Posted 22 March 2013

Two Australian scientists, Drs Judy Ryan and Marjorie Curtis are challenging Professor David Karoly, of the Schoool of Earth Sciences at University of Melbourne, to provide scientifically justifIed evidence for his claims that humans are causing dangerous global warming. Drs Ryan and Curtis have agreed to our website posting the exchange of emails betweem themselves and Prof Karoly.

**Exchange of emails between Drs Judy Ryan and Marjorie Curtis and Professor David Karoly, in which the latter is challenged to **
**provide scientific evidence for his claims of man-made global warming.**
**(Start reading from the bottom upward) **
On 19/03/2013, at 3:25 PM, Judy Ryan wrote:
Dear Professor Karoly,
Thank you for your reply dated 28th February 2013.  However, you misjudge Dr Curtis and myself when you say that you do not think that we can change our opinions on anthropogenic global warming. Obviously we can because we are real scientists. We look at the evidence for both the null and AGW hypotheses and change our minds accordingly. I changed from being a believer of the “ scientific consensus” for AGW to being skeptical of it about a year ago. The question is, are you a real scientist Professor Karoly?   If you are not then you are receiving taxpayers money under false pretenses. In our opinion that is fraud.
Professor Salby is a real scientist because he changed his mind  on the basis of the definitive evidence of satellite observations.  It’s a sad indictment of the peer review process that Professor Salby's  ground breaking research has to appear on YouTube before it appears in a peer reviewed journal. However, when the people of Australia are made fully aware of the non scientific behavior of climate alarmist advocates, such as yourself, they will demand justice. The peer review process will be scrutinized and, those who have misused it will be held accountable.
Regarding the three references you have provided, I could not access the first one by Hegerl and Zwiers 2011. Please respond within two weeks of the date of this email and attach a copy of the paper.
I have looked  at the second reference Zhang *et al*  2010.  I must admit to being very disappointed as on the last page of the paper they make the important caveat “that the effect of natural external forcings, such as solar and volcanic forcing, have not been considered.”  Yet, in your email of 15th January to me you stated that all climate models assessed by the IPCC include solar. Which statement is true and which is false Professor Karoly?  You have not responded to my first email dated 13th January 2013, with one single study supporting the AGW hypothesis that includes solar and other natural forcings. 
Therefore we conclude that your statement in the first email was untrue. In our opinion this is also fraud.
If you had not dismissed the CSIROh document, []( , as irrelevant opinion I doubt you would have included the Australian Academy of Sciences report” The science of climate Change: Questions and Answers “(2010) as your third reference.  
By failing to respond to the CSIROh document before the cut off date of the 1st March 2013 given in the registered delivery confirmation letter you have agreed that there are no significant errors or inaccuracies in it. 
Are you deliberately misleading when you state, in your email dated 28th February, that a well known climate change skeptic was one of the fellows that reviewed the Academy’s report? You omit to mention that the particular fellow refused to have his name associated with the document. However, as appendix 8 in the CSIROh document states the respected atmospheric physicist professor Garth Paltridge refused to have his name on the document. His name is missing on the back of the document, yours is there.
Appendix 8 of the CSIROh document is a methodological analysis of the purported evidence in the Australian Academy of Science’s report. ”The science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers (2010).” The conclusion drawn from the evidence is that it ‘simply parroted the UN IPCC and other prominent advocates of the notion that human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming.” We think you underestimate the value of the CSIROh document.  It is an excellent piece of investigative writing, which we believe can be a valuable evidential document in a court of law.
My understanding is that an internationally prominent sceptic is collecting material worldwide for pursuing alarmist advocates in court for fraud. I have heard that the person intends pursuing fraudsters in their country of residence and perhaps internationally in the international court. My view as to what should occur in Australia is that every academic advocate who received a delivery confirmed registered delivery of the CSIROh document should be required to defend themselves against the charge of fraud individually in the court. As you are the most prominent academic climate alarmist advocate in Australia, Professor Karoly, it seems only logical that you should be the first to be held to account.
