My response to Dr. Judith Curry’s unconstructive essay

UPDATE: Dr. Ben Santer says, “Mr. McIntyre’s unchecked, extraordinary power is the real story of Climategate.”

UPDATE: Dr. Ben Santer, one of the country’s leading climatologists, has a devastating essay on “Climate Auditing — Close Encounters with Mr. Steven McIntyre,” at RealClimate, which I reprint at the end.

UPDATE 2: Turns out McIntyre shills for Big Oil after all (see below).

Dr. Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has a long, but ultimately unconstructive essay on her website, “On the Credibility of Climate Research, Part II: Towards Rebuilding Trust.”

Aside from some factual misstatements and the false equivalence that suffuses piece, the essay makes no useful contribution to the climate debate because it fails the two great tests of any serious essay on the subject:

  • She never defines her key terms like alarmism — different readers can read completely different things into her main points. And if you challenge a statement, she can just say she meant something else.
  • She never spells out her answer to the key question of our time, “If you were running national and global climate policy, what level of global CO2 concentrations would be your goal and how would you achieve it?”

What precisely is the point of engaging someone in discussion if they won’t spell out their view of what climate science says will likely happen on our current path of unrestricted emissions and precisely what they would recommend we do? Doing nothing — or indeed doing a lot but not enough — risks “potentially devastating effects for billions of people” (something even the WashPost editorial writers understand), so this isn’t a philosophical or academic debate.


The scientific literature now makes clear that the consequences of inaction are likely to be quite extreme, one might even say alarming — see my book or An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water. Or see the definitive NOAA-led 13-agency report on US impacts — Our hellish future: Definitive NOAA-led report on U.S. climate impacts warns of scorching 9 to 11°F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90°F some 120 days a year “” and that isn’t the worst case, it’s business as usual!

And the much-less-likely-but-still-plausible worst-case scenario is now well beyond alarming: UK Met Office: Catastrophic climate change, 13–18°F over most of U.S. and 27°F in the Arctic, could happen in 50 years, but “we do have time to stop it if we cut greenhouse gas emissions soon.”

If this unproductive piece were by almost anyone else, I wouldn’t waste a lot of time on it, but let’s dive in.

One thing to say upfront. Curry conflates a great many issues, in particular, whether a very small number of climate scientists (whom she never names) have acted as professionally as they could have (something I might be sympathetic with her on) with a completely different issue — whether a large number of climate scientists should be clearly articulating to the public the multiple catastrophes we risk and what we should do about it — and sort of condemns them both. My response should not be taken as saying I disagree with everything she writes, only 1) it is impossible to know what she really means and 2) the places where she is dead wrong undercut whatever value she might bring to the debate.

Another thing to say. I have known Dr. Curry for many years. I have interviewed her a number of times and quoted her work on the hurricane-warming connection at length for my 2006 book, “Hell and High Water: Global Warming “” the Solution and the Politics.” Later, I spent a day giving talks with her in various Florida cities. She reviewed large parts of my book and heard my give a couple of talks and I’ve never once heard her dispute my characterization of the science. Her past public statements and articles on climate change can be found here (though some links are dead). Back in 2007, she wrote a response to Bjorn Lomborg in the Washington Post, which would appear to me to be at odds with the thrust of her current essay, so I confess I no longer have any idea what she believes.

Much of where Curry goes wrong is in creating a false narrative of the climate debate:

Here is my take on how global warming skepticism has evolved over the past several decades.

In the 1980’s, James Hansen and Steven Schneider led the charge in informing the public of the risks of potential anthropogenic climate change. Sir John Houghton and Bert Bolin played similar roles in Europe. This charge was embraced by the environmental advocacy groups, and global warming alarmism was born. During this period I would say that many if not most researchers, including myself, were skeptical that global warming was detectable in the temperature record and that it would have dire consequences.

Well, Hansen et al have been quite vindicated by observations, and the scientific literature is quite clear that unrestricted emissions would have “dire consequences” — though again, the term is meaningless if not defined.


Curry claims she isn’t calling Hansen and Houghton “alarmists” — you can be the judge of that, but it seems to me like she is blaming the messenger. What precisely are scientists (and environmentalists) supposed to do when they are science predicts inaction leads to dire consequences?

The traditional foes of the environmental movement worked to counter the alarmism of the environmental movement, but this was mostly a war between advocacy groups and not an issue that had taken hold in the mainstream media and the public consciousness. In the first few years of the 21st century, the stakes became higher and we saw the birth of what some have called a “monolithic climate denial machine”. 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.

Again, since “alarmism” is undefined and all enviros are lumped together, the paragraph reads as all things to all people.

Curry commits a major error, I think, in making this all about a few personalities and not the science. This was never about Hansen or Houghton. As one review article noted:

In July 1979 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, Jule Charney, one of the pioneers of climate modeling, brought together a panel of experts under the U.S. National Research Council to sort out the state of the science. The panel’s work has become iconic as a foundation for the enterprise of climate change study that followed (Somerville et al. 2007). Such reports are a traditional approach within the United States for eliciting expert views on scientific questions of political and public policy importance (Weart 2003).

In this case, the panel concluded that the potential damage from greenhouse gases was real and should not be ignored. The potential for cooling, the threat of aerosols, or the possibility of an ice age shows up nowhere in the report. Warming from doubled CO2 of 1.5°-4.5°C was possible, the panel reported. While there were huge uncertainties, Verner Suomi, chairman of the National Research Council’s Climate Research Board, wrote in the report’s foreword that he believed there was enough evidence to support action: “A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late” (Charney et al. 1979)

Huh. So in 1979 the uber-credible, uber-cautious NRC was already warning of the risks of inaction. Alarmists!!! Back to Curry’s version of events:

In 2006 and 2007, things changed as a result of Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” plus the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, and global warming became a seemingly unstoppable juggernaut. The reason that the IPCC 4th Assessment Report was so influential is that people trusted the process the IPCC described: participation of a thousand scientists from 100 different countries, who worked for several years to produce 3000 pages with thousands of peer reviewed scientific references, with extensive peer review. Further, the process was undertaken with the participation of policy makers under the watchful eyes of advocacy groups with a broad range of conflicting interests. As a result of the IPCC influence, scientific skepticism by academic researchers became vastly diminished and it became easier to embellish the IPCC findings rather than to buck the juggernaut. Big oil funding for contrary views mostly dried up and the mainstream media supported the IPCC consensus. But there was a new movement in the blogosphere, which I refer to as the “climate auditors”, started by Steve McIntyre. The climate change establishment failed to understand this changing dynamic, and continued to blame skepticism on the denial machine funded by big oil.

The first half of the highlighted statement is false. I told Curry that in a reply to her first draft of this essay (which she shared with many bloggers). Yes, the biggest oil giant said it would cut off funding to “contrary views,” but that was just another lie (see “Another ExxonMobil deceit: They are still funding climate science disinformers despite public pledge”). Media Matters has all the documented evidence in its December post, which begins:

Over the past decade, oil giant Exxon Mobil has paid millions to organizations and “think tanks” in an attempt to deceive the public about the science behind global climate change. It’s no surprise that those very same organizations are now doing everything in their power to please their benefactor by drawing attention to the so-called “Climategate” scandal involving hacked emails from the University of East Anglia in England.

As an aside, the claim the MSM “supported” the IPCC consensus is a very dubious one (and of course completely undefined). I have documented at length that large swaths of the MSM have written pieces directly at odds with the IPCC in the last 3 years, when they haven’t just ignored it entirely.

But Curry has this narrative she wants to push:

Climate Auditors and the Blogosphere

Steve McIntyre started the blog so that he could defend himself against claims being made at the blog with regards to his critique of the “hockey stick” since he was unable to post his comments there. Climateaudit has focused on auditing topics related to the paleoclimate reconstructions over the past millennia (in particular the so called “hockey stick”) and also the software being used by climate researchers to fix data problems due to poor quality surface weather stations in the historical climate data record. McIntyre’s “auditing” became very popular not only with the skeptics, but also with the progressive “open source” community, and there are now a number of such blogs. The blog with the largest public audience is, led by weatherman Anthony Watts, with over 2 million unique visitors each month.

What can one say about that paragraph?

First off, and it’s a small point, the kind an auditor might make, but if Climateaudit predates RealClimate, you certainly can’t tell that from their archives. Climateaudit actually has a January 2000 post! It’s next post is October 2004, which sort of appears to be his “first” post. That post never mentions RC, which went live in December [2004]. McIntyre also had an earlier website,


TimeLineGate UPDATE: RC folks tell me McIntyre didn’t go live until 2005. Strangely, the date on the first post criticizing Mann in CA’s archives is January 2000 (!!), but that seems implausible. Still, I am loathe to say the auditor has a major numerical glitch on his own blog, for fear of bringing the wrath of his defenders down on me. The key point, as noted below, is that McIntyre was active on the net before RC.

