AGW Advocacy and Academic Bullying

[Jack Hays]

When scientists become advocates, advocacy is presented as science. In this case the advocates are trying to bully and shout down a colleague who shares their view of AGW but will not participate in propaganda scare tactics.


Cliff Mass: victim of academic political bullying

Posted on December 12, 2018 by curryja | 14 comments
by Judith Curry
There is a disturbing story coming out of the University of Washington surrounding Cliff Mass.
Continue reading →

There is a disturbing story coming out of the University of Washington surrounding Cliff Mass.
In preparing this article, I have received material from a member of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington. I also ran into another member of the Department while at the AGU meeting this week, who corroborated these events. I conducted a 30 minute phone interview with Cliff Mass.
Who is Cliff Mass?
Cliff Mass has been a faculty member in the University of Washington Atmospheric Sciences Department since 1982. His research focuses on numerical weather modeling and prediction, the role of topography in the evolution of weather systems, and on the weather of the Pacific Northwest. In addition to his research publications, Cliff Mass has published a popular book entitled ‘Weather of the Pacific Northwest.’
Since 2008, Cliff Mass has maintained a popular blog Cliff Mass Weather and Climate. Mass posts regular articles on meteorology, Pacific Northwest weather history, and the impacts of climate change written for the general public.
He has 13,000 twitter followers. Mass also has a weekly radio show with 400,000 weekly listeners (!)
Cliff Mass – climate ‘denier’?
Cliff Mass has been characterized as a ‘sort of’ climate denier. The first reference to this is a 2015 article Cliff Mass: Scientific lies and the new climate deniers.

“He is also a dangerous new breed of climate skeptic. He has made a theme of downplaying the role of global warming in extreme weather events, and in exposing what he calls “overzealousness” in the scientific, media, and activist community.”. . . .

The climate change advocacy disease seems to have affected many of the UW faculty and graduate students. Apart from the issue of activism potentially getting in the way of scientific objectivity, the big issue here is that the Chair attempted to ‘institutionalize’ this activism with the I-1631 support letter. I have to say I find this very inappropriate behavior for a Chair, and I’m surprised that the higher administration didn’t reprimand him for this (in the old days I would have been reprimanded for this at Georgia Tech, but under the current administration, who knows). Faculty members were pressured into signing that letter, since the Chair controls their reappointments and promotions, salary, teaching assignments, etc. The public ‘shaming’ meeting is beyond the pale, particularly the Chair’s behavior during this meeting. After this behavior, I cannot imagine how the UW faculty and administration can have any confidence in the leadership of their current Chair. . . .
​

 

[longview]

When scientists become advocates, advocacy is presented as science. In this case the advocates are trying to bully and shout down a colleague who shares their view of AGW but will not participate in propaganda scare tactics.


Cliff Mass: victim of academic political bullying

[FONT=&]Posted on December 12, 2018 by curryja | 14 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
There is a disturbing story coming out of the University of Washington surrounding Cliff Mass.
Continue reading →

There is a disturbing story coming out of the University of Washington surrounding Cliff Mass.
In preparing this article, I have received material from a member of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington. I also ran into another member of the Department while at the AGU meeting this week, who corroborated these events. I conducted a 30 minute phone interview with Cliff Mass.
Who is Cliff Mass?
Cliff Mass has been a faculty member in the University of Washington Atmospheric Sciences Department since 1982. His research focuses on numerical weather modeling and prediction, the role of topography in the evolution of weather systems, and on the weather of the Pacific Northwest. In addition to his research publications, Cliff Mass has published a popular book entitled ‘Weather of the Pacific Northwest.’
Since 2008, Cliff Mass has maintained a popular blog Cliff Mass Weather and Climate. Mass posts regular articles on meteorology, Pacific Northwest weather history, and the impacts of climate change written for the general public.
He has 13,000 twitter followers. Mass also has a weekly radio show with 400,000 weekly listeners (!)
Cliff Mass – climate ‘denier’?
Cliff Mass has been characterized as a ‘sort of’ climate denier. The first reference to this is a 2015 article Cliff Mass: Scientific lies and the new climate deniers.

“He is also a dangerous new breed of climate skeptic. He has made a theme of downplaying the role of global warming in extreme weather events, and in exposing what he calls “overzealousness” in the scientific, media, and activist community.”. . . .

The climate change advocacy disease seems to have affected many of the UW faculty and graduate students. Apart from the issue of activism potentially getting in the way of scientific objectivity, the big issue here is that the Chair attempted to ‘institutionalize’ this activism with the I-1631 support letter. I have to say I find this very inappropriate behavior for a Chair, and I’m surprised that the higher administration didn’t reprimand him for this (in the old days I would have been reprimanded for this at Georgia Tech, but under the current administration, who knows). Faculty members were pressured into signing that letter, since the Chair controls their reappointments and promotions, salary, teaching assignments, etc. The public ‘shaming’ meeting is beyond the pale, particularly the Chair’s behavior during this meeting. After this behavior, I cannot imagine how the UW faculty and administration can have any confidence in the leadership of their current Chair. . . .
​

It is almost like a religious litmus test for promotion and appointments.