One of the most damaging false statements continually repeated by CAGW advocates, such as yourself, has been the claim of overwhelming scientific consensus (i.e. 97% in support of the CAGW hypothesis). Over the decades you have frequently used words describing scientific consensus for either AGW or Climate Change Professor Karoly.  The people of Australia have trusted you to report the truth but, it seems you have deliberately misled them. There was never any scientific consensus.  []( .The facts are that the number 97 stems from a 2008 master’s thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman .[]( 
The student and her supervisor chose to report only the views of 77 participants out of the original 10,257. They then reported 75/77, in other words 97% scientific consensus for CAGW, on the basis of just two questions related to whether the respondent thought that human activities were causing the global mean temperature to rise.   Not even a mention of atmospheric CO2 levels in either of those questions.
The peer review process will be scrutinized to ascertain why such a weak distorted survey was ever published. I doubt that it could really be a peer reviewed paper. However, if it was, the reviewers will be required to give their reasons why they considered it acceptable.  Further, those scientists, such as yourself, who have eagerly seized on that figure, and quoted it *ad nauseam* will be asked to explain why they did not check the methodology of the survey first.  The fact that they actually endorsed this paper raises serious questions about their competence and/or integrity.
A recent methodologically sound survey, where there were no exclusions, published in the peer reviewed journal “Organizational Studies” November  2012 []( reports that from a sample of 1077 earth scientists and engineers only 36% supported the AGW hypothesis, catastrophic or otherwise. 
Within three weeks of the date of this email we expect to hear you publicly reporting the results of this later survey on the ABC TV and radio both morning and evening news. We also expect to hear you unequivocally retract the 97% scientific consensus figure at the same time.   
We suggest that you meet with the Managing Director and Chairman of the Board for the ABC, both of whom have received registered post with delivery confirmation letters from Malcolm Roberts, and facilitate the news broadcasts immediately. Every day that you continue to conceal the true scientific facts from the people of Australia is one more day that they will hold you accountable. 
In the meantime Dr. Curtis and I will continue increasingly in our endeavors to get the true scientific facts to the people of Australia. It is our duty as ethical scientists to do so.
As you can see we have copied in the Canberra Times, the Sydney morning Herald, The Age and the Australian. We have also copied in the West Australian, and the Farrago. We will being sending the paper version of this email to the Chancellor of The University of Melbourne and the ABC Managing Director and Board by post.
However, as you can see we have also copied in many more individuals and organizations  who we think are concerned about the issue of the collapse of scientific integrity. Other scientists and interested individuals, including some members of federal parliament are BCC’d  in order to protect their privacy.
Dr Judy Ryan
Dr Marjorie Curtis
PS The complete thread is listed below.
On 28/02/2013 at 11:28 PM, David John Karoly <[](> wrote:
Dear Dr Ryan,
I did not reply to your earlier email message because I do not expect you to change your opinions on anthropogenic climate change, no matter how much evidence or how many peer-reviewed journal publications that I provide you with. 
I suggest that you consider the following review papers, the evidence they contain and the associated references:
Hegerl, G., and F. Zwiers, 2011: Use of models in detection and attribution of climate change. *Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Climate Change*, **2**, 570-591.
Stott, P. A., N. P. Gillett, G. C. Hegerl, D. J. Karoly, D. A. Stone, X. Zhang, and F. Zwiers, 2010: Detection and attribution of climate change: a regional perspective. *Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change*, **1**, 192- 211. 
I also recommend that you consider the evidence and references in the report by the Australian Academy of Science, which was peer-reviewed by Fellows of the Academy, including one well known climate change skeptic:
The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers (2010)
I received the correspondence from Malcolm Roberts. I do not intend to respond to his document. He is welcome to his opinions. They are not based on the scientific method. If and when they are published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, I will reply. 
You may assume anything you like about the  truth or otherwise of the opinions in what Mr Roberts writes. The best way to test the scientific accuracy of those opinions is to test them by submitting them for publication in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal.
I am still waiting to receive the copies of the peer-reviewed publication by Prof Salby supporting his opinions on climate change and the relationship between greenhouse gases and global temperature change.
