Nominate Judith Curry as the next Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change

With Rajenda K. Pachauri now “toast“, and an AR6 in the works, this is this most logical choice forward.

Judth_Curry_testimonyGuest essay by Tom Fuller

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:

Nominate Judith Curry as the next Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an organization created by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, will elect a new chair this year. The post is currently being filled by an interim chair following the resignation of Rajendra Pachauri.

The United States has currently nominated Dr. Chris Field. We petition the current administration to withdraw his nomination and instead nominate Judith Curry.

Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her integrity, understanding of the science and related policy issues make her a better choice, for the IPCC and American interests as well.

SIGNATURES NEEDED BY APRIL 03, 2015 TO REACH GOAL OF 100,000

Advertisements

175 thoughts on “Nominate Judith Curry as the next Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change

    • I don’t think she should be nominated. Why? She would give the IPCC some much needed credibility. I liked Pachauri there. 😉

      Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
      Napoleon Bonaparte

      Pachauri did more for sceptics than we fully understand. All Himalayan glaciers melted by 2035 via voodoo science! Sexual harassment allegations via ‘hacked’ emails, phones, hands and lips!

      • Dittos, jimbo, in fact, the whole commission needs to be re-created because CO2 has become too obviously impotent at dominating the global climate machine. With the recent admission of Micheal Mann that oceanic oscillation has explained the Pause the “Carbon Commission” Appears to be too narrow in it’s scope!

      • Yes, precisely, Jimbo. And Napoleon’s advice agrees with that of generations of martial arts instructors. As climate skeptics, our best move might be to lobby for Pachauri to get his job back. After all, the gravy train needs a good engine driver.
        I learned from Robert Heinlein’s novel Revolt in 2100 that when you want to topple a power structure, the surest strategy is to eliminate all the competent and reasonable officials and leave the incompetents in place.
        Moreover, who but a sadist would wish the IPPC chairmanship on Judith Curry? What has she done to deserve such a nightmarish job?

      • If we sceptics are right, then why do we need the IPCC? The IPCC was set up to look at man made ’causes’ of ‘climate change’ and mitigation. If our greenhouse gases means a negligible role in ‘climate change’, then why do we need the IPCC? Most of us say this is a non problem, our co2 output and a little warmth this century will be largely beneficial. Climate sensitivity looks to be on the low side. Model projections for surface temps have failed badly.

        IPCC: “It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.”

        It is not allowed to falsify?

  1. Holy smokes Tom, you don’t think Judy would hate this? Surely you ran it by her.
    I say this because of her comment here.

  2. It might well be a good idea, but I feel those involved with the IPCC would hate it. They do not want someone who may be more scientific, rather they want another alarmist.
    The only thing that matters to the pretend Nobel Laureates is the continuation of the gravy train!

    • I have no scientific training; should I volunteer my services from Australia? I could become used to it.

  3. Oh. After thinking this through I get that obviously the Obama Administration isn’t going to do this regardless, so…

    • Mark, I think you are right. Obummer would never do this, but… wouldn’t it be great to send a message to the commander-in-chief, several hundred thousand signatures, each a testament that he is full of crap! That would make a great headline story.

  4. If anyone truly wants to get at the truth about climate change, she is the best candidate out there. Her record speaks for itself. She should be trusted by everyone.

  5. How is Judith Curry qualified to be the new UN IPCC Chair? What exactly does she know about Remaking The World Economy and Transforming the world’s economic development model?

    • There was remarkably little attention in the media to that grand, sweeping sentence, don’t you think? What exactly does it mean? How is it to be accomplished?

    • Great questions Paul in Sweden. As someone once said regarding the UN: “who elected these guys to run the planet?”. That’s another great question.

  6. Dr. Judy Curry does not deserve such horrid treatment!
    That position is only a reward for a devoted alarmist EU bureaucracy a__ kisser. A balanced scientific perceiving scientist would suffer unduly receiving orders/advice from those toadys. Even trying to educate them is a cruel task for one person.
    Dr. Curry as head of NASA, Yes! Otherwise let her hold her current positions where she swings a high batting average.
    Nominate some CAGW government toady to go into the spotlight; then FOI them.

    • Dr. Curry as head of GISS, that’s the job for her. The Gavin choice was disastrous. First, they made him the PR shill by asking him to set up the realclimate website. After he rode out the rough seas of climategate successfully in that position, heavy-handed moderation and all and brazenly claiming the emails don’t say what the words in them plainly say, then what does GISS do? Make the PR flack the head of the whole darn thing! If that isn’t open admission that this is all about the politics and nothing about the science, then nothing is. But right now the IPCC job is open, and I think getting this petition to 100,000 is a great idea!

  7. Well, I don’t know about Ms Curry – but anyone wanting to take chair of the IPCC , from outside its current ranks – and who might wish to change its unscientific, mostly political approach – is likely to face very strong opposition and a hellish time in office! I certainly wouldn’t take the job without a VERY large salary AND an awful lot of INTERNAL SUPPORT from like minded people. Seriously, even though Curry has warmist sympathy, she (or anyone with even a hint of skepticism, let alone ‘real’ science arguments) would likely be completely ‘corrupted’ by the IPCC political meme, or completely overwhelmed and exhausted trying to fight against it.
    My advice would be to leave well alone – if for no other reason than to keep away from something that has become so big and onerous as to be unable to be changed. Also, whilst it may not be a good organisation, the political weight it throws around would mean any ‘head’ of such an organization would face severe degradation if and when the inevitable ‘fall’ does come! Put another way, how many here would like to have ‘I was head of IPCC’ on their CV in the coming years??

    • I wonder. Does the chair have the authority to appoint lead scientists for each area of the assessment? That would really put the fox among the chickens.

      • The joke is funny but we all know this isn’t how the IPCC works.
        If you want to do it for real find a well-connected, Chinese scientist who is not beholden to Western Government funding.

  8. A little off topic, but I gotta ask.
    What’s the ultimate goal here?
    Why day in and day out we sit in front of our screens discussing, blogging, trolling etc whether for informative purposes or just to instill fear into the psyche of the gullible . Is it all talk and no substance?
    After a while it just becomes so monotonous, and to what point…….why do it?
    I’m sure that for some, its simply there as entertainment, to expose the corruption and transfer of wealth associated with this subject of climate change/global warming or just because they have evidence that would suggest all this is nothing but propaganda.
    The point I’m trying to make is that it just can’t be done as a conversation, there has to be a point in which people actually use the info to better their own life….. and I have yet to see anyone reap the benefits from exposing the real agenda behind this subject; because I can tell you all now……. the tool that is being used to attack your personal freedom, your way of life….especially through private property- is this very subject of so-called climate change/global warming.
    If up until now people have yet to realize how agenda 21 is only made possible through global warming/climate change mongering……then you’ve got a lot to learn. who cares about all the stats, for this year and that year…. who cares about that b.s. about oceans flooding out major cties, or cares about emails….really? Its a red herring!!!
    THEN END GAME IS PROPERTY! that’s why I do this. Its all about property and through property the people shall be controlled. Its never been about pollution, C02 and climate….. at least not to them.
    Everything else all talk!

    • kenin – You have distilled this entire farce down to the Main Driver. While you may take ridicule for such subversive language – try saying “Agenda 21” around the water cooler at work and see what happens – all of the plans and methodologies are there, plainly written and available for all to see. CAGW is merely the tool that digs the grave for the modern, energy-driven way of life. Cue trolls: 1, 2, 3……..
      MCR

  9. Nice gesture, but the structure of the IPCC was set up to counteract the type of science necessary to properly address global climate. For a start, they are directed to look at only human causes.
    Second, each Report builds on previous Reports, so unless you go back to the beginning you are locked into assumptions and formulas that prevent reaching a truly scientifically derived approach. The system isn’t even set up to allow for a null hypothesis.
    Yes, possibly Curry should investigate climate change, but not under the rules, rubrics and procedures of the IPCC. There is a point where fixing the car is no longer an option. This point was reached before the IPCC was established.

    • Do you remember when Stephen Lewis was the U.N. Special Envoy on HIV / AIDS? He thought he could get things done. Instead, he discovered that the U.N. was set up to look like things were being done; all the while preventing any such thing. Roméo Dallaire had an even worse experience.
      Just because you have a high office at the U.N. it doesn’t mean you’re the one pulling the strings. Judith Curry doesn’t deserve that kind of abuse.

      • Commie Bob,
        You’re right. However…
        The chair of the IPCC has one really tremendous advantage: the bully pulpit.
        Whoever becomes the UN/IPCC chairman can make statements, and they are immediately newsworthy. If someone was the new chair of the IPCC and told the truth for a change, public awareness would rapidly increase, and people would really start to question the whole man-made global warming narrative.
        For that reason alone, they cannot place an honest scientist into that position.
        So Curry is out.

    • I agree. Tom, don’t you fear that stepping into an outfit like IPCC would do more to change Judith Curry than Judith Curry could do to change it? As Tim Ball says, the advocacy of fear is their raison d’etre. Take that away, and they are nothing. Why would anyone want to be in charge of deflating the world’s biggest balloon?

    • Tim, I agree. Curry couldn’t achieve much since the horses have been out of the gate for too long.
      The efforts necessary to manage/direct a turn-around would crush her physically and intellectually and should wouldn’t have the time to “do” science.
      All in all, the better solution would be to scrap the IPCC and for everybody to go back to real science instead of consensus-finding.

    • Tim Ball, 3/4/15 @ 9:16 am
      IPCC was established by UNEP and WMO in 1988 to assess the state of existing knowledge about climate change: its science, the environmental, economic and social impacts and possible response strategies. http://www.unep.org/documents.multilingual/default.asp?DocumentID=43&ArticleID=206&l=en
      Instead, and at most a decade later, IPCC altered its charter to be
      to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. Bold added, Principles Governing IPCC Work, 10/1/1998.
      In other words, the science is settled, it’s time to get on with the regulations and funding.
      The chairperson, like the charter, should neither now nor ever in the past have assumed AGW was anything more than a (now failed) conjecture. By its organization, IPCC is a political body, and that’s all it can be. It should be deprived of any mantle that it is a scientific body. That means as a minimum, don’t install a head with a reputation as a scientist, certainly never an AGW agnostic. Better, IPCC should be defunded and abandoned. Don’t even bother with an apology.

