Judith Curry

Judith Curry


  • PhD, Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago (1982). [1]
  • B.S., Geography, Northern Illinois University (1974). [1]


Judith A. Curry is the former chairman (2002 - 2014) and former professor at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Judith Curry resigned from her position at Georgia Tech on January 1, 2017, citing the “craziness” of climate science, and plans to focus on her private business, Climate Forecast Applications Network. Judith Curry continues to write and speak prolifically on the climate change issue and run the blog Climate Etc. [1], [42], [43]

Judith Curry has been invited by R epublicans to testify at climate change hearings regarding alleged uncertainties regarding man-made climate change. She has also participated in a variety of blogs in the skeptical science community including Climate Audit, the Air Vent , and others. [2], [3]

Curry has been criticized by climate scientists for her climate outreach in the blogosphere based on assertions not necessarily supported by the evidence: particularly that the “climate always changes.” [4]

Scientist Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, points out that “Climate doesn't change all by itself for no good reason. Something has to force it.” [4]

Fossil Fuel Funding

When she was questioned about potential conflicts of interest, this was her response to the Scientific American: [5]

“I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.”

Stance on Climate Change

Judith Curry wrote on her blog Climate Etc. that her views on climate change are best summarized by her Congressional Testimony on the President's Climate Action Plan: [6], [7]

“Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change:

  • The hiatus in global warming since 1998
  • Reduced estimates of the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide
  • Climate models predict much more warming than has been observed in the early 21st century”

Key Quotes

November, 2016

“[I]n terms of climate hoaxes, perhaps it is NOT Donald Trump’s whose pants are on fire.” [41]

“Trump’s election provided an opportunity for a more rational energy and climate policy.” [41]

December 8, 2015

At a hearing titled “Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate,” Juth Curry acknowledged that global temperatures are rising, but says the bigger question is whether humans to blame. [8]

She said temperatures have been on the rise for more than 200 years. “And that's not human,” she said, suggesting that something other than industrial greenhouse gases is causing them to climb. [8]

E&E News notes that Curry's viewpoint “is not accepted by most climate scientists. They point to corresponding rises in greenhouse gases and temperatures as evidence that human activities are a key driver of warming.” [8]

November, 2015

“The hottest topic in climate research is the observation that global average surface temperature, as well as satellite observations of temperatures in the atmosphere, has shown little or no warming during the 21st century.” [9]

July, 2015

With reference to record-breaking heat waves in Western Europe, and whether they should be blamed on man-made global warming (emphasis added):

“Does it make more sense to provide air conditioning or to limit CO2 emissions.  I vote for more air conditioning in these susceptible regions.” [10]

September 2014

Below are excertps from Judith Curry's speech at the National Press Club:  [11]

“The main problem is we are putting the policy cart before the scientific horse.”


“Relying on global international treaty to solve the problem – which I do not think would really solve the problem even if it was implemented – is politically unviable and economically unviable.”


“Even on the timescale of decade or two, we could end up be very surprised on how the climate plays out and it might not be getting warmer like the UN IPCC says. We don’t know what's going to happen. All other things being equal – yes – more carbon dioxide means warmer, but all other things are never equal. We just don’t know. I think we are fooling ourselves to think that CO2 control knob really influences climate on these decadal or even century time scales.” [11]

April 19, 2014

Curry, in her blog Climate Etc, publishes a post titled, “In defense of free speech.” Within it, she writes: [12]

“I am broadly concerned about the slow death of free speech, but particularly in universities and also with regards to the climate change debate.” [12]

April 25, 2013

“If all other things remain equal, it is clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet. However the real difficulty is that nothing remains equal, and reliable prediction of the impact of carbon dioxide on the climate requires that we understand natural climate variability properly. Until we understand natural climate variability better, we cannot reliably infer sensitivity to greenhouse gas forcing or understand its role in influencing extreme weather events. […] While 20th century climate change is most often explained in terms of external forcing, with natural internal variability providing high frequency ‘noise,’ the role of large multidecadal oscillations is receiving increasing attention.” [13]

October 28, 2012

“The manufactured consensus of the IPCC has had the unintended consequences of distorting the science, elevating the voices of scientists that dispute the consensus, and motivating actions by the consensus scientists and their supporters that have diminished the public’s trust in the IPCC.” [14]

Key Deeds

March 29, 2017

Judith Curry was a witness in a house committee hearing titled “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method” chaired by Lamar Smith. The hearing also featuring testimony from John Christy, Michael Mann, and Roger Pielke, Jr. DeSmog reported that the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology hearings “have officially turned into theater to stage climate science denial,” noting that Michael Mann was the only witness on the committee to represent the 97% consensus view that humans cause climate change. [53][54]

Officially, the hearing was organized to “examine the scientific method and process as it relates to climate change” and “focus on the underlying science that helps inform policy decisions.” [54]

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, a Democrat from Oregon, noted from the outset that “The witness panel does not really represent the vast majority of climate scientists.” For an accurate representation of the science, she said to “Visualize 96 more climate scientists that agree with the mainstream consensus. […] For a balanced panel we’d need 96 more Dr. Manns.” [53]

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) published the written testimonies by Curry, Christy, Mann, and Pielke online. [55]

“I'm mostly concerned about the behavior of other scientists,” Curry claimed early in her testimony. “Scientists who demonize their opponents are behaving in a way that’s antithetical to the scientific process. These are the tactics of enforcing a premature theory for political purpose,” she said. [53]

She goes on to claim that climate scientists are faced by pressure to maintain certain views:

 “There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus,” Curry said in her testimony. “Owing to these pressures, and the gutter tactics of the academic debate on climate change, I recently resigned my tenured faculty position at Georgia Tech.”  [53]

Curry frequently talks about supposed “uncertainty” surrounding climate science in her testimony. Shortly after Curry notes that ”There is uncertainty” regarding sea ice and sea level rise, Michael Mann responds in his testimony[53]

Now, we hear so much about uncertainty, as if uncertainty is a reason for inaction. But, in this case, the uncertainties are breaking against us. Because we are actually seeing more rapid loss of ice from those ice sheets than the climate models that many here criticize had predicted in the past.” [53]

When asked about funding, Curry said:  [53]

I think that the funding for observing systems, particularly satellite observing systems, is money very, very well spent. Also for our ocean observing systems.” However, Curry suggests that funding for studies that, supposedly, “implicitly assume that climate change is caused by humans and that it’s dangerous” are not useful.

“[T]hese are not useful studies,” she said. “What we need is more fundamental climate dynamics research to understand how the climate system works on decadal to century time scales and use this understanding to develop new structural forms for our climate models.” [53]

During Michael Mann's testimony, he highlighted how Curry had supported the views of EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, and how he found that worrying: [53]

“What is particularly concerning to me is that one of our witnesses here today, Judith Curry, supported [Pruitt's] statement. She said, I do not find any thing to disagree with in what he said. 

Which means that she is clearly going against what the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has said—what every academic, scientific organization in the U.S. that has weighed in on the matter has said—and I find that distressing,” Mann said. [53]

Curry went on to address her reaction to being said she was on the “Fringes”: [53]

“I am not out there in the fringes. My main point is that I think there are a lot of uncertainties and that the climate models and the data, etc., are not fit for the purpose for drawing highly confident conclusions about what has been causing the recent warming.”  [53]

She added that “It’s been warming for hundreds of years, and we can’t explain all of that due to human causes.” [53]

She also claimed that Pielke and Christy are “Absolutely not” on the fringe. [53]

Curry responded to a question by Mr. Foster, where he asked whether the panelists   “all agree it is more likely than not this [climate change] will be a big problem”:  [53]

Curry: “I would say that we don’t know.”

Foster: “No. Do you think it’s more likely than not that this would be a big problem?”

Curry: “I would say as likely as not.”

Mann responded to Currys statement: [53]

I just want to say that’s what I’m talking about. I didn’t call Judith Curry a climate change denier here, today. There is a statement in the written statement that she is a climate science denier. And this is precisely what I’m talking about. She has argued we might be responsible for less than 50% of the warming that we have seen. The IPCC has assessed that, actually assessed the likelihood that that could be true. It’s one in ten thousand. One in ten thousand is the likelihood of something that she claims to be true.” [53]

Curry interjects, saying that her statement was “based on climate models.” She adds that it is not a rejection of mainstream science, but “a rejection of a manufactured consensus.”  [53]

March 11, 2017

Responding to Scott Pruitt’s statements in a CNBC interview where he had said that “I would not agree that [CO2 is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” Judith Curry wrote at her blog: [51], [52]

If I am interpreting Pruitt’s statements correctly, I do not find anything to disagree with in what he said: we don’t know how much of recent warming can be attributed to humans.”

In my opinion, this is correct and is a healthy position for both the science and policy debates,” Curry added.  [52]

February 5-10, 2017

Judith Curry was a speaker at the Fourth Santa Fe Conference on Global & Regional Climate Change. According to Curry's abstract, her speech was titled “Meta-uncertainties in climate sensitivity to CO2” (.docx). Below is her complete abstract: [44], [45]

“This talk provides an analysis of 
  • The concept of climate sensitivity: is equilibrium sensitivity a useful concept?
  • Nonlinearities and tipping points
  • Disagreement between climate model estimates of climate sensitivity, and determinations from historical observations (energy balance models)
  • Climate sensitivity tradeoffs between CO2 and aerosols
  • Confounding factor of multi-decadal and longer modes of internal variability
  • Implications of climate sensitivity uncertainty for estimates of the social cost of carbon”

The Fourth Santa Fe Conference was sponsored by the Los Alamos National Laboratory's Center for Earth and Space Science and co-sponsored by American Meteorological Society. [46]

It was the fourth in a series of conferences with the stated purpose of bringing together researchers “with varied interpretations of current and past global and regional climate change, to present the latest research results (observations, modeling and analysis), and to provide speaking and listening opportunities to top climate experts and students.” The first conference took place in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in 2001. Both the second and the third were in Santa Fe, New Mexico, in 2006 and 2011 respectively. [46]

February 6, 2017

Watts Up With That (WUWT) reported that Curry appeared on the Richie Allen show, part of the David Icke network, to speak about the IPCC. David Icke notably believes that the royal family were “shapeshifting lizards” and that 9/11 was a conspiracy. The Richie Allen Show's tagline is “broadcasting the information the mainstream media won't touch.” [50][49]

“There's all sorts of different kinds of uncertainty,” Curry said. “There's measurement uncertainty, there's data processing uncertainty, most more significantly there's uncertainties about things we don't even know about. […] My concern about the IPCC is they really take shortcuts in terms of doing the work try to understand and sometimes quantify the uncertainty, and they just use expert judgement.” [49]

“Is this data being produced, and is it being presented to people deliberately in a way to skew it and to convince people that man-made climate change is real?” Richie Allen asks.

“It's a very complex social contract,” Curry replies. “Between the IPCC scientists and the policymakers. The policymakers are concerned about dangerous climate change, and the IPCC is supposed to quantify the evidence for dangerous climate change. Well, that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if, in the process of all that, you're neglecting to understand natural climate change. So, the way the whole thing has been framed introduces a bias. […]” [49]

January 19, 2017

Curry authored a report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) titled “Climate Models for the layman” (PDF). Notably, this is her first publication with the GWPF, and it occurs shortly after her decision to resign from her academic position at Georgia Tech. The paper argues that climate change models are not reliable, and “not fit for the purpose of identifying with high confidence the proportion of the 20th century warming that was human-caused as opposed to natural.”[47][42]

The GWPF is a UK think tank founded by climate change science denier Nigel Lawson with the stated purpose of combatting “extremely damaging and harmful policies” designed to mitigate climate change. [48]

November 13, 2016

Judith Curry writes on “what we can expect” from the Trump administration on energy and climate. According to Curry, despite “much angst among the 'greens',” “Trump’s election provided an opportunity for a more rational energy and climate policy.” [41]

For example, Curry point's to Trump's comments about climate change being a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, writing that she herself believes “The UNFCCC definition of ‘climate change’ arguably qualifies as a hoax.” [41]

“So in terms of climate hoaxes, perhaps it is NOT Donald Trump’s whose pants are on fire,” she writes.

July 4, 2016

Judith Curry criticized a letter to Congress from 31 science associations advocating policies to combat climate change, describing it as a “climate power play,” reports The Washington Times[15]

On June 28, 2016, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) issued the letter and a press release introducing the letter, describing it as a  partnership of 31 leading nonpartisan scientific societies “reaffirming the reality of human-caused climate change, noting that greenhouse gas emissions 'must be substantially reduced' to minimize negative impacts on the global economy, natural resources, and human health.” [16]

The letter (PDF) addresses Members of Congress, writing to remind “of the consensus scientific view of climate change.” [17]

Curry describes the June 28 letter as a “blatant misuse of scientific authority to advocate for specific socioeconomic policies” and said professional societies includin gthe American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) have “damaged public trust in science.” [15]

They claim the science is settled; in that case, they are no longer needed at the table,” Curry said on her blog Climate Etc. “If they had written a letter instead that emphasized the complexities and uncertainties of both the problem and the solutions, they might have made a case for their participation in the deliberations.

Instead, by their dogmatic statements about climate change and their policy advocacy, they have become just another group of lobbyists, having ceded the privilege traditionally afforded to dispassionate scientific reasoning to political activists in the scientific professional societies.” [18]

According to Curry, the link between extreme weather” events like wildfires and climate change “hinges on detecting unusual events for at least the past century and then actually attributing them to human-caused warming.” [18]

May 2, 2016

Judth Curry was listed among “Key Scientists” appearing in Marc Morano's movie, Climate Hustle. The full list included the following: [19] 

Marc Morano's Climate Hustle was released in U.S. theatres on May 2, 2016. Bill Nye described it as  “not in our national interest and the world’s interest.” [20]

The film was produced by the Committee for Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and CDRCommunications. As noted at Desmog's project, ClimateHustler.org,  CFACT has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon ScaifeCFACT has also received at least $7.8 million in “dark money” through DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund[21], [22]

CDR Communications was behind the 2010 video by the Cornwall Alliance titled Resisting the Green Dragon, which claimed environmentalism was a “false religion” and a “global government” power grab. Chris Rogers of CDR Communictions is also chairman of The James Partnership, the umbrella arm that includes the Cornwall Alliance as one of its projects and pays the salary of Calvin Beisner, Cornwall’s founder and spokesperson. [23]

    Climate Hustle initially premiered on December 7, 2015 in Paris, France during the COP21 United Nations summit on climate change[24][25]

    We are putting together what I think is the most comprehensive, unique, entertaining and humorous climate documentary that has ever been done or attempted,” Morano had said before the film was released. [26]

    The reason that this is a unique film,” Morano has said, “is that we are going for a pop culture-friendly… sarcastic approach and we actually give both sides in this movie.”  [26]

    In an interview with Ezra Levant, Morano said:

    I am not interviewing a lot of the main climate sceptical scientists because I feel like they have been interviewed by many other people and their stories have been told. I am trying to find another layer of scientist whose stories have not been out there yet. You will see a lot of new names in this.” [26]

    See a preview of the film below:

    At the Paris premier of the film, reporters from Desmog and the Irish Times were denied entrance after having their RSVPs accepted days earlier. [27]

    December 8, 2015

    Set to coincide with the Paris COP21 (Conference of the Parties), Judith Curry testified at a hearing of the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness convened by U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) titled “Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate.” [28] 
    According to the event description, the hearing focused on “the ongoing debate over climate science, the impact of federal funding on the objectivity of climate research, and the ways in which political pressure can suppress opposing viewpoints in the field of climate science.”
    Ars Technica summarized Curry's testimony, saying she claimed that climate science has fallen victim to “groupthink” after reading the “Climategate” emails between scientists in 2009. (Note that independent investigations have long exonerated those involved). [29]
    “The rest of Curry’s testimony entailed claims that the science of anthropogenic climate change is unsettled, which she has spoken and written about at length over the years,” the magazine wrote. Curry's full testimony is available at the U.S. Senate Committee's website (PDF). [30], [31]
    Other listed witnesses include:

    March, 2015

    Judith Curry is one of several climate change skeptics cc'd on an email from S. Fred Singer in hopes of countering the documentary film “Merchants of Doubt,” which exposes the network of climate change skeptics and deniers trying to delay legislative action on climate change.   [32]

    The October, 2014 email was leaked to journalists before the documentary was released. “Can I sue for damages?” Singer asked in the email. “Can we get an injunction against the documentary?” [32]

    InsideClimate News reports in their article “Leaked Email Reveals Who's Who List of Climate Denialists,” how “Many of those copied on the email thread, such as Singer and communications specialist Steven Milloy, have financial ties to the tobacco, chemical, and oil and gas industries and have worked to defend them since the 1990s.” [32]

    InsideClimate News also documented all those who were cc'd on the email, including the following skeptics and groups: [32]

    DeSmogBlog covered the emails here: “Merchants of Doubt Film Debuts, Textbook Denial Attack Campaign Led By Fred Singer Ensues” and DeSmogBlog also archived a full copy of the Singer email thread (PDF)

    September 25, 2014

    Judith Curry attends the “At the Crossroads; Energy & Climate Policy Summit” in Houston, Texas, hosted by the Texas Public Policy Foundation and The Heritage Foundation. Spencer presents in “Panel I: The State of the Science,” with Roy Spencer and Harold Doiron. [33]

    March 9, 2014

    Judith Curry publishes a post on her blog, Climate Etc, titled, “Positioning skeptics.” In the post, she declares her happiness in her decision to write the Foreword for Lewis and Krok's GWPF report, after initially “thinking twice about writing a Foreword for a GWPF (Global Warming Policy Foundation) publication,” noting that she “tries to stay away from organizations with political perspectives on global warming.” [34], [35]

    January 16, 2014

    Judith Curry testified before The Committee on Environment and Public Works of the U.S. Senate in a hearing titled, “Review of the President's Climate Action Plan.” [36]

    According to her testimony, the “evidence reported by the IPCC AR5 weakens the case for human factors dominating climate change in the 20th and early 21st centuries.” Additionally, Curry states that she is “increasingly concerned that both the climate change problem and its solution have been vastly oversimplified.” [36]

    April 25, 2013

    Judith Curry testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Environment in a hearing titled “Policy Relevant Climate Issues in Context.” According to her testimony, there is still uncertainty whether carbon dioxide impacts the climate until “we better understand natural climate variability.” [13]

    Prominent climate change skeptic Bjorn Lomborg also testified at the hearing. [13]

    October, 2012

    Judith Curry is the co-author of a paper titled “Climate change: no consensus on consensus” which provides an overview of critiques of the IPCC consensus process. [14]

    According to the paper's introduction, “It is difficult to avoid concluding that the IPCC consensus is manufactured and that the existence of this consensus does not lend intellectual substance to their conclusions.” [14]

    October 10, 2007

    Curry publishes an opinion piece in The Washington Post titled, “Cooler Heads and Climate Change,” in response to Bjorn Lomborg's opinion piece, “Chill out,” written just three days prior. In it, she states that Lomborg “rightly notes” that climate change skepticism is “no longer focused on whether it the earth is getting warmer (it is) or whether humans are contributing to it (we are). The current debate is about whether warming matters, and whether we can afford to do anything about it.” [37]

    Curry goes on to say that Lomborg has placed himself directly in the skeptics camp, but notes that “he has some of his facts wrong.” Among the incorrect facts is Lomborg's assertion that the Kangerlussuaq Glacier in Greenland is “inconveniently growing.” Curry points out that the glacier is not growing, but rather, “simply spilling into the sea,” citing NASA research. [37]

    In her closing paragraph, Curry states, “There is no easy solution to this problem [global warming]… But I have yet to see an option that is worse than ignoring the risk of global warming and doing nothing.” [37]


    • Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN) — President and Co-Founder. [38]



    1. JUDITH A. CURRY,” CV at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology. Archived September 7, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/L1srk

    2. Search Results for: judith curry,” Climate Audit. Performed September, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/vkSge

    3. Search Results,” The Air Vent. Performed September, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/iwc3y

    4. Joe Romm, “Judith Curry Abandons Science,” Climate Progress, November 11, 2010. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/6KcRz

    5. Michael D. Lemonick. “Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues,” Scientific American, October 25, 2010. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/BL5R

    6. About,” Climate Etc. Archived December 9, 2015. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/H9xsU

    7. Statement to the Committee on Science, Space and Technology of the United States House of Representatives” (PDF), April 15, 2015. Retrieved from JudithCurry.com. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

    8. Evan Lehmann. “POLITICS: Cruz rejects climate science as he rises in the polls,” E&E News, December 9, 2015. Archived December 1-, 2015. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/wnxgV

    9. Judith Curry. “Is the government tinkering with global warming data?Fox News, November 5, 2015. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/0xjdt

    10. Judith Curry. “Heat waves: exacerbated by global warming?Climate Etc. July 2, 2015. Archived July 8, 2015. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/JcctB

    11. Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry warns of decades of possible global cooling: Suggests the 'current cool phase will continue until the 2030s',” Climate Depot, September 16, 2014. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/McIqg

    12. Judith Curry, “In defense of free speech,” Climate Etc., April 19, 2014. Archive.is URLhttp://archive.is/4niNh

    13. Judith A. Curry. “Hearing on 'Policy Relevant Climate Issues in Context'” (PDF), Committee on Space, Science and Technology, April 25, 2013. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/kBw4W

    14. Judith Curry. “Climate change: no consensus on consensus,” Climate Etc., October 28, 2012. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/BAMrN

    15. Science groups blasted for crossing line into activism with climate-change letter to Congress,” The Washington Times, July 6, 2016. Archived July 27, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/Yjk5b

    16. (Press Release). “Thirty-One Top Scientific Societies Speak with One Voice on Global Climate Change,” AAAS.org, June 28, 2016. Archived July 27, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/p1Wq5

    17. “Dear Members of Congress” (PDF), AAAS.org, June 28, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog.

    18. Judith Curry. “Climate power play by the AAAS et al. Climate Etc. July 4, 2016. Archived July 27, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/Bcuum

    19. “Background on Key Scientists Appearing in Climate Hustle” (PDF), ClimateHustle.org. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog.

    20. 'Climate Hustle' debuts as skeptics take on global-warming 'consensus',” The Washington Times, May 1, 2016. Archived August 26, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/XtLXp

    21. Background on Climate Hustle Host and Producers,” ClimateHustle.org. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog.

    22. Homepage, climatehustler.org. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/NB9qn

    23. Graham Readfearn. “The Evangelical Christian Climate Deniers Behind Marc Morano’s Climate Hustle Documentary,” Desmog, November 19, 2015.

    24. Matthew Kasper, “Climate Hustle, Latest Global Warming Denial Documentary, Set For World Premiere In Paris During COP21,” Republic Report, November 13, 2015. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/s7OHs

    25. Climate Hustle,” SourceWatch, accessed November 14, 2015. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/bOG35

    26. Graham Readfearn. “Marc Morano's Climate Hustle Film Set For Paris Premiere With Same Old Denial Myths,” Desmog, November 12, 2015.

    27. Graham Readfearn. “The Fakery of the Paris ‘Red Carpet’ Premiere of Marc Morano’s Climate Hustle Film,” Desmog, December 30, 2015.

    28. Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth's Climate,” U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/9SbTE

    29. Brendan DeMelle. “Penn State Completely Exonerates Climate Scientist Michael Mann On Bogus Climategate Accusations,” Desmog, July 1, 2010.

    30. Scott K. Johnson. “Senate Science Committee hearing challenges 'dogma' of climate science,” Ars Technica, December 9, 2015. Archived December 10, 2015. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/X6bHF

    31. “Statement to the Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness of the United States Senate” (PDF), U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation, December 8, 2015. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.

    32. Katherine Bagley. “Leaked Email Reveals Who's Who List of Climate Denialists,” InsideClimate News. March 12, 2015. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/CVOi5

    33. Judith Curry. “Speakers,” At the Crossroads; Energy & Climate Policy Summit, Texas Public Policy Foundation, The Heritage Foundation, September 25/26, 2014. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/GUScV

    34. Judith Curry, “Positioning skeptics,” Climate Etc, March 9, 2014. Archive.is URLhttp://archive.is/cLS4U

    35. Judith Curry, “Lewis and Krok: Climate less sensititve to CO2 than models suggest,” Climate Etc, March 5, 2014. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/mGQ6k

    36. STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE Hearing on 'Review of the President’s Climate Action Plan'” (PDF), EPW.Senate.Gov, January 16, 2014. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog.

    37. Judith Curry, “Cooler Heads and Climate Change,” The Washington Post Opinions, October 10, 2007. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/LNOUr

    38. About,” Climate Forecast Applications Network. Archived September 7, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/wxMxE

    39. Judith Curry and Peter J. Webster, “Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans,” International Geophysics Series: Volume 65, February 13, 1999.

    40. Judith Curry, “FIRE Arctic Clouds Experiment,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 106, Part 14 (2001). Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/Y8QIm

    41. Trumping the Climate,” Climate Etc., November 13, 2016. Archived November 21, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/ikMN6

    42. JC in transition,” Climate Etc. January 3, 2017. Archived January 5, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/38YdM

    43. Judith Curry retires, citing 'craziness' of climate science,” Climatewire, January 4, 2017. Archived January 5, 2017. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/gXDqs

    44. “Fourth Santa Fe Conference on Global & Regional Climate Change: Confirmed Speakers,” Cvent.com. Archived February 16, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/OpWNT

    45. Judith Curry. “Meta-uncertainties in climate sensitivity to CO2,”  Retrieved from Cvent.com. Archived .docx on file at DeSmog.

    46. Fourth Santa Fe Conference on Global & Regional Climate Change,” Cvent.com. Archived February 16, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/cxZpk

    47. CLIMATE MODELS for the layman” (PDF), The Global Warming Policy Foundation. PDF document created January 19, 2017. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

    48. COPENHAGEN WILL FAIL – AND QUITE RIGHT TOO,” The Global Warming Policy Forum, November 22, 2009. Archived August 17, 2015.

    49. Larry Hamlin. “Dr. Judith Curry speaks out on climate science’s fatal flaw – the failure to explore and understand uncertainty,” Watts Up With That? February 9, 2017. Archived February 22, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/hIZmO

    50. David Icke on 9/11 and lizards in Buckingham Palace theories,” BBC News, May 20, 2016. Archived February 22, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/Mj49C

    51. New EPA head Scott Pruitt: You can be pro-growth and…,” CNBC, March 9, 2017. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.

    52. Judith Curry. “Scott Pruitt’s statement on climate change,“ Climate Etc. March 11, 2017. Archived March 14, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/8lr9v

    53. Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method,” House Committee on Science, Space, & Technology, March 29, 2017. Archived March 31, 2017. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.

    54. Ben Jervey. “House Science Committee Hearing Pits Three Fringe Climate Deniers Against Mainstream Climate Scientist Michael Mann,” DeSmog, March 29, 2017.

    55. CLIMATE SCIENCE: Assumptions, policy implications, and the scientific method” (PDF)Global Warming Policy Foundation (Report 24). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

    Other Resources