I do not intend to reply to any further correspondence from you.
Best wishes,  David Karoly
PS Why did you refer to me as Professor Flannery in your email? Is it because you are sending the same email to multiple scientists?
**Prof David Karoly**
School of Earth Sciences
University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, AUSTRALIA
ph:  +61 3 8344 4698
fax: +61 3 8344 7761
email: [](
On 26/02/2013, at 2:47 PM, Judy Ryan <[](> wrote:
Dear Professor Karoly,
 We have not received an answer to our email of  the 2nd February requesting evidence in the form  a specific research paper which disproves the null hypothesis in favour of your Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis (CAGW) . Therefore, we are resending our correspondence to date  electronically and by snail mail, as  you may feel more comfortable  reading it in a reclining position.  However, we have also now seen the CSIROh! document produced by Malcolm Roberts. We note that he has sent you a copy of this document by delivery confirmed registered post and has given you until the 1st March to respond detailing anything significant that you think is inaccurate in that document. 
We are also very interested to see your response to the CSIROh! document and as it is now widely available on request we have included it again for you.  If we don't hear back from you within two weeks of the date of this email we will assume that everything in that document is true. We will proceed with our  actions to  bring the truth to the people via the australian media outlets.
We also feel that australian citizens have a right to know the facts of the status of the situation now. Therefore, we have copied in the Canberra Times, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian and The Age. Other scientists are BCC'd in order to protect their privacy. 
I have been skeptical of CAGW ever since I first heard about the climate gate emails. Dr Curtis has been a skeptic much longer. The problem with us pesky skeptics, Professor Flannery, is that our number is swelling day by day,  so it is imperative that you provide some evidence for your CAGW hypothesis.   As the australian people  are waking up to what many describe as fraud your reputation is at stake. The people feel that they have a right to have their questions answered truthfully on the basis of current scientific knowledge, and we have heard whispers that some are considering mounting a class action.
Dr Judy Ryan
Dr Marjorie Curtis
 On 02/02/2013, at 2:14 PM, Judy Ryan <[](> wrote:
Dear Professor Karoly,
As you have not responded to my email of the 16th January I am resending it. The copied recipients are The Canberra Times, The Australian, my Federal Labour and Liberal members, and Dr Marjorie Curtis who agrees to cosign these emails with me. Other interested scientists are BCC'd to protect their anonymity. We are still waiting for you to provide the scientific evidence that underpins your ascertains of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAWG) . We have provided you with just a little of the peer reviewed evidence for the null hypothesis, which as you know, should stand until the evidence supports an alternative hypothesis.
As you will be aware Craig Thompson has been charged with around 150 cases of fraud and will be required to face a court of law. If you do not have evidence that CAGW is occurring, but have continued to support it against evidence to the contrary, in my opinion, you have committed fraud.  If this becomes known the public outrage against Craig Thompson for misuse of funds  will fade into insignificance compared to how you have used your generous funding. 
So its in your best interest to provide the scientific evidence for CAGW, or whatever else you want to label it, now.
Dr Judy Ryan
Dr Marjorie Curtis [](
On 16/01/2013, at 7:01 PM, Judy Ryan <[](> wrote:
Dear Professor Karoly,
Thank you for your reply,
I have read the references at the end of the Commissions  report, but I cannot find one that is actually providing evidence for AGW.  Please provide a peer  reviewed paper that provides scientific evidence for global warming at significance level 95%.  It is important that that the null hypothesis is actually disproved at a high significance  level before political action that can damage  the lives and mental health of Australian citizens, let alone the Australian economy, is instigated. 
Please also provide the references for  the  climate models that the IPCC accepted as evidence for AGW.  I refer you to the work of Professor Wolfgang Knorr titled 'Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?' in the journal 'Geophysical Research Letters' Vol 36 2009.  []( .
He reexamined the data,including its uncertainties . As table 1 shows, of  the seven different results for the fit of statistical data, 4 of them showed   negative trends (anthropogenic CO2 emissions decreasing) one of which was 85% significant. The other three positive trends, one of which was  the comparison paper by Canadal *et al *2007 were not statistically significant even  at the 85% level.
I cannot provide you with Professor Salby's research until it is published, but I certainly will then. Meanwhile you can view his presentation on youtube []( .
Please correct me if I am wrong Professor Karoly, but I believe you and and your colleagues submitted a paper  recently  for publication in a peer reviewed journal. Evidently the reviewers pointed out that there was a mistake in the statistical analysis that distorted the results and you  agreed to resubmit it.  However, evidently you never did. I, and probably the many other australian citizens who have provided your funding, would be reassured to read  any recent paper by you in a peer reviewed journal that provides solid evidence, as apposed  to policy recommendations, for AGW. 
Finally, I checked the email that I sent you ,and my local paper,  and my labour and shadow Federal ministers are clearly copied in. The scientists who are blind copied  in are not disclosed in order to protect their identity. Sadly, political corruption and bullying is at an alarming level in Australia.  Our CSIRO is under investigation for work place bullying. Scientists who provide evidence supporting the null hypothesis  are subjected to vitriolic abuse and threats. Their offices are vandalised and their webpages are crashed. 
Government institutions including the ABC can no longer be trusted to tell the people the truth. It seems that Australia seems to be one of the worst countries. In America NASA has finally rebelled against political bullying. In England the Bureau of Meterology has published evidence that the latest global warming period ceased about sixteen years ago.
Hopefully Australia will not be far behind.
Dr Judy Ryan
On 15/01/2013, at 7:18 AM, David John Karoly <[](> wrote:
Hi Judy,
Thanks for your email message. The peer-reviewed journal publications and
other assessments that support my statements and the recent Climate
Commission report are included at the end of the Commission's report. I
have attached that again, as you appear not to be aware of the details.
You refer to Murry Salby's research that natural variations are driving
recent climate change. I would be grateful if you could send me his
peer-reviewed publications on that subject. I am now aware of any.
You refer to IPCC models. I assume that you are referring to climate
models run by many climate research centres around the world, which have
been assessed by the IPCC. These models do include changes in solar
activity in simulations for the last 150 years, as well as and separate
from changes in greenhouse gases due to human activity.
There are many studies that show that AGW is occurring that are not based
on climate model simulations. These have been assessed in many reviews,
including by the Australian Academy of Science in its report " The Science
of Climate Change: Questions and Answers"
I have received research grant funding from the Australian government for
the last three decades, including from both liberal coalition and labor
Best wishes,  David
PS Your email below that I received from you did not appear to be copied
to anyone-else that I could see.
Prof David Karoly
School of Earth Sciences
University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, AUSTRALIA
ph:  +61 3 8344 4698
fax: +61 3 8344 7761
email: [](
On 13/01/13 4:24 PM, "Judy Ryan" <[](> wrote:
Dear Professor Karoly,
I heard you on the ABC news last night using the unscientific, but
suitably alarming, latest political buzz word " catastrophic" in relation
to weather, fires and global warming. Could you please provide evidence
to support your claim that these predicted catastrophic weather events
are based on anthropogenic rather than natural causes. I refer you to
Professor Salby's work, which indicates that it is natural variation that
is driving climate change.
Please provide evidence for AGW that is not based on the IPCC models, as
they did not factor in solar activity.  As you are probably aware NASA
has had a paradigm shift and are now focussing on solar activity as a
major factor. NASA reports that they were politically bullied into
promoting anthropogenic causes.
Our CSIRO is under investigation  for workplace bullying also, and has
been discredited as an objective scientific institution.
If global warming is occurring you are doing a great disservice to the
Australian people by leading them to think they can change the climate,
rather than adapt to it.
I notice that you are funded by the current labour government. As one of
the many who have provided that money, I think that I, and the rest of
the australian public are entitled to see the evidence.
I have copied in my local newspaper and my local MP and shadow MP. I have
also BCC'd  other scientists who will be interested to read your response.
Judy Ryan PhD

Next Post Previous Post