Judith Curry is biased because the state of Georgia denies evolution

I used to hear regularly climate scientist Robert Grumbine was a rational voice in the climate debate. Very balanced, sensible etc. I recently ran into Grumbine’s theory for why fellow scientist Judith Curry turned climate skeptic:

Grumbine’s comment: Intelligent

Curry became a skeptic to fit better with her Georgia colleagues who do not believe in Darwinian evolution and therefore do not believe in anthropogenic climate change –  so goes Grumbinian convoluted logic. His association with the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), it appears, helps makes such impressive leaps of logic.

For those not in the know, the National Center for Science Education is a ridiculous organization devoted to ‘fighting’ creationism and intelligent design in schools. They fight the good fight by filing court cases, making speeches and hosting such articles as Am I a Monkey by Francisco Ayala and the appropriately titled The Dawn of the Deed: The Prehistoric Origins of Sex by a John F Long.

As arrows of causality fly, it is infinitely more likely the NCSE glommed on to climate change as a cause than Judith Curry became a skeptic to please her neighbours. Why hold back from the vistas of activist opportunity climate change affords? Grumbine modestly admits it might have been he who egged the NCSE onto climate change.

Curry, on the other hand, informs us her skepticism comes at a cost at Georgia Tech.





  1. omnologos

    Anything that is on ATTP, inevitably gets all the hallmarks of mental unhealthytude.

    That site is such a magnet for distorted thinking. Coincidence?

  2. stewgreen

    scientists and integrity. NSCE brought in a person to head it’s climate education programme.. his first act was to fraudulantly obtain info from Heartland and then publish it in a cunningly misrepresentative way : one Peter Gleick.
    – How scientific does Grumbine’s argument on Curry seem ? ..Not at all, he is desperately clutching at straws.

  3. omanuel

    JoNova and David Evans may confirm that Earth’s climate is driven by the Sun’s deep-seated magnetic fields (and the X Force) from the Sun’s compact innards (Fe-mantle and/or pulsar core).


    See: “Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate,” J. Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002): http://www.springerlink.com/content/r2352635vv166363/

  4. Shub Niggurath

    Russel, your link led me to other Grumbine comment streams at Climate Audit. I am thinking much of the credit that has gone his way was from self-serving enthusiasts who saw what they wanted to see.

  5. Russell Cook (@questionAGW)

    My summer ’08 joust with Grumbine happened barely 6 months after my full-time foray into the AGW issue, and the way he couldn’t bring himself to fully print out my comment (‘cherry-picking’ it instead http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/07/petitioning-on-climate-part-2.html?showComment=1219838160000#c5376355245379851128 and then adding to it in his comment after) simply set the table for me to see how enslaved AGWers are to distracting the public away from spotting all the massive holes in the IPCC.

    Since late 2009, my entire focus has been on the biggest distraction, the smear of skeptics as paid industry shills, most famously promulgated by alarmist anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan. For laugh’s sake, I often drop names into a google search alongside Gelbspan’s to see what comes up, and sure enough with Grumbine, he pops right up as having a hearty stamp of approval from Desmogblog here http://www.desmogblog.com/summer-reading , where he himself places a comment there to thank the Desmog people for the kind words. Keep in mind, Gelbspan says just 8 seconds into this audio interview https://soundcloud.com/sciencepope/ross-exposing-coal-media that he founded Desmogblog.

    Grumbine wuvs Desmog’s John Mashey (whose oldest blog there http://www.desmogblog.com/blog/john-mashey?page=3 dates from 2011, but who began commenting there in ’08 http://www.desmogblog.com/comment/290344#comment-290344 ). Grumbine did a nice write-up the man here http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/09/climate-and-computer-science.html saying “John is one who has been spending serious effort at learning the science”. Sorry, no, Mashey is like so many others who learn only the AGW side of things while discounting skeptics as paid crooks. One of my major victories was to prompt Mashey to disclose over at a Tamino blog comment how Desmog had the PBS Frontline “Climate of Doubt” people looking at his work on skeptics receiving ‘dark money’. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/horseshit-power/#comment-74988

    Such is the biggest wipeout from the AGW side, that guilt-by-association = more than enough evidence to indict. As I pointed out in my own bit on the ‘dark money = corruption’ pushers ( http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=1237 ) skeptics criticize the idea of man-caused global warming, an action that saints and axe murderers can do. When Grumbine, Mashey, Oreskes, Gore and Gelbspan can’t provide a scintilla of evidence to prove illicit money paid for fabricated skeptic reports, all they are doing is adopting an anti-science and anti-intellectual notion as an excuse to ignore skeptics’ science-based criticisms.

  6. John Farnham (@opit)

    Russell Cook “. When Grumbine, Mashey, Oreskes, Gore and Gelbspan can’t provide a scintilla of evidence to prove illicit money paid for fabricated skeptic reports”
    I’ll go with this point as evidence all is more about ‘winning’ than truth : when you don’t have anything to go on, Shoot the Messenger. Poisoning the Well is an effective prejudicial technique – a propaganda staple.