Quotations that serve as a conscience of a profession. – Tom Nelson
Earlier this week, I gave a lecture on research ethics to a group of Georgia Tech and University of Minnesota students, that are embarking on a new NSF-funded project on sustainability of cities (the students were GREAT, asking lots of penetrating questions). I drew from material from a previous blog post Scientists and motivated reasoning, and I framed this around conflicts of micro ethics versus macro ethics:
As a researcher, what kinds of responsibilities do you have to
your conscience (micro)
your colleagues (micro)
institutions (micro/macro)
the public (macro)
the environment (macro)
Robert Bradley’s post
With this fresh in mind, I spotted this post on MasterResource by Robert Bradley entitled The Brave Judith Curry (Part II) [link to Part I here]. Following a preamble, both parts are comprised by a compendium of my recent quotes. Excerpts:
Back to Professor Curry. Here are some salient quotations I have gathered from her recent output that offer both explanation and warning so that her profession can return to true scholarship.
Biased Scientists
“In principle, scientists can ethically and effectively advocate for an issue, provided that their statements are honest and they disclose uncertainties. In practice, too many scientists, and worse yet professional societies, are conducting their advocacy for emissions reductions in a manner that is not responsible in context of the norms of science.”
“In their efforts to promote their ‘cause,’ the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem. This behavior risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty. It is this objectivity and honesty which gives science a privileged seat at the table. Without this objectivity and honesty, scientists become regarded as another lobbyist group.”
“As a result of this lack of a code of behavior for university scientists, there continues to be what I regard as extremely irresponsible public behavior by some climate scientists, and there are absolutely no professional repercussions.”
– Judith Curry, “Science, Uncertainty and Advocacy,” June 22, 2015.
“The issue is NOT that scientists have values, or even express them. Rather the problem is engaging in adversarial science in support of these values, whereby their public communications focus on repetition, inflated claims, and disproportionate emphases.”
“Hucksterism is a great word to describe what goes on in the communication of climate science in service of policy advocacy. The complicity of many climate scientists and professional societies in this hucksterism is a cause of great concern.”
– Judith Curry, “The Adversarial Method versus Feynman Integrity.” Climate Etc., August 12, 2015.
False Consensus
“My main concern re the IPCC consensus seeking and the consensus entrepreneurs is that this is extremely ill-suited to a complex, highly uncertain area of science, and that it acts to bias the science. Scientists defending the consensus end up conducting acts that undermine the consensus through loss of trust in the scientists.”
– Judith Curry, “Scientists Speaking With One Voice: Panacea or Pathology?” June 25, 2015.
“There is an unfortunate knowledge monopoly in climate science and policy – the IPCC and UNFCCC. As a result there is insufficient intellectual and political diversity in assessments about climate change. To break this monopoly, we need identify new frameworks for encouraging, publishing and publicizing independent and interdisciplinary ideas and assessments.”
– Judith Curry, Assessments, Meta-analyses, Discussion and Peer Review, July 29, 2015.
Climategate in History
“The tragic case in point for climate science is Mann versus McIntyre, as revealed by Andrew Montford and the Climategate emails. ‘Circling the wagons’, even. I’ve written previously of how we managed to quickly get back on track on the hurricane and global warming wars, whereas Mann continues to fight the hockey wars not just by hucksterism but by attacking his opponents. This kind of behavior does not help keep the dangerous human caused climate change narrative alive, and at some point simply becomes pathological.”
“Climategate was a watershed moment in that it turned the tide slightly in the direction of discussing uncertainty in the public debate on climate change. Given the extremely high policy relevance of climate science, this transition to Feynman integrity will require a better decision analytic model than the linear model that ‘speaks consensus to power’– examples of such strategies are provided in these previous CE posts.”
– Judith Curry, “The Adversarial Method versus Feynman Integrity.” Climate Etc., August 12, 2015.
“These negotiated government sanctioned assessments don’t adequately account for the very substantial disagreement about climate change that arises from:
- Insufficient observational evidence
- Disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence (e.g. models)
- Disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence
- Assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance
- Belief polarization as a result of politicization of the science
All this leaves multiple ways to interpret and reason about the available evidence.”
– Judith Curry, Assessments, Meta-analyses, Discussion and Peer Review, July 29, 2015.