      • Jeff Glassman, you note correctly that the IPCC was set up in 1988 and it had a change in it’s charter look into “human-induced climate change” in 1998.
        I too note the following:
        • The IPCC was established in 1988.
        • The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO) was identified in 1994.
        • The Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) was identified in 1997.

      • Jimbo, 3/4/2015 @ 11:59 pm:
        • … AMO … identified … 1994. [¶] • … PDO … identified … 1997.
        OK. Therefore are you urging that these events establish that human-induced climate change exists? That it, HICC, is settled? That hence IPCC was justified in modifying its own charter circa 1998 to accommodate the newly discovered, now settled science?
        The new discoveries demonstrate that the causes of climate change are unsettled, at least among the consensus of IPCC climatologists. Regional effects, like the AMO and PDO, complicate, not account for, Global Warming. These are details, eddy currents in Earth’s response to global warming, evidence of the deep and surface currents which stir global warming — warming that happens to come from the Sun, and which is stored in the ocean for centuries to a millennium.
        Warming: absorbed from the Sun in the cold upwelling at the Equator, some to be given back across the cooling ocean surface, reloading with CO2 along the way (Law of Solubility, William Henry identified 1836), and heading to the main drains at the polls, where, dense from the temperature loss and the CO2 load, any remaining energy plunges to the bottom, to return, some here, a little there, but mostly at the Equator via the vertically rising, spiral currents (Vagn Walfrid Ekman identified 1902) to be reheated, to give up its CO2 load (back to Henry) to the atmosphere, and once again, less dense, to reenter the surface currents with their fine structure, like the AMO and the PDO. QED.
        Man is not in the loop. Neither is the IPCC.

      • Jeff,
        “Jimbo, 3/4/2015 @ 11:59 pm:
        • … AMO … identified … 1994. [¶] • … PDO … identified … 1997.
        OK. Therefore are you urging that these events establish that human-induced climate change exists? That it, HICC, is settled? That hence IPCC was justified in modifying its own charter circa 1998 to accommodate the newly discovered, now settled science?

        No, I believe he’s implying that once the science realized that there were actual physical phenomenon which could account for a lot of what they’d been seeing, the IPCC changed it charter specifically to avoid talking about those things and keep the discussion on how people are evil and need to be reined in.

    • Tim,
      You are absolutely right. I read down the comments until I found one that stated the purpose of the IPCC. Yours did it. Why would Dr. Curry want to be head of a agency whose job it was to prove CAGW?

  10. Just posted this at CE:
    “Dr. Curry,
    No disrespect to your wishes and expressed preferences, but I plan to add my name and here’s why. If nothing else, should enough folks express support you already substantial visibility might even grow. So folks, I ask that you ignore that our host has stated if selected she will not serve, but let’s make the best use we can of a reasonable voice.
    All those in favor:”

  11. I don’t think Dr. Curry would wish to have the job; and I think I don’t wish it upon her. Consider what she wrote on her blog yesterday:
    While I’m not sure why any scientist/academic would want this (unpaid) position that requires you to travel all over the world and deal with some nasty politics, it seems that there is a strong list of candidates, none of whom would appear to have anything approaching Pachauri’s conflicts of interest.

  12. Sounds good to me, but they will more likely pick someone from a deforestation country with good under reporting and deflection skills and UN report manipulation experience.

  13. I think Dr. Judith Curry would make an excellent chair of the IPCC. But I don’t see that happening. President Obama’s administration wants a warmist to chair the IPCC.

  14. I’m sure she would be a good choice, but a better petition is to junk the whole IPCC and its parent company the U N.

  15. a very sensible choice, the IPCC would regain some credibility, but it will not happen because they want an alarmist or an alarmist’s flunky.

  16. Surely James Hansen will get the nod.
    My head will surely explode.
    See – that would be their plan to kill off all the skeptics.

  17. Speaking of the IPCC … what I am about to mention is just totally strange. I just read a Daily Mail article about the email Jihadi John sent to the Mail back in 2011 or so. The title of the email (image of which was included in today’s article)? “The IPCC Document.”
    !!!!!!!!

    • Well, the fighting in Syria has been blamed on man-made climate change. Apparently the centuries long war among Kurds, Alawites, Shi’a and Sunni Muslims has nothing to do with it.

  18. But, but, but, Judith Curry is a “climate denier,” so my warmist alarmist acquaintences have told me.

  19. Whether Dr. Curry would accept remains to be seen. The nomination petition for her to seat the IPCC must be creating dirty britches among the alarmist camp. The mere thought of a true scientist at the head the IPCC will cause them irreversible and incontrovertible nightmares.
    Dr. Curry as leader of NASA sounds good to me.

    • If there ever be another GOP president, Soon, Baliunas & Curry are liable to hold positions of power in his or her administration

    • NASA… hmmm. Well, if that ever happens maybe we can have Steven Goddard (Tony) appointed to head NASA’s Goddard Institute.
      /sarc off, but it would be fun to see that/

  20. does anyone really believe the UN (or the governments controlling the decisions) cares who a bunch of skeptics thinks should be the next IPCC chairman?

    • Roy,
      Does a tree falling in the woods make a sound if there’s no one to hear?
      They certainly won’t care if we don’t make a sound. We know there is someone to hear, so if we make a sound we’ll have evidence if they chosing to NOT listen.

    • Roy,
      Actually, if Congress threatened to end US funding of the IPCC unless she were appointed, the UN might well heed a bunch of skeptics.
      The Obama Administration wouldn’t support her, but when it comes to the UN budget, no group on the planet carries more weight than the US Congress.

    • You are probably right Roy, I too doubt if Obama would nominate Dr. Curry for that position regardless of the number of signatures on a petition.
      Besides, Dr. Curry seems to believe in the scientific method and following proper science wherever it leads, and these attributes would automatically disqualify her for the IPCC job.
      Even so, if she would accept the nomination, I’d sign the petition.

    • Dr. Spencer, No, I don’t think they care.
      I signed, not because I think she would be nominated or accept if she were but to help “send a message” even if it will be ignored.
      To quote the Moody Blues, “It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave. Keep on thinking free.”

    • Probably not.
      As a US citizen could I sign a petition in the UK or Australia and have my signature count?

    • It’s for an international post not a US post. Yes it seems to be open to non US citizens. I signed it and it took my UK postcode or zip code and sent me a confirmation email. Yet to see my name appear on the displayed list though, so currently unsure if my vote got counted.

      • Update. My initials have appeared. It left my location blank as it couldn’t resolve a UK postcode to a US location. So non US citizens, dont hesitate, start signing.

  21. Great idea except for two little glitches. The IPCC bureaucracy would not want any part of her and she likely as not would want no part of the job.
    Now, if she decided to campaign for the position I’d be cheering her on!

  22. Bureaucracies tend to be self perpetuating in that Bureaucracies like bureaucrats; and then there is racism. With Hoesung Lee, a South Korean Economists in the hunt, Bon Ki Moon will anoint “by the blood” rather than on any measurable or rational criteria. Evil is as evil does.

  23. Dr. Curry is a scientist, not a politician. Dr. Curry has integrity, not a warped character. Such people do not do well presiding over evil empires. They never fix them and often succumb to the plots of underlings.

  24. I’d rather defund the IPCC entirely. That has about as much chance of happening as the current US administration nominating Judith Curry to chair it, but would be much more satisfying. I mean, as long as we’re all dreaming anyway.

    • Since the IPCC does no research, all the same research by independent scientists would still continue, with the same conclusions.

      • wsarrenlb
        If there were no IPCC then there would be no IPCC Reports to promote pseudoscience from ‘the Team’ while ignoring the research and its conclusions provided by independent scientists.
        Richard

  25. I signed the petition for Judith Curry even thought she is not a good fit. She is intelligent, open minded, rational, has demonstrated high level of integrity even in adverse situations, and importantly not an ideologue.
    This is not what the IPCC is looking for, but I voted for Judith Curry anyways as a show of support for her and her good work.

  26. Obama will be going to head the UN in 2017. He will appoint an Alarmist to head the IPCC.
    He will push for an Alarmist now that will be compatible the present gang of liars.

  27. First; would Dr Curry accept the job if it was offered to her? If not, it would be a waste of time nominating her, has anyone asked her?
    Second am eligible to vote since I am a UK citizen? If I was I most certainly would vote for her if the other conditions I mentioned above were fulfilled.

  28. I think it is horrible that any of you are thinking of nominating an actual human being for that position.
    ahem, no I will not serve
    But I’d like to offer a better non-human nomination – Bernie Sanders, the indistiguished Senator from my home here in Vermont, the State of Green Whatever.
    Think about it:
    + he could drop that stupid independent/socialist disguise and go straight for his fascism
    + he can scream non-stop for hours without a script (even he doesn’t know what he’s saying)
    + he already has a huge carbon faceprint and would be so honored with more, much more !!!
    + he has no idea whatsoever about science, but that never gets in his way
    + he can sell bird-beaters to GreenPeaceniks
    + he would provide decades of entertainment bashing
    + we’d get him the hell out of here and into a seriously meaningless position of apparent importance
    I believe I could go on . . . Obummer would LOVE Bernie
    Give Bernie a chance !!!!!!!
    don’t compromise Judith Curry

  29. The carbonistas would never accept her. What we need is someone from another branch of science with huge scientific stature and a well known reputation for impeccable scientific honesty.
    I call for … a moment of silence in memory of Richard Feynman.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Gone but not forgotten.

  30. I just signed but I have a couple questions.
    1) The IPCC is a UN body. It is presumably not up to Barack Obama to propose anyone for chair of the IPCC.
    2) The petition asks for a zip code, implying a US address. Surely the creator of the petition, having had a great idea, realises that there are a few of us residing outside the US.

    • This is only for who the US would nominate, people from other nations will be nominated as well, and an american may or may not get the position.

  31. Someone above suggested Anthony Watts for IPCC president. Less likely to succeed than Judith but if you really want to be controversial, suggest Willie Soon as IPCC president.

    • A first rate candidate for IPCC president would the GWPF director Dr Benny Peiser – see his testimony at the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Video available on GWPF website.

  32. hmmm found this not sure how reliable it is but these have been suggested
    High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6339dc50-bc16-11e4-b6ec-00144feab7de.html#ixzz3TRwvWs1G
    Frontrunners to succeed Pachauri
    Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a Belgian physicist who is one of three vice-chairs of the IPCC and a specialist in climate change modelling and the study of the impact of human activities on the climate.
    Hoesung Lee, another IPCC vice-chair, is a South Korean academic whose research centres on the economics of climate change, energy and sustainable development.
    Thomas Stocker, a Swiss climate scientist, is professor of climate and environmental physics at the University of Bern and has been a senior author of several IPCC assessments, including the most recent one finalised last year.
    Chris Field, another senior IPCC author, an American who is professor of environmental studies at Stanford University and founding director of the Carnegie Institution’s department of global ecology.
    linky…
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6339dc50-bc16-11e4-b6ec-00144feab7de.html#axzz3TRwmHKsS
    all seems rather incestuous

    • Not to mention that Chris Field was one of ten recipients of the 15th Annual Heinz Award with special focus on the environment in 2009. He received $100,000.
      The Heinz Award is the same Heinz that is married to John Kerry.
      Something smells rotten.

  33. This might be as dangerous for her as if Ron Paul had been elected prez and attempted to dismantle the federal reserve.
    I would vote for her if I could.

  34. The big question …. would she allow Christopher Monckton to speak at IPCC conferences?

  35. I know nothing about Chris Field, but the IPCC will not be improved with an academic of environmental studies as its chair–too light weight. And Obama’s nominations for any position are all suspect. After enough Trojan Horses even the Trojans catch on.

    • better the economist – I mean, let’s just cut to the chase here
      or they could have a run-off: the shaken carbonated beverage melee at 5 paces in a threesome until the fatal capacity of CO2 is clearly demonstrated, not modeled . . . thinking YouTube here, or ESPN

  36. Only if she does something about her hair.
    But then Patchy has set the tonsorial bar low.

  37. I can not bring myself to assign such a burden to Judith Curry, without her prior assent to such martyrdom. I do not think any person could significantly shift the UN IPCC focus from their entrenched confirmation bias to honest debate and high integrity science, without being given near dictatorial control of the entire operation.
    And that will not be allowed to happen!

  38. As a duplicitous and thoroughly discredited entity, this is the right time to disband an organisation based on a fabricated premise.
    AGW is a lie, why compound it? It seems posters hear are in love with the the idea of spending taxpayers time and money, as long as it suits their agenda.

  39. To me it dosn,t matter who is sitting in the chair they will still have to face a cooling world and keep the fraud going

  40. I think Judith would make a good choice. FWIW we’ll end up with a much more balanced report. She’s big on uncertainty and there’s a lot of that in climate science…

  41. Not that I don’t think she wouldn’t do a thousand times better at the job than Pachouri, and give a disreputable organization some instant scientific credibility, but why would she want the job of wrangling a bunch of activists who despise her and would try to undercut and torpedo her at every turn?
    I think she went on record a year or so ago saying it’s time for the IPCC to shut its doors. I agree with that. No new boss. No AR6. No more IPCC. And if the IPCC does go on, the U.S. government should withdraw, and not pay for any of it’s operations, nor for membership, travel or expenses for any of scientists now on the payroll, nor to allow them to attend except on their own free time at their own expense. And it should withhold and reduce all such funding from research grants from the NAS, NIH, NOAA, NASA, DOE, EPA and every other Federal Department or Agency. No more DOE “good idea” payouts, either. What a bunch of corrupt thievery those have invited.
    It’s time to end the funding of the slop trough.

  42. Opinion: The IPCC and Obama are not interested in a reasonable and scientific finding regarding climate science. It gives them no mandate to expand power and control. A climate centerist like Dr. Curry would not be considered for a leadership role, nor would Dr. Curry ever be made welcome as the head in the organization as it exists today. And if the organization doesn’t continue as it does it will quickly be defunded and replaced with a proper climate hysteria organization that will deliver what is expected.

  43. If the Obama administration nominated Curry one thing would be certain… global warming would stop dead in its tracks as Hell froze over.

  44. There are only 391 votes for Judith at present, not sure if that represents the number of people that would condemn her to a living hell, or the 97% that wouldn’t.

  45. I think this is going to backfire when it turns out to get less than 1000 signatures. The opposition will use that as further “evidence” of “overwhelming support” for their position. And the signatures from outside the US are going to generate additional scorn.
    I live in the USA and signed it, but it’s like spitting in the ocean of propaganda that the mass media keep pouring out.

  46. I believe that James Taylor – the crooner of “”You’ve Got A Friend” fame – and best buddy of our esteemed Secretary of State, John Kerry, should be the next Chair of this reputable organization.
    He would be most effective in suggesting that those evil climate deniers be given good jobs, good education and other opportunities usually afforded to white males, to convince that that in the 2 billion year life of planet earth, the ONLY thing that causes climate to change – you know, ice ages and the like – is the activity of humans.
    That’s my vote !!!
    Who will second the motion ??
    Hear hear !!!

  47. Judith Curry doesn’t seem very interested in the job:
    IPCC in transition
    Posted on March 3, 2015 | 426 Comments
    by Judith Curry
    Perhaps she can be persuaded to pursue the opportunity to serve …

  48. My impression is that the next Chair of the IPCC will be quietly negotiated by the leaders of a handful of ‘strategic’ countries based solely on the home country of the candidate rather than any worthy qualifications.
    I think it is likely that the next chairman of the IPCC will be Chinese because it would be the politically nuanced move to attempt to have the Chinese omebe more inclusive in the belief system.
    NOTE: That said, I would support Curry if she were to actively seek the appointment to Chair of the IPCC.
    John

  49. Editorial correction to my comment ‘John Whitman on March 4, 2015 at 3:48 pm’
    The second paragraph should be changed to read “I think it is likely that the next chairman of the IPCC will be Chinese because it would be the politically nuanced move to attempt to have the Chinese omebe be more inclusive in the belief system.”
    John

  50. It’s positively the last thing JC should even contemplate doing, or permitting her name be put forward to do so. She would find herself immersed in a toxic, politically biased, bath of greenpus. From her current position she is free to proffer scientific commentary and informed critques that carry not only considerable gravitas but remain unencumbered by the constraints of politically motivated (C)AGW religious zealotry

  51. It’s not gonna happen, so sign up and get the protest numbers out there. I doubt if JC would accept, but it’s a nice thought that she might turn down the post, giving her reasons. Dream on, eh?

  52. But, Prof. Curry is a Scientist, with integrity and honesty. The question is, would she turn it (IPCC) around and rid it of the corrupt political influence, or would her influence be curtailed? It could prove to be somewhat frustrating for her. Bearing in mind, it’s purpose is to promote the nonsense. Any about turn would render it no longer fit for purpose.
    So, how would it play out with Prof. Curry at the helm? She would certainly raise it’s credibility.
    Eamon.

  53. A couple of hours ago my vote was 455.
    …I hope I don’t get buried with discount coupons from the White House for CO2 detectors and Global Warming umbrellas.

  54. I think Monckton is better suited to cleaning up ipcc. Could someone turn off the heat in raul grijivala’s office. Let feel the effect of global warming.

  55. Dear Prof. Curry if you did this, you could choose who you wanted to audit. best of luck.

  56. I have tried to sign the petition. It says that for my signature to register, I must wait for an email with a confirmation link. It has not arrived all day. How are others managing to sign?

    • bones
      it arrived in a few minutes. There is no ‘confirm your email’ section so perhaps you just mistyped? Why not try again?
      tonyb

  57. More lame ideas, Mr. Tom Fuller? What a waste of time.
    We don’t want any dirty, stinking, rotten and corrupt UN intergovernmental panels at all, since this invention is just a vehicle to pave the way for the NWO.
    Nobody wants any dirty, stinking, rotten and corrupt NWO.
    It’s the merger of Stalnism and Fascism on steroids and they will create the biggest mass murder in the history of human kind un the name of saving the planet.
    Please wise up and read UN Agenda 21 and http://green-agenda.com
    Thank you.

  58. Don’t reform the IPCC. Ditch the IPCC. Lukewarmers and moderates will just cost you slower, not less. While there is an IPCC there will be more and more white elephants to trample the economies of the West. Say no to the IPCC and no to white elephants. Actually, don’t say…yell.
    Nobody knows what the climate will be like a month out from now, so nobody should open their yap one millimetre on the subject of future climate. As for telling us to prepare for uncertain eventualities and extremes, we already have people for that. They’re called engineeers, and white elephants just get in their way and soak up funds and cred for sensible projects. The climatariat does not have a message. The climatariat IS the message.
    So absolutely no IPCC.
    Tango the QANGO out the door.

  59. The IPCC is not an organization of scientists. It was created to provide ‘scientific’ cover for those promoting the fiction of catastrophic, anthropogenic, ‘global warming’. Its sole aim was, and is, to give a false legitimacy to a foregone conclusion, in the service of an anti-capitalist, ‘global governance’ agenda. That mission is the antithesis of the scientific method. It is a job for time-servers and bureaucratic hacks. I cannot imagine anyone with integrity going to work there.
    The IPCC should be abolished and its ashes strewn to the far corners of the Earth.
    /Mr Lynn

  60. You’re asking us to denominate Dr. Chris Field. A picture of him with a mention of his accomplishments and any of your objections to him would be nice.

