The blackballing of Judith Curry

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Link here. Curry is a climate scientists who believes carbon dioxide is warming the planet, but she is also a good scientist who is not afraid of data that counters her beliefs, and who also recognizes what she herself calls “the large uncertainties” in our knowledge of the climate.

The article is worth reading at length, as it outlines quite well the close-minded approach to climate science that permeates the global warming crowd. This quote, describing Curry’s experience, sums it up well:

Curry’s independence has cost her dear. She began to be reviled after the 2009 ‘Climategate’ scandal, when leaked emails revealed that some scientists were fighting to suppress skeptical views. ‘I started saying that scientists should be more accountable, and I began to engage with skeptic bloggers. I thought that would calm the waters. Instead I was tossed out of the tribe. There’s no way I would have done this if I hadn’t been a tenured professor, fairly near the end of my career. If I were seeking a new job in the US academy, I’d be pretty much unemployable. I can still publish in the peer-reviewed journals. But there’s no way I could get a government research grant to do the research I want to do. Since then, I’ve stopped judging my career by these metrics. I’m doing what I do to stand up for science and to do the right thing.’ [emphasis mine]

Curry makes it very clear who is blackballing who. If you don’t toe the global warming line, your career as a climate scientists is squelched.


  • Uncle Kenny

    “tow the global warming line” … you mean “toe the … line” of course, unless you are a tugboat.

  • Whoops. This is an error I’ve made repeatedly. Thank you for spotting it.

  • wodun

    And if you bring her up in a debate, AGW apocalypse advocates will claim she isn’t a real scientist. She hasn’t just been tossed out of the tribe but delegitimized as a professional and a person.

  • Phill O

    “My keyboard is faulty” works quite well and I use it often!

  • D.K. Williams

    I’ve seen eminently qualified people rejected for even part-time faculty positions because they were Republicans. This goes on everywhere in all disciplines of higher education.

  • Max

    Climate deniers “versus” Science deniers. The global warming cult has issued a FATWA against all the nonbelievers. (fatwa to apply to statements by non-Muslims that advocate an extreme religious or political position) Judith is just the first, imprisonment of others may follow. The only thing that can challenge the climate change cult is “real science” with “real data”… Of course, this cannot be allowed so they must shut down all real science to maintain their power. The carbon lie that they will use in the upcoming conference to enslave others with an imposed carbon tax, and carbon credits. Yes, they believe that taking your money and reducing your standard of living can change the weather. ( personally, I believe global warming is far preferable to global cooling)
    Is all this fuss over where heat comes from? You would think that the science will be settled by now. Engineers know, that all heat is friction. They used to think that the sun provided all our heat the way it provides all our light. This was proven incorrect at the beginning of the space-age. Heat is generated by the movement of air under pressure. The “friction generates heat”. This is why when you climb in altitude, whether it be in a plane or climbing a mountain, the air temperature drops with less air pressure. On average you will lose 3.5° per every thousand feet you climb. This number varies with latitude, and moisture content in the air. (2.5 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) This is why the north and south poles are a different temperature. North pole is at sea level. With 24 hour heat and sunlight blaring down on the north pole all summer long, the temperature will reach 70°.
    Anarctica’s summer is just as long, just as hot having the same sun for the same amount of time. The south pole is 3 miles of ice on a continent, making the average height at 10,000 feet with very low air pressure. Low friction to generate heat. The temperature never gets above freezing. It averages at 40 below in the summer and 70 below in the winter with no sun. Logically with 24 hour sun heat for more than four months, Antarctica should be the hottest place on earth…
    Does carbon dioxide produce heat? Yes, it is one half of 1/10 of 1% of the atmosphere! That means it’s weight provides about 1/2500 of the heat generated by friction.
    Are there other examples of this phenomenon? Yes, on every planet in our solar system but Mercury.(no atmosphere)
    Gravity, plus the thickness the atmosphere, determines the heat of the planet.
    Is there any more proof of global warming is caused by atmosphere thickness? Yes, and I know that science minded people out there can come up with a few examples of their own, and come to their own conclusions.
    The moon is inThe Green zone with the earth. Which makes an excellent “control group” in the study of Earth’s atmosphere heating. The average temperature on the moon is near 50° below zero, on earth it’s 50° above. Why is the moon 100° on average colder than the earth? No atmosphere. This also redefines the true temperature of the mythical green zone.
    I’m sorry for lecturing so much, I just don’t see any of this evidence in the world debate.
    Are we so brainwashed that we don’t see what is obvious?
    Talking to these environmental Scientologists is like talking to flat earther. Nothing, especially the truth, will convince them to change their faith. They believe they are saving the planet… they are on jihad…

  • Cotour

    I just listened to an interview with Al Gore on NPR and he states plainly that people are now totally recognizing the truth of “climate change” and everyone is on board. Really making progress.

