“Most of climate science has become BORING . . . too much mega-modellingand politicking, and not enough thinking. In any event, I no longer have an interest in writing for the public on these topics,” writes one of the most respected climate scientist/authors, Judith Curry, publisher of Climate Etc, as she quits the public square.
“After publishing my book Climate Uncertainty and Risk, and co-authoring the
DOE Climate Report (I have prepared revisions to my sections, who knows
when this will ever be published), I frankly don’t have much more to say on the
topic of the climate wars. I have no interest in battling with the likes of Michael
Mann, Andrew Dessler, et al. (does anybody still care what they have to say?)
Personally, after a big downsize and moving into a much smaller and simpler
place, Peter and I are focused on our new dog Lucy, after our previous dogs
Bruno and Rosie succumbed to old age. And establishing the garden at our new
place.
“A peaceful life with family and friends, exploring the world and its new
developments from my laptop, and having a blast with AI.
An experiment that started in 2010 in the wake of ClimateGate, Climate Etc.
has exceeded my wildest expectations. It has been one of the highlights of my
career, and I am endlessly grateful to all of you who have participated here
(especially guest bloggers) and to the new friends and colleagues that I have
found from the blog.
“My book Climate Uncertainty and Risk is a culmination
of the topics that we have explored on the blog, and is the legacy of this blog.
“The leaders of the climate alarmism movement have not conceded defeat but
have done much whining, notably over President Trump and the RCP8.5
scenario. They are still trying to discredit the authors of the DOE Report.
“Triggered by the DOE Report, they have mostly stopped flogging the
warming/extreme weather link, although there is a hardcore group that is
committed to extreme event attribution as a mechanism to support litigation
against fossil fuel companies. With the demise of the extreme weather link, the
climate alarmists are now focused on climate “tipping points,” which simply
doesn’t resonate with the public (extreme weather events were much more
alarming).
“But most importantly, the whole issue has lost its political relevance. It’s time to declare victory against climate stupidity and move on.”
Goodbye, Judith, we’ll miss you and your integrity, your expertise and your generous contributions to the subject.
You’re welcome, Andrew. Like you, readers will be aware that our daily weather occurs within the parameters of climate. Is there a better way to put that? Is it that our weather is a sub-set of, or a function of our climate? It is a well-known aphorism that “One swallow does not a summer make” and we all understand that one hot day does not demonstrate that the climate has changed. However …
… Science is predictive in nature … observations are made, hypotheses are formed, we go from the ‘if’ to the ‘then’ … c.f. syllogistic reasoning. Increased global temperatures have been observed, the global-warming thesis has been posited … the chickens seem to be coming home to roost: variations in rainfall patterns, flooding and fire … record temperatures … in Tassie, we just had the warmest May on record. Hobart on May 1 had a record high temperature of 26.9 C.
The climate-change thesis, as I understand it, predicts weather extremes – we seem to be getting them!
The important issue in my mind is to be able to separate global warming as manifested from the cause of global warming which is not well understood. See today’s post in tribute to Judith Curry ..
https://pursuedemocracy.com/2026/06/25/of-magical-thinking-consensus-dogma-and-climate-uncertainty-a-tribute-to-judith-curry/
From what I can understand of Curry’s position, it is that the IPCC assertion of anthropogenic climate change is unproven. Curry’s position seems to be that human actions do contribute to climate change, but that these human actions [e.g.the burning of fossil fuels?] have not been shown to be the dominant cause of climate change.
Again, my understanding is that Curry – and some others – attribute our observed climate change as being caused predominantly by ‘natural factors’. In saying this, I should say that Curry’s position is now possibly dated (i.e. 2019) … since then weather events and aspects of climate (e.g. rainfall patterns and rise in global temperatures) seem to be in accord with what I believe has been predicted by exponents of greenhouse-gas-induced climate-change. Further, from what I’ve seen in the sources [see below], Curry’s position is more about challenging greenhouse gases as being the dominant cause of climate than identifying what the dominant cause of climate change actually is … if it is not anthropogenic. There is a term for this type of position which I’ve come across in my reading, but I can’t recall it at the moment. Perhaps it is ‘denialist’ or ‘denialism’. I’m sorry if this is an unfair ‘take’ on her … hang on … I see in her Wiki entry [1] that climate scientists regard her as a “contrarian scientist” and “climate doubter” is used in reference to her. The ‘contrarian’ charge is worth examination, as it carries with it the idea of disagreeing-for-the-sake-of-disagreeing, rather than disagreeing over a particular issue itself. I’m not in a position to try and examine the ‘contrarian’ issue here, in this comment … time flies and Mon. morning employment beckons.
In conclusion, Andrew, and regarding your “The important issue in my mind is to be able to separate global warming as manifested from the cause of global warming which is not well understood“: yes, I agree that it’s important to distinguish cause from effect, if we seek a way out of the problems (for us humans and other forms of life on earth) associated with global warming. It would be good to read some scientific material on the proportionality of ‘natural’ warming (e.g. variable ocean currents, volcanic activity and solar activity as contributing causes to the global warming which also is agreed by Curry as anthropogenic in origin.
What I’m saying is that in order to maintain that human release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is not (or might not be) the dominant cause of the climate change that we are experiencing, it is not sufficient to only critique the anthropogenic climate-change science, but it is necessary to provide the science for the ‘natural causes’ as the dominant driver of climate change / global warming. Perhaps it is there … I’m not well informed on these matters.
SOURCES:
1 ‘Judith Curry’ in Wikipedia.
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry ]
2 2017 03 29: ‘Statement to the Committee on Science, Space and Technology of the United States House of Representatives. Hearing on Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications and the Scientific Method’
[ https://judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/curry-house-science-testimony-mar-17.pdf ]
3 2017 04 18 ‘Judy Curry’s attribution non-argument’ by Gavin Schmidt
[ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/04/judy-currys-attribution-non-argument/ ]
4 2026 03 09: ‘Discussion thread: reactions to House Hearing’ by Judith Curry
[ https://judithcurry.com/2017/04/15/discussion-thread-reactions-to-house-hearing/#comment-845992 ]
5 ‘Scientists reactions to the US House Science Committee hearing on climate science’
[ https://climatefeedback.org/scientists-reactions-us-house-science-committee-hearing-climate-science/ ]
6 2026 03 09: ‘RIP Climate Etc
[ https://judithcurry.com/2026/06/23/rip-climate-etc/ ]
7 2025 01 21: ‘Sabotage – Arthur gets it’ by Andrew Urban
[ https://pursuedemocracy.com/2025/01/21/sabotage-arthur-gets-it/ ]
8 2026 06 25: ‘Of magical thinking, consensus, dogma and climate uncertainty – a tribute to Judith Curry’ by Andrew Urban
[ https://pursuedemocracy.com/2026/06/25/of-magical-thinking-consensus-dogma-and-climate-uncertainty-a-tribute-to-judith-curry/ ]
(Apologies for the delay in publishing your comment; we’ve had a lengthy internet outage.)
You start by stating Curry’s position pretty well. But then, as you say, you didn’t have time to check the ‘contrarian’ claim. Let me save you the trouble.
No self respecting scientist would call another well credentialled scientist such as Curry a contrarian. You also infer that perhaps she is a ‘denier’ – one of the least scientific uses of that term. Curry is the former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology; a member of the National Research Council’s Climate Research Committee; published over 100 scientific papers; and testified at government hearings. She resigned from Georgia Tech frustrated by the politicisation of climate science.
Beware of Wikipedia. It explains “Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.
Unwarranted doubt? Scientific consensus? We certainly can’t accuse Wikipedia of being a disinterested repository of facts.
“The most important fact about climate science, often overlooked, is that scientists disagree about the environmental impacts of the combustion of fossil fuels on the global climate. There is no survey or study showing “consensus” on the most important scientific issues, despite frequent claims by advocates to the contrary,” write Craig Idso, S. Fred Singer and Robert M. Carter (1942-2016) in their book Why scientists disagree about global warming (Heartland).
This is one of many, many observations by equally credible scientists in the climate field that you’ll find in my book, Climate Alarm Reality Check (Wilkinson) of which I have sent you a copy. The above is on page 49, at the start of the chapter Scientists, Credibility, Bias.
Curry is not alone, of course. Princeton Professor, emeritus, William Happer and MIT Professor, emeritus, Richard Lindzen also appear in my book. Happer, who has studied possible CO2 related climate change for over 40 years, succinctly states his opinion: ”There isn’t a climate crisis. There will not be a climate crisis. It is utter nonsense.”
Lindzen has studied climate even longer than Happer, his comment:
“What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that carbon dioxide from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin.
In the context of the drivers of warming, let me repeat with boring predictability that the ice age ended without any help from the burning of fossil fuels.
Senator Malcolm Roberts made an 82 page submission to Labor’s 2022 Climate Change Bill, which included these points:
• CSIRO admitted that it has never stated that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger. Statements of danger came from politicians;
• CSIRO has never quantified any specific impact of carbon dioxide from human activity on any climate or weather variables, such as temperature, rainfall, droughts, floods, storms, ocean alkalinity. Yet this is fundamental for climate and energy policy. There’s no scientific basis for climate policies;
• CSIRO admitted that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented. They’ve occurred before;
• CSIRO has failed to provide statistically significant evidence of change in any climate factor. It’s just normal, natural cyclical variability.
I hope all this helps as a quick reference, Garry.
Thanks for replying, Andrew. Sorry for whatever shortcomings are contained in this and in my previous comment and for the length of the following comment of mine.
The climate change topic and the available resources/references are quite extensive … and it’s hard for someone like me (who is an occasional student of the subject of climate change) to know how/where to do relevant research and to draw on it appropriately.
I’ve read your book [‘Climate Alarm Reality Check : What You Haven’t Been Told], of course … and I take the opportunity of thanking you for it – if I haven’t already done so.
I’d like to include here links to two publications mentioned in your book … for me, what I include by way of reference/argument/opinion in this and in other of my comments, is done for my own benefit to serve as a record (for myself) of my own explorations on a topic … and hopefully, also, to assist casual readers to access the sources I’ve used to frame a comment:
1 Madrid / by Judith Curry. (Climate Etc blog)
[ https://judithcurry.com/2019/12/02/madrid/ ]
2 A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate / Climate working Group, US DOE. July 23, 2025.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/DOE_Critical_Review_of_Impacts_of_GHG_Emissions_on_the_US_Climate_July_2025.pdf ]
In your article, Andrew, Curry is quoted referring to a DOE Climate Report and I think that the above ‘Critical Review …” is that report.
I’ll also list two more:
3 A third resource is the IPCC AR6 (Sixth Assessment Report : Climate Change 2023)
[ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/ ]
4 Your own (major) publication on climate change is: Climate Alarm Reality Check : What You Haven’t Been Told / Andrew Urban. Wilkinson Publishing. Melbourne. 2022.
From the National Library of Australia catalogue record:
[National Library of Australia: https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/8675702 ]
Now I’d make some short responses to specific parts of your response to my comment:
No, although I did mention ‘denier’ in relation to Curry, my use of the term was only tentative … searching for the better word … and I think my “Curry’s position seems to be that human actions do contribute to climate change, but that these human actions [e.g., the burning of fossil fuels?] have not been shown to be the dominant cause of climate change“. Perhaps though, I would posit that she is a climate denier if that label applies to those who reject the thesis that human actions are the dominant cause of the changes in today’s climate. I’m not sure if this is her position or if her position is (more simply) that the thesis has not been proved scientifically (i.e. that it could still be true).
Previous to this, I had thought that so-called climate deniers were those who believed that the increasing release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (since the industrial revolution) was not responsible for the present-day changes in our climate … such as global warming. I had thought that this, too, was your position, Andrew. Was I wrong? And is the question now become: To what degree is the human release of greenhouse gases responsible for the climate change that is occurring?
Your “No self respecting scientist would call another well credentialled scientist such as Curry a contrarian” sounds like an assertion unsupported by fact … I believe that Michael Mann has referred to Curry as ‘contrarian’. I suppose that a discussion as to questions around your “No self respecting scientist” statement wouldn’t get us far, so I’ll ‘pass’ on that one.
Thanks for your warning to ‘beware of Wikipedia’ … I use it in a sensible way – that is, I usually check the references (i.e. footnotes, endnotes etc) in Wiki’s articles to assess the basis for assertions of fact which are ‘new’ to me and which are made in the body of any given article.
On the question of ‘consensus’, you included a quote, Andrew, which contained the following, “There is no survey or study showing “consensus” on the most important scientific issues, despite frequent claims by advocates to the contrary“. That claim seems to be incorrect. For example, Cornell University has published the results of a 2021 follow-up survey on consensus [with link to the journal publication of the survey] which showed an increase in consensus from 97% to 99% in peer-reviewed scientific literature: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change .
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change ]
You mention Happer and Lindzen … Happer I don’t know and Lindzen I did some homework on some time ago. It concerned something you’d published [in your ‘Climate Alarm Reality Check‘ book (p25) [ https://pursuedemocracy.com/2022/06/20/energy-crisis-a-failure-to-fact-check/ ] which I checked out and read [ https://thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/10/Lindzen-AnnualGWPF-lecture.pdf ] and had then commented on. In my opinion Lindzen had misrepresented the thrust of Snow’s famous ‘Two Cultures‘ address and had used it to support his own view on climate alarmism. Readers might google ‘Iris Hypothesis’ to learn a little about the worth of one of Lindzen’s theories. My view of his contribution to the climate change / global warming debate is that he uses polemical and rhetorical reasoning or debate to establish his claims rather than as a scientist using the publication of scientific papers to disprove climate change. This seems to me to be typical of climate skepticism … which attacks climate change claims while not providing its own scientific basis for its denialist views.
In writing that, I am yet happy and willing read any scholarly, scientific work which does demonstrate that non-anthropogenic factors are the dominant cause of the climate change that is now occurring. Climate change science predicted temperature and weather extremes, melting ice and warming/rising oceans. We now see regular media reports of temperature records being broken (e.g. hottest May day in Tassie ever recorded, warming ‘global’ temperature, onset of wildfires earlier than full summer, perma frost thawing and so on… )
‘One swallow does not a summer make’, neither does one record-hot day indicate climate change. But ‘climate’ is an aggregation and averaging of daily weather … and it seems to me that we are seeing more such daily ‘weather swallows’. Thanks for reading, if you made it this far – Garry.
Thanks Garry, as always, you make a good argument. I think your statement “climate skepticism … which attacks climate change claims while not providing its own scientific basis for its denialist views.” is the central issue in this debate. To unpack that a bit – ‘climate skepticism’ is shorthand for the claim that climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels. My position is aligned with those of scientists such as Judith Curry who I have quoted expressing the view that there is much uncertainty as to the exact drivers of change. That view also negates any claims of a scientific consensus, which is a term that is definitely not scientific. The scientific method disallows consensus to rule.
My main concern is that the politicisation of climate science since the very beginning of the debate, has led to terrible, destructive energy policies that have damaged the economy and made discussing the subject divisive and unreasonably antagonistic. That’s why I admire your approach; you avoid that intellectual pothole.
“France records hottest day ever as 40 people drown across country
National weather service, Météo-France, says Tuesday was the hottest day since measurements began in 1947 …”
[ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/23/heatwave-france-spain-italy-europe ]
Thanks for the weather report, Garry.