  61. .Judith would undoubtedly be an ideal choice. But it’s naïve to expect a political organisation to appoint a scientist with the appropriate qualifications, simply on merit. The appointee needs to be a political mercenary to reach the appointee level. Someone who believes that money trumps science and can live the lie and still sleep at night. I believe that she possesses more integrity than to join those climate clowns parading before the MSM.

  62. Appointment is NOT a winning strategy.
    The IPCC, UNFCC and WMO and UN and their bureaucrats are EVIL.
    Their destruction will win the day.
    What to do.
    Rendition, Detainment and Forget.
    The CIA’s “black prisons” in Europe, Africa, and southeast Asia are still operational.
    Rendition: capture the bureaucrats of the IPCC, UNFCC and WMO and a Mr. Bon Ki Moon.
    Detention: send the bureaucrats to the former CIA black prisons.
    Forget: with the bureaucrats stripped naked in the bolding cels, lock the doors and gates. Walk away.
    Without tools to escape the bureaucrats will scrum to their “animalistic instincts”, barbarism, sodomy, cannibalism. In short order they will kill themselves, and eat the evidence.
    A fitting end to Bon Ki Moon, by his most … beloved. Sad … his Beloved is without … a nice Chianti and Fava Beans.

  63. Just signed the petition.
    We’re up over 800, with only 99,200 to go by April 3rd!

  64. I’m sure she has the scientific integrity, but the IPCC is not a global science forum, it is a global forum requiring the translation of up-to-date scientific agreement, disagreement, agreement to disagree and refusal to disagree amiably into policy recommendations for governments.
    My view is that you need a scientific head-honcho who oversees the writing of the scientific summaries and you need a different leader to focus on the translation of that science into policy.
    I agree that you need that second person to be every bit as full of integrity as the scientific leader. But you also need that person not to be filled with political dogma, rather to present choices available to politicians which may travel in different directions depending on political viewpoints, financial constraints or bureaucratic realities.
    What you want from that second person, however, is the ruling out of options demonstrably shown to be inappropriate, unworkable or financially irresponsible. That could involve pointing out that the cost structures of certain technologies do not make them economically acceptable at this time, that certain technologies would not be competitive in certain geographies and that certain data sets do not yet permit certain conclusions to be drawn.
    I would like to see discussions about:
    1 How likely is it that the next 25 years will see continued temperature stasis due to lower solar activity through cycles 24 and 25?
    2. If that gives us a technological window of 25 years to create and commercialise certain renewable energy technologies on a timetable which is not driven by fear of runaway global warming, which technologies would be most beneficial to develop on that timescale?
    3. How much of a risk do scientists consider there to be from high solar output during cycles 26 and 27??
    4. If so, what adaptation scenarios should be undertaken during a 25 year window of stasis, if any??

    • rtj1211
      You suggest

      My view is that you need a scientific head-honcho who oversees the writing of the scientific summaries and you need a different leader to focus on the translation of that science into policy.

      Sorry, but that is back-to-front:
      the IPCC decides policy then translates that policy into ‘science’.
      It is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with its political summaries. And this is proper because all IPCC Reports are political documents although some are presented as so-called ‘Scientific Reports’.
      Each IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice when prior to the IPCC‘s Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,

      We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.

      This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then.
      This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed. However, it has been adopted as official IPCC procedure for all subsequent IPCC Reports.
      Appendix A of the most recent IPCC Report (the AR5) states this where it says.

      4.6 Reports Approved and Adopted by the Panel
      Reports approved and adopted by the Panel will be the Synthesis Report of the Assessment Reports and other Reports as decided by the Panel whereby Section 4.4 applies mutatis mutandis .

      This is completely in accord with the official purpose of the IPCC.
      The IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science and it does not.
      The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.
      This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC.

      These are stated at
      http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
      Near its beginning that document says

      ROLE
      2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

      This says the IPCC exists to provide
      (a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
      and
      (b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.
      Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”. Any ‘science’ which fails to support that political purpose is ‘amended’ in furtherance of the IPCC’s Role.
      The IPCC achieves its “Role” by
      1
      amendment of its so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to fulfil the IPCC’s political purpose
      2
      by politicians approving the SPM
      3
      then the IPCC lead Authors amending the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to agree with the SPM.
      All IPCC Reports are pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism.

      The IPCC is a political organisation but you seem to have the mistaken idea that it is a scientific organisation.
      Richard

    • “The influence of global warming deniers, consisting of a small group of scientists plus others that are motivated to deny global warming…” – Judith Curry, 2006
      “Gore’s statement in the movie is that we can expect more storms like Katrina in a greenhouse-warmed world. I would agree with this” – Judith Curry, 2006
      “We’re looking at a much worse [Hurricane] risk than people were thinking about a year ago …some places are going to become uninsurable.” – Judith Curry, 2006

      • “Gore’s statement in the movie is that we can expect more storms like Katrina in a greenhouse-warmed world. I would agree with this” – Judith Curry, 2006

        Who better than someone who has drunk the Kool-Aid and has subsequently had to throw it up?
        What revulsion must Dr. Curry feel for having been gulled thus? How resentful must be her regard for the catastrophe quacks?
        Nothing like the reformed sucker, eh?

  65. The IPCC is a political organisation but you seem to have the mistaken idea that it is a scientific organisation.

    😎
    If all the IPCC ever concluded was, “Yes, the climate changes at times. We don’t know why. We’re trying to find out.” then they might approach being a scientific organization. But they already know the only “why” they want to know. They were founded on it.

  66. Gunga Din
    You say

    If all the IPCC ever concluded was, “Yes, the climate changes at times. We don’t know why. We’re trying to find out.” then they might approach being a scientific organization. But they already know the only “why” they want to know. They were founded on it.

    What they may or may not “want to know” is not relevant. The reality is:
    If all the IPCC ever concluded was, “Yes, the climate changes at times. We don’t know why. We’re trying to find out.” then they might approach being a scientific organization. But they already know the only “why” they must assume and are allowed to consider. They were founded to promote the assumption and their documented “Role” demands that they do.
    I explain this in my post you quoted.
    Richard

  67. Why nominate Judith Curry? She does not understand the Law of Entropy. It is gravity which “traps” thermal energy, not back radiation. There is solid empirical evidence now in a vortex cooling tube that centrifugal force produces a temperature gradient, as does the force of gravity. The evidence is here along with the explanation based on the laws of physics.
    This is what climatologists need to understand ….
    Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
    The second law of thermodynamics (the entropy law or law of entropy) was formulated in the middle of the last century by Clausius and Thomson following Carnot’s earlier observation that, like the fall or flow of a stream that turns a mill wheel, it is the “fall” or flow of heat from higher to lower temperatures that motivates a steam engine. The key insight was that the world is inherently active, and that whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a potential or thermodynamic “force” (the gradient of a potential) exists that the world acts spontaneously to dissipate or minimize. All real-world change or dynamics is seen to follow, or be motivated, by this law. So whereas the first law expresses that which remains the same, or is time-symmetric, in all real-world processes the second law expresses that which changes and motivates the change, the fundamental time-asymmetry, in all real-world process. Clausius coined the term “entropy” to refer to the dissipated potential and the second law, in its most general form, states that the world acts spontaneously to minimize potentials (or equivalently maximize entropy), and with this, active end-directedness or time-asymmetry was, for the first time, given a universal physical basis. The balance equation of the second law, expressed as S > 0, says that in all natural processes the entropy of the world always increases, and thus whereas with the first law there is no time, and the past, present, and future are indistinguishable, the second law, with its one-way flow, introduces the basis for telling the difference. [source]
    That is why in a planet’s troposphere there is homogeneous molecular (PE+KE) when entropy is a maximum and so there are no unbalanced energy potentials. And that is why there is a temperature gradient formed by gravity and not by back radiation from water vapor, carbon dioxide etc.

  68. Why nominate Judith Curry? She does not understand the Law of Entropy. It is gravity which “traps” thermal energy, not back radiation. There is solid empirical evidence now in a vortex cooling tube that centrifugal force produces a temperature gradient, as does the force of gravity. The evidence is here along with the explanation based on the laws of physics.
    This is what climatologists need to understand ….
    Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
    The second law of thermodynamics (the entropy law or law of entropy) was formulated in the middle of the last century by Clausius and Thomson following Carnot’s earlier observation that, like the fall or flow of a stream that turns a mill wheel, it is the “fall” or flow of heat from higher to lower temperatures that motivates a steam engine. The key insight was that the world is inherently active, and that whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a potential or thermodynamic “force” (the gradient of a potential) exists that the world acts spontaneously to dissipate or minimize. All real-world change or dynamics is seen to follow, or be motivated, by this law. So whereas the first law expresses that which remains the same, or is time-symmetric, in all real-world processes the second law expresses that which changes and motivates the change, the fundamental time-asymmetry, in all real-world process. Clausius coined the term “entropy” to refer to the dissipated potential and the second law, in its most general form, states that the world acts spontaneously to minimize potentials (or equivalently maximize entropy), and with this, active end-directedness or time-asymmetry was, for the first time, given a universal physical basis. The balance equation of the second law, expressed as S > 0, says that in all natural processes the entropy of the world always increases, and thus whereas with the first law there is no time, and the past, present, and future are indistinguishable, the second law, with its one-way flow, introduces the basis for telling the difference. [source]
    That is why in a planet’s troposphere there is homogeneous molecular (PE+KE) when entropy is a maximum and so there are no unbalanced energy potentials. And that is why there is a temperature gradient formed by gravity and not by back radiation from water vapor, carbon dioxide etc.

Comments are closed.