On the eve of the Amazon’s release of Mark Steyn’s self-published book, “A Disgrace to the Profession,” his petulant attack on climatologist Michael Mann, I’m launching this web page to provide a compendium of quotes about Judith Steyn–Curry (click to understand why her last name has been hyphenated with Steyn’s). As you can see, I’m calling this page, “Judith Curry: Creating a False Narrative of the Climate Debate.” I realize the title isn’t very compelling. Unlike Steyn, I don’t have an editor to help me come up with a better one. To my credit, my title is at least accurate.

Why was this page created? Unlike Mann, Judith Steyn-Curry doesn’t have the good sense to refrain from engaging in public character assassinations of colleagues. Steyn-Curry was a contributor to Steyn’s book attacking Mann, a book that she has also been shamelessly promoting on her blog. Unable to debate the actual science behind Mann’s hockey stick graph which is supported by no less than three dozen papers, Steyn-Curry is forced to ride the coattails of third rate showmen like Steyn engaging in cheap publicity stunts to further his career as a polemicist.

But if it’s into the sewer she wants to go, follow her we must. It would be a travesty to let attacks by sleaze merchants against good people like Mann go unanswered. So let’s get started, shall we?

Quote #9, September 9, 2015

Judith Curry’s put up a silly guest post by Rud Istvan saying that climate change poses no water supply problems to Caribbean islands. [link]

— Brian Schmidt, PhD, 2011 Nobel Prize Winner in Physics

THE reflections:  Curry’s sources of information on her blog are not reputable.

Quote #8, September 8, 2015

Curry doesn’t even really read her own papers let alone have a clue about anyone else’s. [link]

— William M. Connolley, PhD, Oxford

THE reflections:  For more on Judith’s weak reading comprehension skills, see this post on the Hotwhopper blog.

Quote #7, September 7, 2015

For it to be a bridge to some outside world, the bridge should remain grounded at the original place as well. Your strong and broadbrush accusations towards your professional peers, and the lack of criticism towards empty talking points and conspiratorial thinking make you lose that grounding imho…In effect, your accusatory framing comes across as very tribalist. [link]

—Bart Verheggen, PhD, York University

THE reflections: Curry pretends to be an unbiased, fair-minded arbiter between the established scientific community and the skeptics. But her constant digging at prominent scientists in the field who are outspoken about the problem of man-made climate change gives away the fact she’s anything but objective. Dr. Verheggen calls her out on it.

Quote #6, September 6, 2015

The “Italian Flag” analysis, at least as implemented by Judith Curry, is incoherent nonsense. She displays no clarity of thought on what the categories actually mean, or whether there is any workable calculus underpinning the whole thing.[link]

— James Annan, PhD, Founder of Blue Skies Research

THE reflections: Curry’s “Italian Flag” analysis that Annan refers to is laid out on her blog post, “Waving the Italian flag. Part I: uncertainty and pedigree.” Maybe I’m just a dumb denier, but I couldn’t figure it out, either.

Quote #5, September 5, 2015

Judith: Statistics is a branch of mathematics. Right and wrong are strictly defined. These papers are wrong in the mathematical sense of the word. I think you have done a disservice by lending your credibility to these papers. [link]

— Richard Tol, PhD, Former IPCC Lead Author

THE reflections: We don’t agree with all of Richard Tol’s positions or statements regarding climate change, but we do agree with him that Curry’s blog is a fountain of science disinformation. Tol made the above comment on Curry’s blog about two papers she was promoting on her blog. Also see his other comment to Curry where he writes, “by giving air time to two papers that you should have known are flawed, you deliberately spread inaccurate information.”

Quote #4, September 3, 2015

We’ve seen a lot of strawmen from Judy lately. It is frankly shocking to see such a good scientist take that kind of a turn to sloppy thinking. I have no explanation for it. [link]

— Stephen H. Schneider, PhD, Stanford University Professor

THE reflections: Dr. Schneider was one of the most well-respected scientists in the climate debate. He was also fearless. Watch him politely but firmly take on a room full of Australian skeptics just a few weeks before his death in 2010.

Quote #3, September 2, 2015

In future I will simply assume you are a conduit for untrue statements rather than their originator. And if we are offering advice, might I suggest that you actually engage your critical faculties before demanding that others waste their time rebutting nonsense.  [link]

— Gavin Schmidt, PhD, Director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies

THE reflections: These are Dr. Schmidt’s comments to Judith Curry after she cited the bogus arguments of denier, A. W. Montford, against Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph. After Schmidt took the time to point out to her that Montford was full of shit, she tried to claim that Montford’s objections were not hers. And then, without providing any specifics, she said Schmidt’s response was “full of logical fallacies.” Curry has a long history of hiding behind other people’s arguments instead of putting forth her own. It frustrates everybody. Definitely click the source for the link and read the comments to get a sense for how baffled everyone is by Curry’s off-the-wall and unprofessional behavior.

Quote #2, September 1, 2015

[Curry] mouths off without having done her homework, then tries to back off. [link]

— William M. Connolley, PhD, Oxford

THE reflections: Click the link that this quote came from and then read some of the comments about Curry. This is a woman who is not known for clear thinking.

Quote #1, August 31, 2015

Much of where Curry goes wrong is in creating a false narrative of the climate debate. [link]

— Joe Romm, PhD in physics, MIT

THE reflections: Our first quote is, appropriately, eponymous. This quote sums up everything Steyn-Curry’s career has been about over the past six years. Once a respected climate scientist, Curry broke ranks and pinned her career hopes on becoming a rebel by joining with deniers after Climategate broke. Unfortunately for her, things didn’t work out too well. Now that her career in science is in the toilet, her mission is to create doubt about the science of climate change where there is none. I think she is likely positioning herself for a career as a policy expert where she would be paid handsomely as a consultant by those looking to delay legislation to address climate change.

Stay tuned, many more quotes are on the way. Tweet your suggestions to @HellerExposed.