Intellectual Pluralism
“Where does the intellectual and political diversity come from in the climate debate? Certainly not from academia (other than emeritus professors or professors nearing retirement). What little diversity there is comes from think tanks like CATO, privately funded groups like Berkeley Earth, and independent researchers such as Steve McIntyre and Nic Lewis. This is a tiny tiny group of people. Non academic diversity on the ‘warm’ side is more organized, e.g. organizations such as Climate Central that seem pretty well funded. Of course industry funding (especially if it is tainted with fossil fuels) is regarded as a source of bias, whereas funding from green organizations somehow isn’t. Personally I think we should figure out ways to support more diverse perspectives on climate science and policy.”
– Judith Curry, “Is the EPA’s Clean Power Plan legal? Lawyers and Law Professors Disagree,” July 7, 2015.
Michael Mann (‘Hockey Stick’)
“I have written many posts about Michal Mann – apart from my own concerns about the hockey stick (Hiding the Decline), I am greatly concerned about Mann’s bullying behavior inserting itself into the scientific process (collaboration, peer review, public communication). My concerns go beyond the general strategies of adversarial science. to what I regard as unethical behavior.
It is a sad state of affairs for climate science that this book had to be written (it was brought on by Michael Mann’s lawsuit – without the lawsuit, Steyn obviously wouldn’t have bothered). At a time when the U.S. and the world’s nations are trying to put together an agreement to tackle climate change (for better or for worse), Steyn’s book reminds everyone of Climategate, why the public doesn’t trust climate scientists and aren’t buying their ‘consensus.
… I hope that everyone will learn that adversarial science as practiced in its pathological form by Michal Mann doesn’t ‘pay’ in the long run.”
– Judith Curry, Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann, Climate Etc., August 13, 2015.
On Weepy Climate Scientists
“Having your ego wrapped up in having your research influence policy (frustrated policy advocates), keeping ‘score’ in a personal war against skeptics, seeking fame, generating book sales and lecture fees and political influence, etc. can all come into play in influencing how a scientist reacts to the climate wars or seeks to position themselves in reacting to the threats of climate change. Scientists might get ‘upset’ if they don’t think they are sufficiently successful at the above. This is something else — not pre-traumatic stress syndrome.”
– Judith Curry, Pre-traumatic Stress Syndrome: Climate Scientists Speak Out, July 10, 2015.
Funding Ad Hominen
“[O]il company funding … is too often used as an excuse to reject a climate scientist or their findings, even if the funding is very indirect and has nothing to do with the specific study.”
“In climate change research, there is no righteous source of funding – government funding can be a source of bias just as much as industry funding can, and there is A LOT more government funding out there.”
“That said, funding is probably a smaller source of bias than peer pressure to follow a consensus and to defend your own hypothesis, not to mention political preferences, environmental proclivities and career pressures.”
“So . . . is funding from power and oil companies ok if it funds research related to wind, solar geothermal and hydro? Better predictions of extreme weather events that hamper both energy supply and demand, whatever the source of power? Or is it only a problem if it supports outreach efforts by a climate scientist to deny humans are the cause of climate change?”
“If independent scientists obtain funding from power and oil companies, would this help support needed intellectual diversity into climate science to avoid the massive groupthink we now see?”
– Judith Curry, Industry Funding and Bias, August 16, 2015.
JC reflections
Well I am certainly appreciative of these compilations by Robert Bradley. I was rather struck by seeing these quotations all together. They comprise a pretty good overview of how I think about, and personally deal with, the micro ethics versus macro ethics surrounding climate change.
These thoughts and blog posts put me in conflict with a substantial number of my colleagues (viz. Climate Heretic Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues.) These thoughts also put me in conflict with a number of people on twitter, who accuse me of killing their grandchildren, etc.
The whole integrity/ethics thing, in all its complexity, is something that is of paramount importance to me and I think about it a lot. There are no easy answers, and there are genuine micro/macro conflicts out there. Whether my own choices are ‘good’ or not is in the eye of the beholder. Some others are clearly making other choices.
In any event, I am very appreciative of the two opportunities I have had to talk with graduate students about these issues. Awareness of these conflicts, and the prices that researchers might have to pay depending on how they navigate these, is something that I hope young scientists will think about.
Filed under: Ethics