Curry Quotes

Bits of wisdom and denialist chum from Judith Curry

Curry on attacks on credentials, skill and integrity

with 2 comments

Dr. Curry;

I deeply appreciate your attempt to be an honest broker between the AGW advocate scientists and the skeptical scientists.

My personal diety knows that we need one within the ordained climate science establishment.

But I take issue with your reconciliation discussion.


What we have right now is a bunch of charlatans who insist that their data and methodology are correct, all the while hiding behind the academic establishment and a series of lies to obfuscate the situation and prevent their data and methodology from ever seeing the light of day. If you want to know the reality; go to the FOIA file, ignore the emails and have a look at the code! To call what they’ve done science is an embarassment. Whether the emails and code were stolen or leaked is of some import; but not to science. Further; the claims of verification of results through independent studies is laughable.


Mann, Hansen, Trenberth, Schmidt, Jones, et. al. need to remove themselves from this debate so that it can continue unobstructed by their opinion and their prior bad acts. That means they need to resign and walk away quietly. Remember this; Hansen has called for the prosecution of people based on their opinions. It strongly appears right now that these fellows engaged in out and out fraud under the guise of science which was publicly funded. That is a prosecutable crime. Some of Hansen and Schmidt’s activities are a crime on their face; use of government office and resources for advocacy purposes is patently illegal and can be proven beyond any doubt. Academic dishonesty isn’t necessarily illegal, but scientific fraud in cases involving government funding and research grants is.

I am certain that if they walk away quietly the penalty will be much less than if the continue to hold the fort until the bitter end.

Back to the germain topic; for you to suggest that the skeptics need to reconcile with these charlatans seems a bit disingenuous while the advocates continue to withhold scientific information and advocate on policy while clearly overstating their case on both the science of AGW and on the potential effects thereof. IPCC AR4 was an absolute joke because of this type of control and advocacy. They claimed it was entirely based on peer reviewed research when some of them certainly knew there were considerable references to out and out propaganda.


The academic laziness within climate science is obvious and obviously accepted at these academic institutions. What do you suppose happens to large institutions when these types of flaws are exposed? These types of flaws always always always see the light of day eventually. The powers that be will hang these guys out to dry on that day.


I don’t doubt your intent. I question whether your status within the academic world will allow you to maintain your objectivity. I would further advise you that the “scientists” at the center of all of this play hard ball. If they view you as a threat you will come under fire as well. They will question your credentials, your motives and your ability. They will impune your integrity and skill and it won’t occur to them at all that you were once their esteemed collegue. Ask Richard Lindzen about that. Are you up for it?

Robert T. Kutz,
Honest Laymen Skeptic
– Bob Kutz

To which Curry responds:

“If they view you as a threat you will come under fire as well. They will question your credentials, your motives and your ability. They will impune your integrity and skill and it won’t occur to them at all that you were once their esteemed collegue. ”

this is already happening, has been for over a year. See my heretic piece in case you missed it first time around.
– Judith Curry


Written by cquo

February 2, 2011 at 10:46 am

Posted in Uncategorized

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Here’s a fresh one:

    Curry: Juoakola spotted an interesting new paper

    Martha: I am really surprised by any discussion of this as a ‘new’ paper. This Rial et. al. paper is not new or undiscussed. It is 7 years old and at this point familiar to many undergraduate students, Judith. It is a reference in AR4.

    Pat Casen: Agreed. Something about this paper made me check the acknowledgements immediately: “This paper resulted from a Workshop…”

    Not that its value as such is diminished, but one’s expectations should be adjusted accordingly. It is no doubt useful in describing what attendees agreed upon (at the time) was important regarding current understanding and potentially fruitful approaches for future research, but new and/or surprising insights will probably not be found here.

    Ron Cram: A quick observation – I do not think this paper would have been published prior to Climategate. I am thankful to the leaker inside CRU (or the hacker).

    Fred Moolten: It was published in 2004.

    Neven: Priceless!


    February 4, 2011 at 5:10 am

  2. And another is building up:

    I read Trenberth’s essay, and even with the most anti-Trenberth-interpretation I could imagine I still could not get close to the meaning she reads into one sentence in that essay…


    February 6, 2011 at 7:47 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: