• Home
  • Current News
  • Aussie Alarmists in Spin as Government Climatologist Prof Karoly is Cornered

Aussie Alarmists in Spin as Government Climatologist Prof Karoly is Cornered

Written by

Aussie skeptics say they have one of their nation’s top climate alarmist professors cornered in an ongoing battle of words over who holds the high ground on scientific integrity. Scientist, Dr Judy Ryan and her colleague, Dr Marjory Curtis are going public with a series of damning emails they’ve had with government-backed promoters of fears about man-made global warming.

Their latest target is Professor David Karoly, a climatologist who they claim dishonestly championed a government campaign to depict human carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions as black smoke, contrary to scientific fact.

Dr Ryan reports, “On 18th February 2014 I sent an email to David Karoly with Marjory Curtis, a retired geologist, as my co-signer. Approximately 180 australian and overseas media outlets, politicians, universities, including their student newspapers, and prominent climate hysteria mongers were openly copied in.”

Ryan and Curtis are among many highly-qualified scientists who, as skeptics of the wrong-headed hysteria over supposed man-made global warming, are fighting to restore scientific integrity.

Dr Curtis says Karoly’s “error” over the CO2 as black smoke “may have been a fortuitous oversight” for the cause of alarmists who some say are trying to dupe the public on the issue.

Judy Curtis has advised Karoly all the correspondence, because of its significance to public policy, will be published as open letters. She says, “We replied 21st February and added in our fellow skeptics. So there are now close to 220 observers for Karoly’s next response. To date we have not heard back, but it is early days yet.” 

The first letter and Karoly’s immediate response are below.

As with many independent scientists frustrated with the apparent bias of government climatologists, Ryan understands that such public emails are becoming a powerful tool and she provides many helpful tips on how to formulate and send them. She tells readers “Feel free to copy, paste and use  them, and if you have questions you only need to ask.”

18th February 2014

Dear Professor Karoly,

We have been writing to you for a year requesting that you provide one credible study that supports your hypothesis of catastrophic, human caused global warming (CAGW). You have not been able to provide one. The  letters and your responses are all on the public record https://www.facebook.com/DavidKarolyEmailThread?ref=hl

In March 2013 we issued you the opportunity to either renounce your alarmist claims on the ABC news, or publicly provide empirical data-based evidence, that is available for scientific scrutiny, to support them. 

Almost a year has passed and still you have not provided the evidence.

We remind you that the Australian people are experiencing financial disadvantage as a result of the host of policies and administrative decisions driven by advice regarding the science of climate change. Is that advice false or misleading? Does it deceive by concealing or omitting or embellishing or misrepresenting relevant facts?

 The definition of fraud is, according to Blacks Law Dictionary, quote: a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.

According to Malcolm Roberts author of the CSIROh! report  http://www.conscious.com.au/CSIROh%21.html , you are prominently involved in many taxpayer-funded climate bodies fomenting unfounded climate alarm. One of your roles is that you are Editor-In-Chief of the Bureau of Meteorology’s (BOM’s) in-house journal. On page 10 of his report’s Appendix 7, Malcolm Roberts cites Peter Bobroff’s analysis, quote: “Publishing the research. The Bureau of Meteorology has its own in-house journal: the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal (prev Aust. Meteorol. Mag.). The editor-in-chief responsible for the defence of the scientific method, elimination of all types of bias, automatic release of all relevant data and code is none other than David Karoly the strident proponent of human causation of future catastrophic global warming. The BOM itself has taken a strong partisan position on the subject.


Despite your BOM responsibilities, Malcolm Roberts adds, quote: “Yet David Karoly has repeatedly publicly contradicted empirical scientific evidence”.

According to their website you also appear to be BOM’s principal author. Graphs on the following pages were obtained or produced by various independents non-aligned examiners and auditors of BOM records. Are you are the author of the original regional temperature data or graphs used by BOM?

Every graph shows that the raw data, which shows either a flat or downward (cooling) trend has been “adjusted” to a warming trend.  Are you are associated in any way with producing BOM’s adjusted graphs? If so, in our opinion it is very misleading of both you and the BOM personnel to adjust the data to the extent that it misrepresents reality. We also think that it is very misleading of both you and BOM  to omit to declare to the Australian people  that you have “adjusted” the raw data.

Ryan fig 1


Ryan fig 2


Ryan fig 3


Ryan fig 5


Ryan fig 6


Ryan fig 7


Ryan fig 8



Ryan fig 9

Under Australia’s strong democracy no one is above the law. Judges, politicians, scientists, academics, senior public servants, and managing directors can be held to account for breaching their fiduciary duty.

It seems that you have prominent roles across many taxpayer-funded entities promoting unfounded and unscientific claims of anthropogenic global warming and contradicting empirical scientific evidence. Your many prominent roles place you at the hub of the web of such agencies. You have thereby positioned yourself perfectly for answering our fundamental and straight-forward questions. As taxpayers and concerned scientists we look forward to your evidence based response. It is not a good look if you do not acknowledge this very public letter.

In closing, if there is anything we have said that you think is untrue please click reply all and let us know and we will apologise.

Dr Judy Ryan

Dr Marjorie Curtis


David Karoly clicked “Reply All” and sent this email within 24 hours.

On 19 Feb 2014, at 6:11 am, David John Karoly <dkaroly@xxxxxx.au> wrote:

Hi Judy,

It’s interesting to receive another of your emails as they keep me amused.

If you are so convinced that I have committed fraud, I recommend that you pass the evidence to my employer, the University of Melbourne; the major funder of my research, the Australian Research Council, and to the police. In the past, your claims have been considered and dismissed, as have those from Malcolm Roberts. I am sure that you will find that further evidence of a conspiracy.

All the evidence of the human causes of global warming is assessed thoroughly in the 5th assessment report of the IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, available at http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

The specific chapter on human causation, Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional

 Is available at http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf

No doubt you will again refuse to accept this evidence.

I have no idea what you mean when you state “you also appear to be BOM’s principal author”. 

I am not “the author of the original regional temperature data or graphs used by BOM”.

I recommend that you contact the Bureau of Meteorology or look carefully at their web site for the sources of their data and the reasons for the adjustments to minimise inhomogeneities.

As always, I keep your emails and refer them to the legal office at the University of Melbourne.

David Karoly


Prof David Karoly

School of Earth Sciences

University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, AUSTRALIA

ph:  +61 3 8344 xxxx

fax: +61 3 8344 xxxx

email: dkaroly@xxxxxx.au




From: Judy Ryan <judyryan@xxxxxx.com>;

Subject: [execnzcsc] Re: Do These Temperature Graphs Represent Reality? That is the Question

Date: 21 February 2014 10:29:49 am AEDT

To: David John Karoly <dkaroly@xxxxxx.au>;Dear Professor Karoly, and about 220 other observers


Dear Professor Karoly,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

 I have included other scientists, including past and present IPCC reviewers in this reply to you. These scientists are much more conversant with the Working Group Ones final, final report than either Dr Curtis or I.  But, I assure you I have read Working Group Ones final draft report, which was released to the public as an unapproved draft.  Dr Curtis and I will be looking and learning as we see the evidence  from the final, final report unfold.

 In your response below you have stated that you are not the author of the original BOM temperature graphs. But, you have not answered the second part of the question.  

It is an honest, straightforward, legitimate question. 

Professor Karoly, are you the author of the BOM’s  adjusted/homogenised graphs shown below?

Please click Reply All and answer the question.

We look forward to your prompt response.

Respectfully yours

Dr Judy Ryan

Dr Marjorie Curtis

P.S. Dr Curtis and I  will appreciate your courtesy in addressing both of us in your correspondence.  Marjory has been an active skeptic for more than three decades, and as many of her students know, she is a force to be reckoned with.




Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments (9)

  • Avatar



    The year 2013 was when climate “scientists” finally revealed their cheating hand clearly enough for everyone to fully understand without any need to rely on statistical experts and thus a call to authority. That peer review in the top journal Science allowed a bizarre data re-dating artifact to afford a Michael Mann vindicating hockey stick blade, well, that’s just a pure and defiant power play rather than just another arcane statistical black box only experts can understand. This single plot of the input data and the included screenshot of mathematician Mann’s promotion of it to the media, demonstrates clearly as can be that climate “science” peer review is corrupt in the extreme, putting each and every contemporary climate “science” study in doubt because of it:


  • Avatar

    Judy Ryan


    Re the question, are you associated in any way……. More evidence has emerged and we will be sending Karoly another public email in the next couple of weeks.


  • Avatar



    Great work Judy and Marjory!! I had no idea that Dr David Karoly was central to the BOM and CSIRO misleading us on the Climate in our region.

    I am not quite sure what you meant by your question “Are you are the author of the original regional temperature data or graphs used by BOM?”, but it had the useful outcome that Karoly denied it.

    Hence his failure to answer the second question “Are you are associated in any way with producing BOM’s adjusted graphs?” amounts to an admission.

    Quite clever really.

    Yours Peter Champness

  • Avatar

    Greg House


    [quote name=”Judy ryan”]Maybe it would be useful if we started compiling a global skeptics group email list.[/quote]

    Email list, I see.

    By the way, Judy, have you started reviewing the central point of the “climate policy”, the “greenhouse effect” as presented in the IPCC reports yet? John was optimistic about that, that’s why I’d like to know if you made any progress.

  • Avatar

    Judy ryan


    Thank you Thomas Fox. There is a critical mass of skeptics all over the world now. By adding to these comments you help to increase our network. We are an important part of what some call the internet revolution. We will use the power of the internet to spread the evidence, and hold the climate hysteria makers accountable. My email address is judyryan46@icloud.com Maybe it would be useful if we started compiling a global skeptics group email list. But, who’s going to do it?

  • Avatar

    Thomas Fox


    Doctors Ryan and Curtiss, I salute you.
    You demonstrate much bravery and integrity in taking on these well funded lying, cheating, socialist alarmists and subversive extremists known as climate scientists..or delusional psychotics for short.

  • Avatar

    Judy ryan


    Thank you Mervyn.

    Karoly has made a mistake by showing his arrogant side in a public letter. We will make good use of it.

  • Avatar



    Interesting how Karoly states to Dr Judy Ryan, “It’s interesting to receive another of your emails as they keep me amused.”

    It demonstrates the arrogance of Karoly… typical of all those who honestly believe they are untouchables in their quest to sustain the IPCC mantra.

    I sincerely wish Dr Ryan all the best in holding these climate change charlatans accountable.

  • Avatar

    Judy ryan


    Thank you PSI for putting these graphs up. As ethical scientists, Marjorie and I join with all the others in the fight to restore scientific integrity. Corrupt climate alarmists will be held individually accountable. It is only a matter of time and they will not rest easy while they wait. A couple of small corrections to the above.(1) Our campaign to hold Karoly accountable is not about the portrayal of CO2 as black. That campaign is directed at climate alarmists in the Public Service bureaucracy. (2) PSI could you please put up the graph for the raw data for Rutherglen.

Comments are closed