Published by admin on 03 Aug 2010 at 01:46 pm
Judith Curry on climate power politics
Climatologist Judith Curry is interviewed on why she was attacked by alarmist bloggers like Joe Romm (Climate Progress) and RealClimate for suggesting climatologists read Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion:
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. The politics of expertise is about how scientific information is used in the policy making process, including how diverging viewpoints are interpreted and how science is weighed relative to values and politics in the policy debate. The problem comes in when the “power” politics of expertise are played.
Signals of the “power” play include: hiding uncertainties and never admitting a mistake; developing a consensus with a high level of confidence; demanding that the consensus receive extreme deference relative to other view points; insisting that that science demands a particular policy; discrediting scientists holding other view points by dismissing them as cranks, trivializing their credentials and say that they are not qualified to hold an opinion; and attacking the motives of anyone that challenges the consensus. Sound familiar?
In the case of climate change, the authoritarianism of “science tells us we should . . . ” could not withstand the public perception of scientists engaging with pressure groups, lack of transparency that meant people were unable to evaluate the information themselves, and then the climategate affair that raised questions about the integrity of the scientists….
There is an increasing backlash from scientists and engineers from other fields, who think that climate science is lacking credibility because of the politicization of the subject and the high confidence levels in the IPCC report. While these scientists and engineers are not experts in climate science, they understand the process and required rigor and the many mistakes that need to be made and false paths that get followed.
For the rest of this interview from Collide-a-Scape, click here.

Dennis Nikols, P. Geol. on 07 Aug 2010 at 1:05 pm #
I don’t always agree with Ms. Curry or anyone else. On this topic she is absolutely right. What I find most disconcerting is the hubris and displayed and expressed by many in the scientific community. None of this is about science any more. Hasn’t been since the late 1980’s. It is about ideology, value systems and confusing what I call Mythos for Logos, fact vs. fantasy. All to many “climate experts” have forgotten the two most fundamental tenants of Science Philosophy. 1. Hypocrisies are falsified never proven. 2. Correlation is not sufficient to demonstrate causation. My 40 + years of geological modeling experience has demonstrated one near certainty. Dynamic processes are not properly modeled by deterministic or static numeric methods. If you or anyone else wishes to puzzle with me over how the philosophy of science is used and misused in public discourse, please visit my blog, http://www.retreadresources.com/blog. Dennis