 

[Jack Hays]

It is almost like a religious litmus test for promotion and appointments.

A bit like the hysteria around the Salem witch trials.

 

[Mithrae]

It is almost like a religious litmus test for promotion and appointments.

So it seems, though political rather than religious. Unlike most of these kinds of threads - in which it's usually a professor being 'bullied' or 'suppressed' for arguing uncertainty or scepticism that the earth is round or something similarly ridiculous - in this case the article clearly indicates that the disputes between Mass and his colleagues have virtually nothing to do with the actual facts of science. Like most experts Mass acknowledges the dominant human impact on warming, and the array of probable negative consequences which will result from the current trajectory. He has advocated for a tax on carbon and has been critical of the Paris Climate accord for not going far enough to address the negative impacts of climate change. It seems the most vitriolic element of friction with some of his colleagues has been his advocacy against the details of a current carbon tax initiative.

So it's political advocates against political advocates, at each others' throats over political issues. From what Judith Curry writes, it seems as though Mass' opponents have been far more vicious and, in particular, the department chair has been particularly unprofessional and unethical. Unfortunately there has been a general increasing trend of polarization and viciousness in US politics, although (as Mass would probably point out) it would not be valid to conclude that this specific case is a result of that trend :lol: Nor any other real or imagined trend.

 

[Quaestio]

Anyone who doesn't recognize that Judith Curry herself has become a "political advocate", is a fool.

 

[Mithrae]

Anyone who doesn't recognize that Judith Curry herself has become a "political advocate", is a fool.

She has, but there's nothing inherently wrong with being a political advocate. That element of propaganda seems to be Jack's - the political advocate par mediocrum - not Curry's.

 

[Quaestio]

She has, but there's nothing inherently wrong with being a political advocate. That element of propaganda seems to be Jack's - the political advocate par mediocrum - not Curry's.

Agreed. Just pointing out Curry's (and Jack's) blatant hypocrisy.

 

[Mithrae]

Agreed. Just pointing out Curry's (and Jack's) blatant hypocrisy.

Just Jack's, unless I missed something. Curry's points (particularly regarding the overt advocacy of a departmental head) seem quite valid from what I skimmed.

 

[Quaestio]

Just Jack's, unless I missed something. Curry's points (particularly regarding the overt advocacy of a departmental head) seem quite valid from what I skimmed.

Curry is always banging on about it on her blog and how it's "bad" to be a political advocate. Meanwhile she hires herself out to lobbyists and political think tanks etc.

Her blog is also full of posters who make political comments about "leftist" conspiracies.

 

[Mithrae]

Curry is always banging on about it on her blog and how it's "bad" to be a political advocate. Meanwhile she hires herself out to lobbyists and political think tanks etc.

Fairy nuff. I'll take your word for that, considering I skim only a fraction of Jack's links to her blog.

https://www.woolworths.com.au/shop/browse/specials

 

[Quaestio]

Fairy nuff. I'll take your word for that, considering I skim only a fraction of Jack's links to her blog.

https://www.woolworths.com.au/shop/browse/specials

I very rarely click on Jack's blog spam links. But I still occasionally drop in at Curry's blog. In the early days you'd get a few scientists dropping by to make comments. Now her followers are mostly a rabid horde of cranks bashing scientists (especially Mann) and posting pseudoscience and political conspiracy rubbish about "leftists" etc

 

[longview]

So it seems, though political rather than religious. Unlike most of these kinds of threads - in which it's usually a professor being 'bullied' or 'suppressed' for arguing uncertainty or scepticism that the earth is round or something similarly ridiculous - in this case the article clearly indicates that the disputes between Mass and his colleagues have virtually nothing to do with the actual facts of science. Like most experts Mass acknowledges the dominant human impact on warming, and the array of probable negative consequences which will result from the current trajectory. He has advocated for a tax on carbon and has been critical of the Paris Climate accord for not going far enough to address the negative impacts of climate change. It seems the most vitriolic element of friction with some of his colleagues has been his advocacy against the details of a current carbon tax initiative.

So it's political advocates against political advocates, at each others' throats over political issues. From what Judith Curry writes, it seems as though Mass' opponents have been far more vicious and, in particular, the department chair has been particularly unprofessional and unethical. Unfortunately there has been a general increasing trend of polarization and viciousness in US politics, although (as Mass would probably point out) it would not be valid to conclude that this specific case is a result of that trend :lol: Nor any other real or imagined trend.

What you are choosing to miss, is that Mass's sin is that he does not completely toe the IPCC line.
In any other science and even in politics there is room for uncertainty, and disagreement , but not AGW,
the consensus or at least the appearance of consensus is all important.
Quite a bit more like a religion than politics.

 

[Surface Detail]

What you are choosing to miss, is that Mass's sin is that he does not completely toe the IPCC line.
In any other science and even in politics there is room for uncertainty, and disagreement , but not AGW,
the consensus or at least the appearance of consensus is all important.
Quite a bit more like a religion than politics.

That seems a particularly silly comment, even by your standards.

There is indeed disagreement and uncertainty regarding some of the details of AGW, but there is consensus on the fundamentals. Just like, for example, the germ theory of disease, Einstein's theories of relativity, particle theory, evolution, and just about any other scientific theory you can think of. AGW is a scientific theory.

 

[longview]

That seems a particularly silly comment, even by your standards.

There is indeed disagreement and uncertainty regarding some of the details of AGW, but there is consensus on the fundamentals. Just like, for example, the germ theory of disease, Einstein's theories of relativity, particle theory, evolution, and just about any other scientific theory you can think of. AGW is a scientific theory.

Please cite examples of what the consensus agrees to?
From what I have read, the actual surveys have the high agreement on that temperatures have warmed over the last century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scien...rveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature
Harris Interactive
97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years.
84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring.
74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence.
Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels.
82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature.

Phrases like human-induced warming, and humans significantly influence the global temperature, can include CO2 forcing,
but do not exclude other human activities, like land use, deforestation, ect.
The message to MASS is that any level of skepticism will not be tolerated, and will have consequences.

 

[Jack Hays]

Fairy nuff. I'll take your word for that, considering I skim only a fraction of Jack's links to her blog.

https://www.woolworths.com.au/shop/browse/specials

You shouldn't. He's a liar.

 

[Surface Detail]

Please cite examples of what the consensus agrees to?
From what I have read, the actual surveys have the high agreement on that temperatures have warmed over the last century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scien...rveys_of_scientists_and_scientific_literature
Harris Interactive
97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years.
84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring.
74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence.
Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels.
82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature.

Phrases like human-induced warming, and humans significantly influence the global temperature, can include CO2 forcing,
but do not exclude other human activities, like land use, deforestation, ect.
The message to MASS is that any level of skepticism will not be tolerated, and will have consequences.

What consequences? As far as I can see, Mass hasn't lost his job, his funding, his status or anything else. He has views that some people disagree with, just like almost everyone else on the planet. Are you saying that people should not be allowed to disagree with him???

 

[longview]

What consequences? As far as I can see, Mass hasn't lost his job, his funding, his status or anything else. He has views that some people disagree with, just like almost everyone else on the planet. Are you saying that people should not be allowed to disagree with him???

What consequences?, IF the person who controls promotions, raises and appointments is publicly shaming a professor,
what is the likelihood, they will also not be generous come raise time, or committee selection.
University politics can be very petty, most professors like to teach graduate classes, and gain prestige by advising doctoral students,
but those things require chair approval. Think about only getting assigned freshman survey classes for your course load?

 

[Mithrae]

What you are choosing to miss, is that Mass's sin is that he does not completely toe the IPCC line.
In any other science and even in politics there is room for uncertainty, and disagreement , but not AGW,
the consensus or at least the appearance of consensus is all important.
Quite a bit more like a religion than politics.

From Curry's description, Mass' views are entirely in line with the IPCC reports; including refraining from attribution of specific extreme events to human influence. It's his critics who seem to be off the deep end there... but don't let mere facts get in the way of your own would-be fallacy of association.

 

[longview]

From Curry's description, Mass' views are entirely in line with the IPCC reports; including refraining from attribution of specific extreme events to human influence. It's his critics who seem to be off the deep end there... but don't let mere facts get in the way of your own would-be fallacy of association.

It really dosen't matter how close to "normal" his views are, if the slight divergence is enough to be bullied by the zealots.

 

[Jack Hays]

It really dosen't matter how close to "normal" his views are, if the slight divergence is enough to be bullied by the zealots.

Like someone in North Korea who stops clapping too soon.

 

[Mithrae]

It really dosen't matter how close to "normal" his views are, if the slight divergence is enough to be bullied by the zealots.

Of course you think it doesn't matter that you're misrepresenting his scientific views: You're only interested in cynically exploiting his predicament to shore up your own warped views. And adding irony to insult, the fallacy of association you're trying to push here is of the same type that Mass has criticized those 'zealots' for using.

 

[Quaestio]

You shouldn't. He's a liar.

There you go projecting again. That's a bit rich, coming from you.