Dear Dr. Curry………..Bullsh%^

I was reading your piece Dr. Curry about loss of trust and at first I thought you might just be slightly misguided in your understanding until you uttered this absolute piece of BS:

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.

Dr. Curry you, just like every other scientist, keep harping about “Big Oil” funding skeptics, even when you try to use it in a backhanded way, but you continue to ignore the fact that it was you scientists that are rolling in “Big Oil” money. Here is some Inconvenient Truths for you Dr. Curry: 

The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia was founded by Big Oil.

The CRU was founded in 1971 as part of the university’s School of Environmental Sciences. The establishment of the Unit owed much to the support of Sir Graham Sutton, a former Director-General of the Meteorological Office, Lord Solly Zuckerman, an adviser to the University, and Professors Keith Clayton and Brian Funnel, Deans of the School of Environmental Sciences in 1971 and 1972.[4][5] Initial sponsors included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.[5] The Rockefeller Foundation was another early benefactor, and the Wolfson Foundation gave the Unit its current building in 1986. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit 

The CRU continued to seek funding from Big Oil and even let Big Oil companies set the research agenda:

Mick Kelly and Aeree Kim (CRU, ENV) met with Robert Kleiburg (Shell International’s climate change team) on July 4th primarily to discuss access to Shell information as part of Aeree’s PhD study (our initiative) and broader collaboration through postgrad. student project placements (their initiative), but Robert was also interested in plans for the Tyndall Centre (TC). What ensued was necessarily a rather speculative discussion with the following points emerging.

1.Shell International would give serious consideration to what I referred to in the meeting as a ‘strategic partnership’ with the TC, broadly equivalent to a ‘flagship alliance’ in the TC proposal. A strategic partnership would involve not only the provision of funding but some (limited but genuine) role in setting the research agenda etc.

2. Shell’s interest is not in basic science. Any work they support must have a clear and immediate relevance to ‘real-world’ activities. They are particularly interested in emissions trading and CDM.

3. Robert seemed to be more interested in supporting overseas (developing world) than home/EU studentships, presumably because of the credit abroad and their involvement in CDM. (It is just possible this impression was partially due to the focus on Aeree’s work in the overall discussion but I doubt it.) It seems likely that any support for studentships would be on a case by case basis according to the particular project in question.

4. Finally, we agreed that we would propose a topic to this year’s MSc intake as a placement with Shell and see if any student expressed interest. If this comes off we can run it under the TC banner if it would help.

I would suggest that Robert and his boss are invited to the TC launch at the very least (assuming it will be an invite type affair). Question is how can we and who should take this a step further. Maybe a meeting at Shell with business liaison person, Mike H if time and myself if time? I’d like to/am happy to stay involved through the next stage but then will probably have to back off.

We didn’t cover the new renewable energy foundation.

Mick Kelly

11 September 2000

http://junkscience.com/FOIA/documents/uea-tyndall-shell-memo.doc

Just incase you don’t know the Rockefeller foundation gets most of its money from the shares it owns in Exxon/Mobile the great “boogeyman” that is suppose to be funding the skeptics.

So as shown from the very beginning in 1971 the CRU, the scientists working there and their research was funded by BIG OIL not the skeptics. Now that we have shown that it is the alarmists that are shilling “Big Oil’s” position and policies that would make them even more money, lets move on.

You see Dr. Curry the problem at this point isn’t loss of trust since climate scientists lost that years ago when as a collective group you buried your heads in the sand regarding the Wegman Report. 

Dr. Wegman pointed out in his report years ago the core issues that showed up in Climategate. Climategate isn’t discovery for most of us skeptics, it’s vindication that we are right. The time to regain that trust is long past now, your community has to atone. I will probably get flack for this but the only comparison I can give for what needs to happen to the climate sciences is what happened to Germany after WWII. For Germany it was de-nazification, for climate science its de-alarmisification.

So here it is Dr. Curry is what needs to be done IMO:

1. Every single climate scientist that is part of the self called “team” to be barred from science for the rest of their lives.

2. Every Scientist that called a skeptic a denier is barred from the climate sciences and working with public funds.

3. Every climate scientist that stood by and watched this trainwreck happen after they had been warned by Dr. Wegman in his report needs to sign a written apology to be printed in the leading papers around the world.

Harsh? You bet, but just like after WWII this is what needs to be done. You see Dr. Curry scientists just like you kept silent and did nothing to reprimand Dr. Mann when his “Hockey Stick” was shown to be nothing more then a product of flawed statistics. You stood silent when Dr. Wegman pointed out that “peer review” in climate science was “pal review” instead. You stood silent when the “team” kept trying to resurrect the “Hockey Stick”. You stood silent when Dr. Mann and the “team” continued to be shown using data in improper ways.

Just like how the German people stood by and watched what happened and did nothing the “mainstream” climate scientists did the same so asking for forgiveness now is too little, too late its time to pay the piper for the tune you let be played.

For those that want to read Dr. Curry’s article you can find it here:

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/discussion-of-trust/

or here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/24/on-the-credibility-of-climate-research-part-ii-towards-rebuilding-trust/

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: