, ‘review’ of climate science.
Her understanding of the policy issues is almost zero. Her understanding of the current science has gaping holes. Her campaigning, at both personal and political levels, is not subtle. Sadly, there is little to admire, never mind repeat.
Your association with the commercial research program at Georgia Tech and past employment at Georgia Tech as a research scientist makes it understandable that you wish to see Judith Curry as credible, and doing something of importance on her blog– but you really have to be more objective. Your PhD skills enable you to engage in independent learning and evaluate information not only in your area of expertise, but more broadly. Start using those skills if you want to teach these skills.
I am wondering why you aren’t more connected to excellence in education, to students, and to the public that employs you in education, than to private colleagues and your personal political beliefs and economic ideology.
And why you do not feel accountable to others for the quality of your opinions, sources, and information — even when you are essentially anonymous on the internet.
Martha, you give “Steve” too much credit — his Phd is in engineering, after all.
Like terriers, the fake skeptics have got hold of the tree ring proxy which has some unexplained issues, and they are not going to let go of it. It doesn’t matter how many other proxies confirm the record, this one confirms their desire to find something to criticize.
As to Judith Curry, I spent months trying to find a single answer to cogent questions, as the science community was willing to cut her a lot of slack. (Suggest you start at the beginning, RealClimate.) After a variety of evasions and refusals to answer simple straightforward questions on matters of fact, she switched over to attack – how *dare* you ask me questions. I don’t have to answer them because you are *persecuting* me. It looked like a whole lot of fudge to me.
Until she stops getting fame, fortune, and popularity encouraging those who resent and dislike expertise she is doing the worst she can for the future of the human race. Her previous excellence is no excuse. This is no longer innocent, and I praise those who point out her errors in detail and at length. It is way past time we all faced the truth.
—-
Too funny:
“Tribe alert:”? … interesting.
Indeed. The bees are buzzing in the bonnet! But it is truly incredible that the work of almost all scientists for the last century plus are set at nought by JC – once a scientist herself before she abandoned her skepticism.
I can’t help but think she will wake up in a year or three and regret her blanket dismissal of research, truth, and the crescendo of climate change.
Judith Curry will make a sad but fascinating sociological study some day.
Steve Reynolds, commenting here at length but without intellectual progress, is merely a Denialist terrier trying to convince himself. Not an interesting subject…
First for Martha:
“Your association with the commercial research program at Georgia Tech and past employment at Georgia Tech as a research scientist…”
Whoever you are thinking about is not me. I have no professional connection to Georgia Tech.
gf: “…hence global temperature measurements have been done with thermometers (not tree ring proxies) since … well, for the past 130 years.”
Of course; my point is the graph on your about page goes back to 1000AD. From then to 1880 is derived from questionable proxies. Showing it as one smoothed curve is dishonest or ignorant. I don’t think Jones has the ignorant excuse, and hiding the inconvenient parts of the proxy data is even worse. [1] Muller’s description is accurate. Did you even view it? If so, what do you say is inaccurate (other than the scientifically irrelevant email quoting)? [2]
—-
Global mean temperature is cyclic as shown in the following data from the Climate Research Unit.
http://bit.ly/cO94in
According to the data, there is no man made global warming!
Who is the real denier?
—-
Is this some kind of off-topic hit-and-run joke, Girma?
The Watts Up “chart” you link to is a dunce-cap Excel sine curve, virtually a statistical crayon drawing, on top of the CRU data. Of course you also manage to ignore the roughly 1°C of rise over the 130-year period in order to deny global warming.
Pathetic.
Girma,
You should return to Curry’s blog, where a few people actually may take you seriously.
Girma lies once again:
Are you blind or a liar or both? There is an obvious upward trend in these data.
Why didn’t you post your “de-trended” data? Have you realized that that graph is even more dishonest than the one you provided above?
However, it is good of you to show how dishonest deniers are and how stupid and gullible people like Watts and Curry are who actually think you know what you are talking about.
FWIW, it’s Girma Orssengo, Perth, Australia. Interesting that someone from Australia would feel comfortable denying climate change which is already even more obvious there as elsewhere due to the increase in energy and water vapor in the system. Not sure exactly how the temperature records could be so carefully misconstructed to support such an obvious denial of the true record, but he does it very successfully. A more careful look, however, shows, as above, a whole lot of distortion.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/10/superfreakonomics_global_cooli.php
Sadly, there are a whole host of commenters worldwide on the web who post nice sciencey looking stuff. It has taken on a life of its own with innocents propagating it like mosquitoes.
It’s not surprising that people think there might be something in it, since our educational system does not equip students with skills in critical thinking or evaluating primary versus edited and altered sources.
[…] […]