Intelligent Design

Tenured Professor Calls it Quits

Spread the love

Climate scientist Judith Curry is a TENURED professor.  But she has had enough.  She announced her resignation last week, citing the literal craziness of the climate science authoritarianism.  She writes:

A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.

How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists).

I highlight the text in bold to mark the parallel between her field and the origins field in the universities.  Free inquiry is not tolerated and any dissent from orthodoxy is stamped out with a fervor that would embarrass Torquemada.

17 Replies to “Tenured Professor Calls it Quits

  1. 1
    asauber says:

    Yes, but Atheism! All better.

    Andrew

  2. 2
    Neil Rickert says:

    On my read of her post, her view is far more nuanced than you are suggesting.

    I see her as concerned about changes that are occurring in all university departments, not just climate research.

  3. 3

    Oh yes, it is in all areas of the university. Back in 2001 time-frame a sociologist reported that overall, Stanford tenured faculty registered as Democrat by 8:1 over Republican, whereas 99% of untenured faculty were registered Dem. (The one holdout said he didn’t expect to stay long.) And Stanford was a private, conservative, engineering sort of school. Liberal Arts and public schools fared much, much worse. And you can pretty much replace Democrat with “global warming”, “evolution”, “non-nuclear energy”, “anti-fracking”, “WIMP dark matter”, “dark energy”, “no extraterrestrial life”, and so on. The Academy has become horribly parochial and censorial. No doubt about it. We are in a post-Englightenment mode right now, sort of like Germany in 1933, what progressives back then referred to as “Liberal Fascism” (as recorded in Jonah Goldberg’s history by the same name.) Only in America could Academia become a business, and then align itself with the state.

  4. 4
    Barry Arrington says:

    Neil,

    “Nuanced”?

    Give me a break. Read it again. Pay close attention the this line:

    A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science.

    Then go think about what “a deciding factor” means. And then think about why she uses ALL CAPS to describe the craziness in the field of climate science.

    Yeah, Neil, all is well. Nothing to see here. Move along.

    On second thought Neil, you might be onto something. As the progressive fascists increase their stranglehold on the academy, it may really be the case that the damage is not restricted to the study of climate science and origins. Perhaps you are right, and progressive influence is toxic to free inquiry in all areas.

  5. 5
    mike1962 says:

    One of my best friends has a PhD in mathematics from Harvard Univ, was a tenured prof in the CA university system (his home turf). He taught at Princeton, Yale, and MIT as an adjunct prof before going back home to CA where he got tenure. After a while, he said, “to hell with it”, and gave up his tenured position because of all the deception, back stabbing and politics going on in the departments and the subculture in general. In mathematics! Imagine that! The “craziness” of the climate science academic subculture can’t be pretty.

  6. 6
    Charles says:

    Neil Rickert @ 2:

    On my read of her post, her view is far more nuanced than you are suggesting.

    Curry’s exact words (not Barry’s) are:

    … the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment

    … and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide

    Where is the “nuance” in Curry’s words?

  7. 7
    john_a_designer says:

    On a related note, how did the current man-caused global warming scare begin? According to meteorologist John Coleman, who was one of the founders of the Weather Channel, this is how:

    A great scientist named Roger Revelle had Al Gore in his class at Harvard and the Global Warming campaign was born. Revelle tried to calm things down years later, but Gore said Revelle was Senile and refused to debate. John Coleman documents the entire story and shows how our tax dollars are perpetuating the Global Warming alarmist campaign even though temperatures have not risen in years and years.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k

    I have never heard any of this before. Why is that?

    Please watch the video before you comment. It’s eye opening.

  8. 8

    Modern academia in the west is completely corrupted by atheist/leftist/marxist radicals who hate – and I mean really hate – anything and anybody who takes an opposing view. Sad but true.

  9. 9
    john_a_designer says:

    Here is a warning by J Robert Oppenheimer (1904-1967) that I think applies to any science– including modern climate change science:

    “We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert.”

    Man caused climate change advocates, backed up by powerful political allies in higher education, the mainstream media and government, have been unwilling to engage in open and public debate. Instead they have resorted to tactics which are suppressive and subversive. Why would they do that if the facts and evidence are unequivocally on their side? It appears to me that it is because the facts and evidence are not on their side.

    It is time for an accounting– no actually, it’s time for a reckoning.

  10. 10
    rvb8 says:

    I’ve just read this scientist’s personal views on Climate Science at Wikipedia. There is an extensive quote on her approach to the topic.

    Neil Rickert is correct, and Barry’s poorly researched piece is wrong; she is very nuanced in her approach.

  11. 11
    john_a_designer says:

    Here is a summary of Dr. Curry’s testimony before U.S. Senate last year. Please notice how rudely she was treated by Sen. Markey of Massachusetts.

    “Markey must have been a little shocked when climatologist Judith Curry demanded to be able to respond to his testimony trying to discredit her views on climate science,” said author and political commentator Mark Steyn.

    “I did not ask you a question,” Markey, a Democrat, retorted when Curry asked if she could respond to his testimony during a Senate hearing Tuesday on the science behind global warming.

    “Why can’t she respond senator?” …Steyn shot back at Markey. “You impugned her integrity. I think she’s entitled to…”

    “I was basically called a ‘denier’ — that I’m denying science,” said Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech University. “Did you read my written testimony?”

    Markey sought to discredit Curry in his testimony by framing her as ignoring the evidence humans are putting the planet at risk. Curry was not happy with essentially being labelled a global warming “denier” and pushed back against the senator’s remarks.