  • Edward

    Max wrote “The only thing that can challenge the climate change cult is ‘real science’ with ‘real data’”

    As Max notes later: “Talking to these environmental Scientologists is like talking to flat earther. Nothing, especially the truth, will convince them to change their faith. They believe they are saving the planet…”

    Even real science and real data do not convince them. Either that, or they don’t bother to read the science. The abstract of Cook, et al. – the paper that “declares” that 97% of scientists concur with global warming – tells us that 64% of their sample had no position, which means that *at best* only 33% are in consensus. However, that inconvenient truth does nothing to advance Global Warming alarm, so they conveniently lie by removing from the sample most of those who did not agree with the desired conclusion.;jsessionid=18283FD9DDB1D726380369B7B82BF43A.c1

    I might agree that they believe that they are saving the planet, but then they would be cheering that the Kyoto Accords stopped the warming, these past 18 years. Instead, they are fretting that the heat is hiding someplace, and will come out and bite us on the rising oceanfront (even as they buy oceanfront property, continue to drive their cars, and fly in to various Global Warming Conferences around the world). Their objective is obviously not to stop the now-stopped warming. They have another, unstated, objective (at least not stated by them).

    They believe that they can reach that objective if they can shut up the non-believer heathens — especially those *among themselves* who do not toe the line (as Robert said).

  • Cotour

    “Climate change” or what ever it might be called would be a much more supportable argument if they were to honestly just focus on and attempt to control the negative effects of pollution in general than to focus on a subject where they have to work / massage the data to support their argument. No individual could argue against cleaning up industry and the verifiable negative health effects of pollution.

    I seriously doubt if human beings had the ability to collectively control the emissions that some claim are causing what they claim could in any way “control” or influence the climate in any detectable way. None what so ever. Could they improve the quality of the air we all breath? IMO yes they certainly could. So where does the more supportable argument lie?

    And so I must assume that “Lie” is a much more important component than anything else concerned with this subject.

  • Cotour

    I realize that I should answer my own question: “So where does the more supportable argument lie?”

    The real world answer: Obviously, where no theory of climate variation or influence could be measured or verified for a thousand years.

    The level of pollution is a measurable and verifiable thing so what political advantage could be realized? Very little to none.

  • Edward

    Cotour wrote: “Could they improve the quality of the air we all breath? IMO yes they certainly could.”

    Where I live, we managed to meet the EPA’s arbitrary air cleanliness requirements, but instead of celebrating, the EPA imposed even harsher arbitrary requirements — requirements that are violated by nature herself.

    People think that trees only provide oxygen, but they emit all kinds of other chemicals and pollens that violate the new requirements. My area has Eucalyptus trees that secrete an oil that alone violates one of the new requirements. The obvious solution is to chop down the forests. So much for protecting the environment (which we already learned the EPA does not do, when they spill millions of gallons of nasty pollutants throughout the Western US).

    With nature around, there is a limit to the air/water/ground/noise/space-debris quality that we can have. Setting tighter requirements does not mean that they are achievable. With the possible exception of microbial life, hospitals, and manufacturing “cleanrooms,” today in America the out of doors has higher quality of all these things that the indoors of virtually every building in the land.

    The climate will change whether or not Curry has been blackballed. It is the height of arrogance and hubris to claim the ability to control the climate. Even the Global Warming Alarmists admit that CO2 is a less powerful influence than whatever-it-is that they think is “hiding” the heat that they insist is there, during what they call a “pause.”

    Yet somehow, there are people who buy into the idea that if only we give more control of our lives to those who claim such ability, life will be so much better than the current fresh air, clean water, arable soil, peaceful surroundings, and the occasional shooting star.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *