The Global Temperature Record Is Meaningless Garbage

Judy Curry simply does not understand the problem with the global temperature record, and how it has been altered.

gissfiga2002-2014 (4)

The way the temperature record has been altered over time is through station selection and loss of rural stations. It used to look like this, when there were a lot of rural stations being used.

ScreenHunter_7019 Feb. 10 07.52

But eighty percent of GHCN stations have been lost since the 1970’s

all-raw-station-count-ghcn Long Record GHCN Analysis « the Air Vent

Almost all of the remaining long term rural stations are in the US. The rest of the global temperature record has been contaminated by increasing the ratio of urban stations to rural stations.

 ‘ScreenHunter_7018 Feb. 10 07.48Long Record GHCN Analysis « the Air Vent

The only meaningful large area temperature record on the planet is in the US, and it has been massively tampered with.


All recent US warming is due to infilling fake data


Judy is focused on the mathematical adjustments to the current data, and doesn’t understand the nature of the problem – the current station selection is skewed towards warming. There has been massive divergence between the surface record, satellites, and radiosonde.

ScreenHunter_6940 Feb. 08 11.50

Prior to the 1970’s, radiosonde and the surface temperature record matched – but loss of stations since the 1970’s has caused a massive divergence.

ScreenHunter_937 Feb. 04 13.40GLCFS Products

A classic science error is to launch into detailed math, before understanding the nature of the problem. More than 50% of the current surface temperature record is fake. How can anyone take it seriously?

ncdclandrealvspublished1 (3)

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to The Global Temperature Record Is Meaningless Garbage

  1. etudiant says:

    It is silly to add personal invective to this discussion.
    Dr Curry certainly has the chops to understand the problems, so why the gratuitous slam.
    You make a stronger case by just highlighting the decimation of the rural reporting worldwide and the adjustments of the US records.

    • Look at her web site.

      • gator69 says:

        I did, and could not believe the naiveté, or whatever it was that she was displaying.

        • Dave N says:

          She (and her cronies) display a total avoidance of the real argument; most likely because they’re incapable of disproving it; distraction is the tactic of many alarmists.

      • Winnipeg Boy says:

        Allow me to point out the biggest hole in this entire arguement: it goes to the point of the disappearing weather stations.
        Global land area = 149 million km2. If we put one commercial weather station every 100km2 we would need 1,490,000 stations to cover the planet. Lets call it $5,000 per wireless commercial weather station (that is retail). We could carpet bomb the planet with accurate, state of the art wireless weather stations for $7.5 billion.
        If this is the largest catastrophy facing mankind, could we not spend that paultry amount to eliminate this whole data question? Please.
        The climate gatekeepers are eliminating weather stations because ‘lack of transparency is a huge political advantage’.
        Forget about UHI, just measure everything.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Dr Curry also has a vested interest in NOT understanding the temperature problem.

      Judith is a died in the Wool Warmist who wants to be ready to jump to a soft landing if/when the fraud is exposed. Here is an example from September of last year JC at the National Press Club (Just before the Climate talks in NYC) it links to a November 2010 article Uncertainty gets a seat at the “big table:” Part IV

      This makes it very clear the lady is as much a politician as she is a scientist and she has no intention that ‘Climate Scientists’ lose their limelight.

      Remember what was happening in the time leading up to that Congressional Hearing.

      It is useful to put the events of that time up front to understand WHY she might have decided to ‘adjust’ her thinking:
      1. In November of 2009 the Climategate e-mails were released.

      2. On February 2, 2010 on the BBC nightly news of all places it is announced: “The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has presided over a series of damaging blunders, but how and why has so much gone wrong?” news(DOT)

      3. On March of 2010 Donna Laframboise called for crowd-sourcing help in going over the 2007 IPCC report. In mid April the report card is delivered: “21 of 44 chapters in the United Nations’ Nobel-winning climate bible earned an F “ for using gray literature.

      In other words the IPCC and its related ClimAstrologists went from Nobel Prize Winning to a laughing stock. So in November Judith is called on to testify “TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES”

      At that point she has made the decision to hop up onto the fence and she does so.

    • Gail Combs says:

      If you look at what Judith Curry said in her congressional testimony you can see she is squarely on the side of the IPCC with an eye to providing damage control, to schmoozing bloggers and ‘citizen scientists’ and to feathering her own nest.

      Uncertainty gets a seat at the “big table:” Part IV

      ….Climate change can be categorized as a “wicked problem.”[1] Wicked problems are difficult or impossible to solve, there is no opportunity to devise an overall solution by trial and error, and there is no real test of the efficacy of a solution to the wicked problem….

      The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have framed the climate change problem (i.e. dangers) and its solution (i.e. international treaty) to be irreducibly global. Based upon the precautionary principle, the UNFCCC ’s Kyoto Protocol has established an international goal of stabilization of the concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere….

      In a rational discussion of climate change, the question needs to be asked as to whether the framing of the problem and the early articulation of a preferred policy option by the UNFCCC has marginalized research on broader issues surrounding climate change, and resulted is an overconfident assessment of the importance of greenhouse gases in future climate change, and stifled the development of a broader range of policy options.

      The IPCC/UNFCCC have provided an important service to global society by alerting us to a global threat that is potentially catastrophic. The UNFCCC/IPCC has made an ambitious attempt to put a simplified frame around the problem of climate change and its solution in terms of anthropogenic forcing and CO2 stabilization polices. However, the result of this simplified framing of a wicked problem is that we lack the kinds of information to more broadly understand climate change and societal vulnerability.….

      Anthropogenic climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but in which the magnitude of the climate change is highly uncertain owing to feedback processes.

      …The IPCC’s efforts to consider uncertainty focus primarily on communicating uncertainty, rather than on characterizing and exploring uncertainty in a way that would be useful for risk managers and resource managers and the institutions that fund science….

      A person making a statement about uncertainty or degree of doubt is likely to become categorized as a skeptic or denier or a “merchant of doubt,”[5] whose motives are assumed to be ideological or motivated by funding from the fossil fuel industry. My own experience in publicly discussing concerns about how uncertainty is characterized by the IPCC has resulted in my being labeled as a “climate heretic”[6] that has turned against my colleagues….

      Moving forward

      Climate scientists have made a forceful argument for a looming future threat from anthropogenic climate change.

      There in her own words that she links to AGAIN in September of 2014 she makes the statement:
      “Climate scientists have made a forceful argument for a looming future threat from anthropogenic climate change.”
      I really do not see how she can get any clearer about her position than that.

      Now on to THE MONEY QUOTE

      Regional planners and resource managers need high-resolution regional climate projections to support local climate adaptation plans and plans for climate compatible development. This need is unlikely to be met (at least in the short term) by the global climate models. In any event, anthropogenic climate change on timescales of decades is arguably less important in driving vulnerability in most regions than increasing population, land use practices, and ecosystem degradation. Regions that find solutions to current problems of climate variability and extreme weather events and address challenges associated with an increasing population will be better prepared to cope with any additional stresses from climate change.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Why do I say: “…Regional planners and resource managers need high-resolution regional climate projections to support local climate adaptation plans and plans for climate compatible development….” is the MONEY QUOTE?

      I say that because that is where Judith Curry is making her money!

      As president of Climate Forecast Applications Network LLC, [$1 mil. – $5 mil. in Revenue] I have been working with decision makers on climate impact assessments, assessing and developing climate adaptation strategies, and developing subseasonal climate forecasting strategies to support adaptive management and tactical adaptation….


      A limited Liability Corporation with Judith Curry at it’s head scamming Americans.

      Number of Employees: 9
      Woman-Owned?: Yes (Judith???)
      Award Totals:
      Program/Phase Award Amount ($) # of Awards
      SBIR Phase I…….. $100,000.00………….. 1
      (SBIR = Small Business Innovation Research)
      STTR Phase I…….. $150,000.00…………… 1
      STTR Phase II …… $980,932.00 …………… 1
      ( STTR = Small Business Technology Transfer)

      2010 / SBIR / Phase I
      DOD / OSD
      Principal Investigator: Hai-Ru Chang, Senior Scientist / Mgr Forecast Ops
      The proposed research takes the first steps in addressing the challenge of providing early warnings for extreme events associated with climate variability and change to support identification of potential security threats and crises. The proposed methodologies will also support adaptive management of water, energy and agricultural practices and other adaptation strategies. We propose to lay the foundation for a web-based regional risk information and early warning system based on a probabilistic multi-model ensemble forecasting scheme……
      2012 / STTR / Phase I
      Principal Investigator: Judith Curry, Dr.

      Goals of 80% clean energy production for the United States by 2035 and 20% of the countrys power being supplied by wind energy by 2030 imply nearly a tenfold increase in wind power production. This means that the need for forecast information will extend to longer projection windows with increasing penetration of wind power into the grid and also with diminishing reserve margins to meet peak loads during significant weather events. In addition to more complex issues regarding maintenance planning, energy trading of oil and gas will be influenced increasingly by anticipation of wind generation on timescales of weeks to months, and on longer time scales, future scenarios on decadal time scales are needed to support assessment of wind farm siting, government planning, and the regulatory environment. CFAN will expand upon its hybrid statistical/dynamical forecasting scheme that delivers probabilistic wind forecasts on time scales from one day to seven months to deliver ensemble-based forecasts and extended range outlooks that corrects not only for model bias error, but improves the shape of the distribution to capture low wind and high wind events that are critical forecast targets for wind farms. Collectively, the Phase I evaluation and testing of forecasts on different time scales utilizing our techniques will provide an assessment of the ability to overcome the existing challenges with wind power forecasts on time scales of days to months, as well as provide a framework to improve placement of future wind farm locations. The resulting efforts of a full Phase II project will deliver a wind energy decision support tool solution that would address three key market needs: the ability to forecast reliably at ranges beyond two weeks and at high spatial resolution; better capacity planning forecasts related to extreme or ramp events on scales of days to weeks; effective planning forecasts at decadal time scales that translate accurately for localized sites. The short-term market potential of a resulting Phase II solution is estimated to be in excess of $5M.

      2013 / STTR / Phase II
      Principal Investigator: Judith Curry, Dr.

      This proposal addresses the challenge of providing weather and climate information to support the operation, management and planning for wind-energy systems. There is a growing need for extended range forecast information as wind power increases its penetration into the grid. Future scenarios on decadal time scales are needed to support assessment of wind farm siting, long-term purchase agreements and the regulatory environment. To address this challenge, CFAN has developed a hybrid statistical/dynamical forecasting scheme for delivering probabilistic forecasts on time scales from one day to seven months using what is arguably the best forecasting system in the world (European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting, ECMWF). The project also provides a framework to assess future wind power through developing scenarios of inter-annual to decadal climate variability and change. The Phase I project conducted a pilot study for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) region. The project included: assembly and evaluation of relevant data sets; development and evaluation of an ensemble prediction framework for forecasting regional wind power generation and demand on time scales from days to months; development of strategies to assess long term (decadal) changes to the regional wind power environment; and formulation of an online tool that provides decision makers with actionable information related to wind power forecasts and projections. The proposed Phase II project will further develop the capabilities begun during Phase II and extend the project to include the continental U.S. and offshore regions. The objective is to develop a commercially viable capability for the growing array of diversified users in the wind energy forecast market. Commercial Applications and Other Benefits: Customers and end-users of these products include wind farm operators, regional power providers, grid system operators, and energy sales and trading. The other target application is assessment of wind energy project feasibility, to select favorable sites where wind is strongest and year-to-year variability is minimized. Customers for such assessments are project owners, government planners, regulatory agencies, and investors.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Another question is why does Judith Curry host a somewhat neutral Climate Blog?

      This is where the lady shows she is a brilliant politician.

      Going back to her congressional testimony she says in her opening paragraph: “Over the past year, I have been actively engaging with the public (particularly in the blogosphere) on the issue of integrity of climate science, and also the topic of uncertainty.”

      She decides that muddying the waters with the truth is an excellent idea when you are trying to regain public trust.

      ….the complexity of both the climate and energy problems and their nexus precludes the gigaton “silver bullet” solution to these challenges. Attempting to use carbon dioxide as a control knob to regulate climate in the face of large natural climate variability and the inevitable weather hazards is most likely futile. In any event, according to climate model projections reported in the IPCC AR4, reducing atmospheric CO2 will not influence the trajectory of CO2 induced warming until after 2050. The attempt to frame a “silver bullet” solution by the UNFCCC seems unlikely to succeed, given the size and the wickedness of the problem. The wicked gigaton climate problem will arguably require thousands of megaton solutions and millions of kiloton solutions….

      So she is NOT saying there is no problem she is just saying it is a complex problem and ‘Climate Scientists’ are needed more now than ever.

      Engagement of climate researchers with regional planners, economists, military/intelligence organizations, development banks, energy companies, and governments in the developing world to develop a mutual understanding about what kind of information is needed can promote more fruitful decision outcomes, and define new scientific challenges to be addressed by research. The need for climate researchers to engage with social scientists and engineers has never been more important. Further, there is an increasing need for social scientists and philosophers of science to scrutinize and analyze our field to prevent dysfunction at the science-policy interface.

      And finally, Curry says “…climate scientists and the institutions that support them need to acknowledge and engage with ever-growing groups of citizen scientists, auditors, and extended peer communities that have become increasingly well organized by the blogosphere….” So back in 2010 she recognized the threat of the blogosphere and the need to neutralize it.

      In her own words, Judith Curry makes it clear her goal is to Rebuild Trust and she is smart enough to realize the sledge hammer tactics of the likes of Joe Rom and Cook and Loony Lew do not do that. This does not however mean she is not still on board the goal of ‘Radically Transforming America’ and the rest of western civilization.

      On the Credibility of Climate Research, Part II: Towards Rebuilding Trust

      Judith Curry, Georgia Institute of Technology
      I am trying something new, a blogospheric experiment, if you will. I have been a fairly active participant in the blogosphere since 2006….

      Losing the Public’s Trust
      Climategate has now become broadened in scope to extend beyond the CRU emails to include glaciergate and a host of other issues associated with the IPCC. In responding to climategate, the climate research establishment has appealed to its own authority and failed to understand that climategate is primarily a crisis of trust.

      Credibility is a combination of expertise and trust. While scientists persist in thinking that they should be trusted because of their expertise, climategate has made it clear that expertise itself is not a sufficient basis for public trust. The fallout from climategate is much broader than the allegations of misconduct by scientists at two universities. Of greatest importance is the reduced credibility of the IPCC assessment reports, which are providing the scientific basis for international policies on climate change. Recent disclosures about the IPCC have brought up a host of concerns about the IPCC that had been festering in the background: involvement of IPCC scientists in explicit climate policy advocacy; tribalism that excluded skeptics; hubris of scientists with regards to a noble (Nobel) cause; alarmism; and inadequate attention to the statistics of uncertainty and the complexity of alternative interpretations….

      In my informal investigations, I have been listening to the perspectives of a broad range of people that have been labeled as “skeptics” or even “deniers”. I have come to understand that global warming skepticism is very different now than it was five years ago. Here is my take on how global warming skepticism has evolved over the past several decades.

      In the 1980’s, James Hansen and Steven Schneider led the charge in informing the public of the risks of potential anthropogenic climate change. Sir John Houghton and Bert Bolin played similar roles in Europe. This charge was embraced by the environmental advocacy groups, and global warming alarmism was born….

      In the first few years of the 21st century, the stakes became higher and we saw the birth of what some have called a “monolithic climate denial machine”. Skeptical research published by academics provided fodder for the think tanks and advocacy groups, which were fed by money provided by the oil industry. This was all amplified by talk radio and cable news. [If she believes that crud my opinion of her just sank]

      ….The often misinformed policy advocacy by this group of climate scientists has played a role in the political polarization of this issue.. The interface between science and policy is a muddy issue, but it is very important that scientists have guidance in navigating the potential pitfalls. Improving this situation could help defuse the hostile environment that scientists involved in the public debate have to deal with, and would also help restore the public trust of climate scientists.

      The failure of the public and policy makers to understand the truth as presented by the IPCC is often blamed on difficulties of communicating such a complex topic to a relatively uneducated public… People have heard the alarm, but they remain unconvinced because of a perceived political agenda and lack of trust of the message and the messengers….

      My own experience in making public presentations about climate change has found that discussing the uncertainties increases the public trust in what scientists are trying to convey and doesn’t detract from the receptivity to understanding climate change risks (they distrust alarmism). Trust can also be rebuilt by discussing broad choices rather than focusing on specific policies.….

      And finally, the blogosphere can be a very powerful tool for increasing the credibility of climate research. “Dueling blogs” (e.g. versus and versus can actually enhance public trust in the science as they see both sides of the arguments being discussed. Debating science with skeptics should be the spice of academic life, but many climate researchers lost this somehow by mistakenly thinking that skeptical arguments would diminish the public trust in the message coming from the climate research establishment. …

      And finally, I hope that this blogospheric experiment will demonstrate how the diversity of the different blogs can be used collectively to generate ideas and debate them, towards bringing some sanity to this whole situation surrounding the politicization of climate science and rebuilding trust with the public.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Finally we come to Judith Curry and her involvement with the BEST temperature data set. said of the Berkeley team back in 2011. “Curry mainly seems on the team to give Muller the thinnest veneer of climatology”

      October 31, 2011 cartoon by Josh.

      As Stephen Rasey said at the time on October 31, 2011 at 9:16 am

      From Dr. Curry’s blog, it appears to me that she is pulling her punches.

      Is this a boxing match or a Pro-Wrestling match between team members? Skepticism always.

      Interesting question isn’t it?

      So for the skeptics she appears to disagree with Muller but then we find an interesting paper from 2013 it is written by the Berkeley team plus Judith Curry and Mosher.
      Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications

      The effect of urban heating on estimates of global average land surface temperature is studied by applying an urban-rural classification based on MODIS satellite data to the Berkeley Earth temperature dataset compilation of 36,869 sites from 15 different publicly available sources. We compare the distribution of linear temperature trends for these sites to the distribution for a rural subset of 15,594 sites chosen to be distant from all MODISidentified urban areas. While the trend distributions are broad, with one-third of the stations in the US and worldwide having a negative trend, both distributions show significant warming. Time series of the Earth’s average land temperature are estimated using the Berkeley Earth methodology applied to the full dataset and the rural subset; the difference of these is consistent with no urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.10 ± 0.24/100yr (95% confidence).

      She also hosted Zeke Hausefeather hatchet job on Steve in July of 2014. — Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data.

      There has been much discussion of temperature adjustment of late in both climate blogs and in the media, but not much background on what specific adjustments are being made, why they are being made, and what effects they have. Adjustments have a big effect on temperature trends in the U.S., and a modest effect on global land trends. The large contribution of adjustments to century-scale U.S. temperature trends lends itself to an unfortunate narrative that “government bureaucrats are cooking the books”

      We all know who specializes in US temperature trends.

      Then there is the trick played on Anthony Watts. Remember Curry wants to drag the Deniers on board the CAGW bandwagon.

      New independent surface temperature record in the works
      by Anthony Watts

      Good news travels fast. I’m a bit surprised to see this get some early coverage, as the project isn’t ready yet. However since it has been announced by press, I can tell you that this project is partly a reaction and result of what we’ve learned in the surfacesations project, but mostly, this project is a reaction to many of the things we have been saying time and again, only to have NOAA and NASA ignore our concerns, or create responses designed to protect their ideas, rather than consider if their ideas were valid in the first place. I have been corresponding with Dr. Muller, invited to participate with my data, and when I am able, I will say more about it. In the meantime, you can visit the newly minted web page here. I highly recommend reading the section on methodology here. Longtime students of the surface temperature record will recognize some of the issues being addressed. I urge readers not to bombard these guys with questions. Let’s “git ‘er done” first.

      A new release from Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature July 29, 2012
      Again by Steven Mosher and Zeke Hausfather and hosted by Judith.

      Judith’s comment:

      JC comment: With regards to the new paper, I strongly disagree with their interpretation of attribution (Fig 3 in the post above). Here is what I have been saying in response to media queries:

      The BEST team has produced the best land surface temperature data set that we currently have. It is best in the sense of including the most data and extending further back in time. The data quality control and processing use objective, statistically robust techniques. And most importantly, the data set is online and well documented, with a friendly user interface. That said, the scientific analyses that the BEST team has done with the new data set are controversial, including the impact of station quality on interpreting temperature trends and the urban heat island effect.….

      That was in 2012 and in 2013 Judith and the BEST team came out with the paper at the top of this comment.

      • Gail Combs says:

        So given all that background does Judith Curry not understand, or does her funding depend on her not understanding?

        Upton Sinclair — “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

        • geologyjim says:

          Gail Combs –

          Your ability to compile, compare, and analyze documentation (and underlying evidence of timing, “coincidence”, and probable motivation) is most remarkable.

          Mark Steyn could surely use your talents in the inexorable Mann-suit

          Keep up the GREAT work!

        • Gail Combs says:

          geologyjim, Thank you.

          I know I have a tendency to run on and on but it is difficult not to when you are ‘hot on the scent’

          I am glad at least some have the patience to read what I write/compile.

        • Sophie says:

          Gail, you have quite successfully taken apart Judith Curry’s reputation for me. 🙂 You sniff out the detail like a forensic rottweiler.

        • Gail Combs says:


          I have always been a bit suspicious of Judith. She always seemed too good to be true. However I never thought I would trip over something like her partner and the Aspen Global Change Institute with its connections to Mikey Mann, Peter Glieck and the rest.

        • Sophie says:

          Yes Gail, I was actually thinking about that connection with Michael Mann-ipulation, after all, didn’t he accuse her of being anti-science? Now, thanks to you, we know there is a close, underlying connection between these two. Aww, I think I may buy her two mirrors for Christmas………………one for each face!

        • hobgoblin2 says:

          I was a bit of a fan of JC but I will look at her site differently now. Admire you energy btw.

  2. I stole this and added it to my site:

  3. “But in truth with more complicated instances there is no more common error than to assume that, because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain.” – A.N.Whitehead, An Introduction to Mathematics, 1911, p. 27.

  4. Owen says:

    We are supposed to take the word of Curry that the world is ending because of C02 yet she can’t do basic math or statistics. And even when you lay it out for her and the rest of the Climate Liars in a manner even the dimmest of them should be able to comprehend, they still don’t get it. The stupidity of these so-called experts is appalling. They never learn. They don’t want to learn. Their lies and cult-like beliefs are more important to them than doing real science.

    • gator69 says:

      It is called ‘willful ignorance’. Fingers in ears, and babbling.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Let us assume (as a hypothetical) that global warming, i.e. a long term rise in average temperatures around the globe, were actually taking place. Let us assume that everyone on earth agreed that temperatures were rising. Let us even assume that the rise appeared to be increasing and catastrophic. Would those things justify regulating CO2?

      The answer is “No!” Why? Because the distinctive marker for CO2 induced warming — as opposed to long term natural cycles, cosmic rays, increased solar output, etc. — is that there would be a hot spot in the upper troposphere. No hot spot has been observed. Instead all measurements have shown a distinct lack of hot spot. Quite literally, EVEN IF WE ASSUMED ALL THE HYPOTHETICALS ABOVE, the one thing we could be sure about is that whatever was causing the warming, it for darn sure was NOT CO2.

      No troposphere hot spot — no CO2 caused warming.

  5. Eliza says:

    I would not be so quick to condemm her to hell.She is in fact a voluntary skeptic, but probably cannot go the full blast due to fear of loss of employment, colleagues ect. Its quite understandable. However they are all going to lose big time and I think they are beginning to realize it now. The above BTW, complete answers concisely and in a simple manner the whole BS drivel posted by Zeke ect to confuse/defend their position and GISS ect who are now in a very precarious position due to the fact the MSM is coping on to the fraud ect. . These people are paid to defend the Fraud, they have to do it. LOL

    • Edmonton Al says:

      You mean she’s Chicken Sh*t to say anything against her peers?

    • Gail Combs says:

      I would have agreed a few months ago but then I found her company that is making money off grants to provide expertise for determining the best sites for of all things wind turbines.

      Curry says ” I have been a fairly active participant in the blogosphere since 2006″ This is the same time she and Dr. Peter J. Webster set up CFAN. [Webster is a member of the Aspen Global Change Institute***?!?]


      She identified skeptics/Deniers and Blogs as the new threat to her livelihood and has moved to neutralize it.

      Not only does she SUPPORT bat-chomping bird-slicing eco-crucifixes that are taking out endangered American Raptors, she, as an LLC, is ripping off the American tax payer to the tune of a cool 1.2 million. This does not include the consulting fees. Consulting fees to a private corporation are a great way to hide pay offs for services that no one wants anyone to trace.
      As I said she is a very politically savvy lady.

      More on Curry:

      ****FUNDING for Aspen Global Change Institute :
      The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
      The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
      The National Science Foundation (NSF)
      The Department of Energy (DOE)
      The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
      The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
      Analysis, Integration, and Modeling of the Earth System (AIMES) / International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP)

      Aspen Global Change Institute
      Global Solutions Lab

      This section is currently under construction. Soon, visitors to this page will find information about proposed solutions to the most pressing global environmental challenges. In light of the tremendous impact global climate change will have on human civilization, considerable worldwide effort is being directed into finding global-scale solutions to either mitigate climate-driven changes or adapt to potential impacts. Much research has addressed technological innovation, particularly in the realm of energy, but attention has also focused on necessary social, business, and legal reforms.….

      Sure sounds like they are actively working on the nitty gritty of Agenda 21.

      • Gail Combs says:

        When you pull the Aspen Global Change Institute thread things get real interesting… I feel like I am tracing Machiavelli.

        Climate Communication is a non-profit science and outreach project supported by grants, including from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Climate Communication operates as a project of the Aspen Global Change Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to furthering the scientific understanding of Earth systems and global environmental change…

        WHAT WE DO

        We publicize and illuminate the latest climate research in plain language, making the science more accessible to the public and policy makers.

        Examples include our primer on climate change and our feature on extreme weather and its connections to climate change. We’ve also released a report on heat waves and climate change.
        ← We Assist Journalists
        We Support Scientists →

        And guess who is on the staff of Climate Communication?
        Peter Gleick
        Katharine Hayhoe
        Michael Mann
        Jeff Masters
        Michael Oppenheimer
        Naomi Oreskes
        Jonathan Overpeck
        Benjamin Santer
        Kevin Trenbreth
        Don Wuebbles

        To name just a few.

        How did I find this connection? You will die laughing – From Judith Curry’s website.

        This is a few bits and pieces but I suggest reading the whole comment

        manacker | September 14, 2011 at 1:18 pm |

        Who is “Climate Communication” and what are the organization’s mission, goals and objectives?

        …dedicated to improving public understanding of climate change.

        We combine expertise in climate science with excellence in communication

        “Excellence in communication” = good PR (propaganda)

        ….How did the ClimateWorks Foundation start? Who was behind it? The ClimateWorks Foundation emerged from a study commissioned by six foundations: the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Energy Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, and the Oak Foundation. The 2007 study “Design to Win: Philanthropy’s Role in the Fight Against Global Warming” (pdf), sought to answer a critical question: What would it take to achieve a real “win” in the battle against climate change? The authors of Design to Win interviewed more than 150 of the world’s leading experts on energy, climate change, and forests to identify the top priorities for avoiding dangerous climate change. Using cost curves and other research, the Design to Win analysts ranked investments by their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and their ability to prevent the “lock-in” of long-lived, carbon-intensive infrastructure. The ClimateWorks Foundation was built on the principles identified in the Design to Win study and launched in 2008 with the support of three foundations: the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and the McKnight Foundation. (Learn more about the founding story of the ClimateWorks Foundation at: (wwwDOT)

        From “Design to Win, Philanthropy’s Role in the Fight Against Global Warming ”, the stated manifesto for The ClimateWorks Foundation:

        Our analysis yielded a short list of the initiatives with the most potential to set the world on a low-carbon path. Four overarching priorities orient our investment road map:
        First, don’t lose – the battle could be lost in the next decade.
        Catastrophic climate change – far worse than anything we have experienced – will be unavoidable if we don’t prevent a massive “lock-in” of emissions from new coal-fired power plants, long-lived industrial infrastructure, inefficient buildings, car-centric cities, and irreversible deforestation (Figure 1). The First Rule of Holes: when you’re in one, stop digging….

        Do read the rest of the comment. It is full of other interesting quotes.

  6. scott allen says:

    Anything that the federal government gets involved in is useless. The article I linked below is from JAMA internal Medicine Journal. It details a study that the FDA researched and found evidence of data altering, fraud, manipulation of facts and conclusions. The Journals of none of these publish fraudulent papers retracted them even after the fraud was pointed out to the editors. and none of the authors of these fraudulent papers were prosecuted by the FDA or any other government agency, even thought these studies put the participants at risk of death and any doctor who used these peer review treatments put patients at risk. Why would any one believe anything that had any kind of government oversight to be worth anything. And why would anyone believe in peer reviewed papers.

    Research Misconduct Identified by the US Food and Drug Administration
    Out of Sight, Out of Mind, Out of the Peer-Reviewed


  7. Do I understand correctly that station dropout causes rural stations to be adjusted upwards for recent times? Does this affect the 1930s bump too?

  8. MikeW says:

    Curry looks at about 1% of the problem, and then concludes that 1% is not significant. Her site is useless.

  9. Bad Andrew says:

    Dr. Curry is a Climate Establishment Insider. Don’t let anybody trick you into thinking otherwise.


  10. Gail Combs says:

    O/T but I really do not know whether to laugh or cry at this one….

  11. Eliza says:

    Current temp Asuncion 37.8C 12.53PM, here just 32 Km away (digital thermometer under shade 33C tells you everything you need to know. BTW they are probably being paid to keep it up. LOL

  12. D. Self says:

    Judy needs the gravy train to keep rolling.

    • Gail Combs says:

      ” The short-term market potential of a resulting Phase II solution is estimated to be in excess of $5M.”

      Not a bad potential when split between 9 people.

  13. Douglas Hoyt says:

    It is worth mentioning that the climate models fit the 1975 temperature history perfectly. The same climate models also perfectly fit the latest, and completely different, temperature history. The climate models have so many free parameters, they can fit any curve and hence they should be considered pretty useless for prediction.

  14. Robertv says:

    There has never been a problem with the climate. It is just one of the countless ways to create fear so that the few can control the many.
    If this one does not achieve its goal they just continue with another one.
    It has always been quite easy to control the masses. Just give them bread and games or promise them heaven or virgins and they will fight a war and die for you.

  15. gregole says:

    The surface station data is not fit for use.

    I’m not sure what we’re suppose to be missing if the radiosonde and satellite data show little or no warming in the atmosphere but the surface station data shows more but still not much; and even after massive massaging the surface-station data still shows less than the computer models forecast.

    This whole thing is looking more and more like a game.

    The data sets should match up within some range – not diverge over time.

  16. 4TimesAYear says:

    Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog.

Leave a Reply