    “Are you aware the IPCC and the consensus has no explanation for the increase of ice in the Antarctic?” Curry said. “Are you aware that they have no explanation for the fact the rate of sea level rise from 1920 to 1950 was as large, if not larger, as it currently is?”

    “Are you aware that temperatures have been warming for more than 200 years, and, that in the 20th Century, 40 percent of the warming occurred before 1950 when carbon dioxide was not a factor in the warming?” Curry continued.

    Curry highlighted even more uncertainties among climate scientists many Democrats and environmentalists are loathe to admit. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has trouble explaining the recent “hiatus” in warming as well as the warming trend before the 1950s.

    “Doctor, as I just said in my testimony — corroborated by Dr. Titley [another witness on the panel] — this is the warmest year ever recorded,” Markey shot back. “Last year was the warmest year ever recorded until this year. This was the warmest November ever recorded. October… was the warmest ever recorded.”

    “You do not have an answer for that,” Markey said before going on to site [sic] Galileo and claim Curry was relying on “something that is perhaps God-made rather than dependent upon something that is man-made” and backed by science.

    “Are you saying there’s no natural variability senator?” Steyn cut in. “There were alligators at the North Pole. What was that? Was that you in your SUV?”

    Markey was forced to acknowledge the planet does in fact warm and cool on its own, but said natural variability is regional and the warming trend “is straight up.”

    “Do you know what the little ice age was senator?” Steyn said to which Markey responded by claiming Boston’s record levels of snow are a product of global warming.

    http://www.steynonline.com/766.....ho-chamber

    Here is a video of the exchange.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh6zDbWMuP0

    “Nuanced” or not (not IMO) she is sceptical of man caused climate change and she has paid a price for that scepticism professionally.

    PS An unedited video from a U.S. Senate hearing is a little bit better than Wikipedia, don’t you think?

  12. 12
    tjguy says:

    OK, so we have a certain set of data, but the data tells us nothing. We need to plug the data in to a paradigm to make sense of it. We can find some data that fit nicely in the warming paradigm and seem to support that interpretation. But there is also data that does NOT fit nicely in that paradigm and actually fits better in a different paradigm or better supports a different interpretation.

    And this is the problem with historical science and science that cannot be tested in the lab. It demands so much interpretation and that is where the bias comes in. Scientists are NOT immune to bias in how they interpret that data.

    Climate science is not like normal trustworthy science that enabled us to build rocket ships and put men on the moon. It is far less accurate and trustworthy because of the INTERPRETATION that must take place.

    AND, we see there are people – scientists even – who see the data supporting two very different interpretations!

    Are some of them in bed with the oil industry? Maybe. Are some of them in bed with the green industry? Maybe.

    Are any of them completely without bias? Probably not.

    How do we know which interpretation is correct? It’s very hard to say actually. It’s not clear cut like some things in science are.

    I’m sad to see Mrs. Curry leave the field because she stood up for the minority view which the majority is clearly trying to suppress.

    Unfortunately, it seems that the Climate Change Fear Mongers won this battle!

    Just don’t let anyone tell you that science is cut and dried or that we need to just “trust” that what we are told by scientists is true.

    Who is going to really trust them when they play games like this and simply try and shut down all debate so they can push their own interpretation of the data?

  13. 13
    polistra says:

    Good. We need more quitters, especially quitters who make it clear WHY they’re quitting. “To spend more time with the family” doesn’t help.

    Curry’s quit isn’t nuanced, but her views on “climate change” were nuanced. I’d say she was 75% orthodox.

    75% isn’t enough for tyrants. 100% isn’t enough for tyrants. Ordinary infinity isn’t enough for tyrants. Modern tyrants have to invent multiple universes to imagine a field that might TEMPORARILY satisfy their power-hunger for a few picoseconds.

  14. 14
    john_a_designer says:

    Dr. Curry posted an article on her website in Dec. 2015 which includes an interesting graph that climate change alarmist need to explain if they expect people like me and the general public to take them seriously.

    https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/christy_dec8.jpg

    The red line represents what the average of 104 IPCC* computer generated climate models was predicting or forecasting.

    The blue and green lines represent actual data from actual global measurements. The blue is balloon data. The green is satellite data.

    The real data does show some global warming (the sceptics DO NOT DENY this) however, it does not show the runaway, catastrophic warming the alarmists are predicting with their models. Who is being more rational here? The alarmists who cling to their predictions even though they have been proven wrong time and time again by real world data? Or those who analyse the real data to reach a tentative conclusion?

    Here is the full article:

    https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/

    *The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  15. 15
    HeKS says:

    Judith Curry on Tucker Carlson Tonight

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqroK4qg-7A

    Interesting interview. She also addresses the whole 98% consensus.

  16. 16

    Western academia is losing credibility by the day. Here’s a good article about “posthumanist ethical pluralism” to help prove the point:

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....03417.html

  17. 17
    rvb8 says:

    I agree with you TWSYF, especially in the areas such as Women’s Studies, Sociology, Gender Studies (seperate from WS), and other areas maybe Linguistics, some Psychology, and Cultural studies courses.

    I believe the ‘hard sciences’ still produce good results, and trolling Science Daily and other science sites, I believe that is still largely true.

    But I am a staunch ID supporter when you guys ‘out’ those pathetic examples of political correctness gone mad. This new form of censorship is so pernicious. It is worse because the perportrators actually have a twisted idea they are protecting that which they are actively tearing down.

Leave a Reply