TimeLineGate UPDATE 2: Wikipedia’s entry on McIntyre states “McIntyre has stated that he started Climate Audit so that he could defend himself against attacks being made at the climatology blog RealClimate.” The citation appears to go to this 2006 comment by him on CA: “I certainly perceived realclimate as actively attacking us right from the beginning. John A. told me that I’d be buried if I didn’t stick up for myself online. In that sense, realclimate is the “blog-father” of climateaudit.” In the comments, Deep Climate explains, “The first few posts [starting October 2004] you see at CA were ported from the old website, but the new blog only started on Feb. 3, 2005.” Hmm. Looks like McIntyre’s blog entry dating for CA is screwed up from the start — which is ironic all by itself. Bottom line is that McIntyre started blogging on this subject first.

But that specific timing issue of the blogs, while important to Curry’s effort to paint McIntyre as some sort of (mostly innocent) victim of attacks by blogging scientists, is irrelevant to the bigger issue, which Curry has backwards. Curry seems to think that the blogosphere is the only place that matters. McIntyre started his attacks in 2003, long before RC was set up. And if you believe that ExxonMobil money wasn’t connected to the McIntyre-McItrick attack on the hockey stick, read this long Deep Climate piece or a very good summary by DeSmogBlog. (And no, being connected to oil money doesn’t inherently invalidate the attacks, but it does kind of scramble Curry’s narrative.)

UPDATE: McIntyre has undermined Curry’s narrative by posting an anti-science rant by Rob Bradley, discredited former Enron policy chief who now runs the polluter-funded “Institute for Energy Research.” SourceWatch explains: “IER received $95,000 from ExxonMobil in 2007 and $65,000 the year before…. IER has also received donations from the Brown Foundation, which was started by the founders of the construction and energy company Brown & Root … and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, which is run by executives of Koch Industries, a major company in the petroleum refining industry.” Policy Lass has a good reply here.

And while Curry spends a lot of time criticizing actual scientists, she seems to take at face value every single thing McIntyre says and never once mentions the vast debunking of him (see, for instance, the entire category on him at Deltoid). You’d never know from this piece that the hockey stick was essentially vindicated by the National Academy of Sciences and much subsequent research, since McIntyre never stops repeating the same long-debunked critiques.

But where Curry really starts to go very far awry is by drawing an equivalence between Climate Audit and WattsUp. I don’t think that McIntyre believes human-caused global warming is a hoax, but Watts does [see “Diagnosing a victim of anti-science syndrome (ASS)”]. A large fraction of Watts’ posts are unmitigated disinformation (see FoxNews, WattsUpWithThat push falsehood-filled Daily Mail article on global cooling that utterly misquotes, misrepresents work of Mojib Latif and NSIDC and Dust Bowl-ification hits Eastern Australia “” next stop the U.S. Southwest. Anti-scientific WattsUpWithThat says it has “nothing to do with the dreaded Climate Change” and “has an unappreciated benefit”!)

Later she writes:

And finally, the blogosphere can be a very powerful tool for increasing the credibility of climate research. “Dueling blogs” (e.g. versus and versus can actually enhance public trust in the science as they see both sides of the arguments being discussed.

Huh? You may not agree with everything I write, but at least it is grounded in the actual scientific literature. Watts posts whatever anti-scientific nonsense he can get his hands on, as I’ve shown. I rarely “duel” with Watts, since he’s not making a serious effort to understand and report on the science. He is making a serious effort to spread disinformation and confusion.

If Curry seriously believes that WattsUpWithThat in any way, shape or form is contributing to increasing the credibility of climate research, that what he does could actually enhance public trust in science, then we could not possibly disagree more. Watts ain’t interested in doing science and balked at the biggest chance he had to do so (see Watts not to love: New study finds the poor weather stations tend to have a slight COOL bias, not a warm one).

So why do the mainstream climate researchers have such a problem with the climate auditors? The scientists involved in the CRU emails seem to regard Steve McIntyre as their arch-nemesis (Roger Pielke Jr’s term). Steve McIntyre’s early critiques of the hockey stick were dismissed and he was characterized as a shill for the oil industry. Academic/blogospheric guerilla warfare ensued, as the academic researchers tried to prevent access of the climate auditors to publishing in scientific journals and presenting their work at professional conferences, and tried to deny them access to published research data and computer programs. The bloggers countered with highly critical posts in the blogosphere and FOIA requests. And climategate was the result.

Yes, blame the victim. Scientists who were mostly trying to do their jobs studying the science and explaining it to the public — and yes some of them are imperfect human beings who react imperfectly — brought on themselves the illegal hacking of emails that were then utterly misrepresented by the very anti-scientific blogs she seems to champion.

Now, Curry tends to see anyone who defends science as defending every single thing that individual scientists have done, but in fact she is the one who makes the reverse mistake. She fails to see that the active disinformation campaign never stopped, the fossil fuel companies never stopped funding much of it, and nothing the scientific community could possibly do would ever stop it. If she faults the disinformation campaign at all, you’d never know it from this essay:

People have heard the alarm, but they remain unconvinced because of a perceived political agenda and lack of trust of the message and the messengers.

Why is it that people in countries where there is no active disinformation campaign are “convinced”? Just a coincidence, I guess. By the way, the majority of Americans still want to take action on climate even in the face of the disinformation campaign according to every recent poll. Go figure.

Curry runs a false equivalence through this entire piece:

So what motivated their FOIA requests of the CRU at the University of East Anglia? Last weekend, I was part of a discussion on this issue at the Blackboard. Among the participants in this discussion was Steven Mosher, who broke the climategate story and has already written a book on it here. They are concerned about inadvertent introduction of bias into the CRU temperature data by having the same people who create the dataset use the dataset in research and in verifying climate models; this concern applies to both NASA GISS and the connection between CRU and the Hadley Centre. This concern is exacerbated by the choice of James Hansen at NASA GISS to become a policy advocate, and his forecasts of forthcoming “warmest years.” Medical research has long been concerned with the introduction of such bias, which is why they conduct double blind studies when testing the efficacy of a medical treatment. Any such bias could be checked by independent analyses of the data; however, people outside the inner circle were unable to obtain access to the information required to link the raw data to the final analyzed product. Any such bias could be checked by independent analyses of the data; however, people outside the inner circle were unable to obtain access to the information required to link the raw data to the final analyzed product. Further, creation of the surface data sets was treated like a research project, with no emphasis on data quality analysis, and there was no independent oversight. Given the importance of these data sets both to scientific research and public policy, they feel that greater public accountability is required


A scientist who advocates policies to reduce emissions — really the only ethical action for someone who understands the science — and/or a scientist who is part of a team that actually makes climate projections — is inherently biased? I guess that’s true of Curry (see below). In any case, NASA’s data is there for anybody to see and reanalyze — with reams and reams of other raw data — as if that actually mattered to the anti-science crowd.

For someone so into data and auditing, you’d think she would be more specific in her charges;

Recent disclosures about the IPCC have brought up a host of concerns about the IPCC that had been festering in the background: involvement of IPCC scientists in explicit climate policy advocacy; tribalism that excluded skeptics; hubris of scientists with regards to a noble (Nobel) cause; alarmism; and inadequate attention to the statistics of uncertainty and the complexity of alternative interpretations….

My own experience in making public presentations about climate change has found that discussing the uncertainties increases the public trust in what scientists are trying to convey and doesn’t detract from the receptivity to understanding climate change risks (they distrust alarmism).

Pretty much all of those accusations are true and pretty much all of them are false — depending on what the heck she means by the key undefined terms, particularly “alarmism.”

Notice also how she conflates the IPCC, which isn’t supposed to do policy advocacy, with IPCC scientists (whatever that means, since you can be involved with the IPCC at many levels). Is she suggesting every scientist who participates in the IPCC process is somehow undermining their credibility if they are also advocates for climate policy?

So who knows what Curry 2.0 means? Let me end with Curry 1.0’s response to Bjorn Lomborg in the Washington Post, which at least is far more specific, though, as you’ll see, just raises a lot of questions about what she now believes:

In his Outlook essay “Chill Out,” Bjorn Lomborg rightly notes that skepticism about climate change is no longer focused on whether it the earth is getting warmer (it is) or whether humans are contributing to it (we are). The current debate is about whether warming matters, and whether we can afford to do anything about it.

In this debate, Lomborg has positioned himself squarely in the skeptics’ camp. But he has some of his facts wrong — and he fails to appreciate the risks that global warming bring to us all.

On the facts, Lomborg writes that the Kangerlussuaq glacier in Greenland is “inconveniently growing,” somehow undercutting the argument that the world is getting warmer. But NASA research shows that Greenland’s Kangerlussuaq glacier is not growing; it is simply spilling into the sea.

Lomborg also misrepresents some conclusions of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He is skeptical about the claim that polar bears “will be decimated by global warming as their icy habitat melts.” But the report shows that, even under the best-case scenario, about two-thirds of the current polar bear population will be lost by 2050.

Lomborg’s attitude toward risk is also troubling. He focuses only on the middle range of the panel’s projections, dismissing the risk from the higher end of the range. But if the risk is great, then it may be worth acting against even if its probability is small. Think of risk as the product of consequences and likelihood: what can happen and the odds of it happening. A 10-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100 is not likely; the panel gives it a 3 percent probability. Such low-probability, high-impact risks are routinely factored into any analysis and management strategy, whether on Wall Street or at the Pentagon.

The rationale for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide is to reduce the risk of the possibility of catastrophic outcomes. Making the transition to cleaner fuels has the added benefit of reducing the impact on public health and ecosystems and improving energy security — providing benefits even if the risk is eventually reduced.

In his cost-benefit analysis, Lomborg considers only one policy option for reducing carbon emissions — the Kyoto Protocol — and says its worldwide cost would be about $180 billion per year. But the debate over the economics of global warming is more wide-ranging than Lomborg would have it. More than a dozen different studies have examined the economic impact of Kyoto-level controls. Some have concluded that it could have relatively small negative effects, such as those cited by Lomborg. Others have predicted small positive effects. Moreover, by focusing only on the Kyoto Protocol, Lomborg ignores potentially better policies that could cost far less than Kyoto and deliver higher economic growth worldwide.

Lomborg gets it right when he calls for an ambitious public investment program in clean-energy technologies. But he mistakenly assumes that existing technologies and strategies can’t make a big dent in carbon emissions at an affordable price. We’re developing hybrid and electric cars, building wind farms and ocean wave energy stations. New batteries, fuel cells and solar panels are smaller, better and cheaper than they were just a few years ago. I am in awe of the new technologies that I see being developed at Georgia Tech, and such research is happening at the nation’s major research universities and in the private sector.

As scientists continue to challenge and improve the quality and understanding of climate records and models, skepticism by scientists conducting such research is alive and well. But oversimplifying the situation, using misleading information and presenting false choices is not useful in the public debate over global warming.

Lomborg seems to have missed it, but a sensible debate has begun on how to best respond to global warming — in national and local governments, universities and the private sector — in the U.S. and around the world. There is no easy solution to this problem; the challenge is how best to develop options that are feasible, efficient, viable and scalable. Lomborg is correct to be concerned about the possibility of bad policy choices. But I have yet to see any option that is worse than ignoring the risk of global warming and doing nothing.

Hear! Hear!

UPDATE: Dr. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has a devastating essay on on the dreadful UK Guardian pieces on climate by Fred Pearce. Santer is a winner of the Department of Energy Distinguished Scientist Fellowship, the E.O. Lawrence Award, and the “Genius Award” by the MacArthur Foundation. Here’s what he has to say about “Climate Auditing — Close Encounters with Mr. Steven McIntyre”:

Ten days after the online publication of our International Journal of Climatology paper, Mr. Steven McIntyre, who runs the “ClimateAudit” blog, requested all of the climate model data we had used in our research. I replied that Mr. McIntyre was welcome to “audit” our calculations, and that all of the primary model data we had employed were archived at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and freely available to any researcher. Over 3,400 scientists around the world currently analyze climate model output from this open database.

My response was insufficient for Mr. McIntyre. He submitted two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for climate model data — not for the freely available raw data, but for the results from intermediate calculations I had performed with the raw data. One FOIA request also asked for two years of my email correspondence related to these climate model data sets.

I had performed these intermediate calculations in order derive weighted-average temperature changes for different layers of the atmosphere. This is standard practice. It is necessary since model temperature data are available at specific heights in the atmosphere, whereas satellite temperature measurements represent an average over a deep layer of the atmosphere. The weighted averages calculated from the climate model data can be directly compared with actual satellite data. The method used for making such intermediate calculations is not a secret. It is published in several different scientific journals.

Unlike Mr. McIntyre, David Douglass and his colleagues (in their International Journal of Climatology paper) had used the freely available raw model data. With these raw datasets, Douglass et al. made intermediate calculations similar to the calculations we had performed. The results of their intermediate calculations were similar to our own intermediate results. The differences between what Douglass and colleagues had done and what my colleagues and I had done was not in the intermediate calculations — it was in the statistical tests each group had used to compare climate models with observations.

The punch-line of this story is that Mr. McIntyre’s Freedom of Information Act requests were completely unnecessary. In my opinion, they were frivolous. Mr. McIntyre already had access to all of the information necessary to check our calculations and our findings.

When I invited Mr. McIntyre to “audit” our entire study, including the intermediate calculations, and told him that all the data necessary to perform such an “audit” were freely available, he expressed moral outrage on his blog. I began to receive threatening emails. Complaints about my “stonewalling” behavior were sent to my superiors at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and at the U.S. Department of Energy.

A little over a month after receiving Mr. McIntyre’s Freedom of Information Act requests, I decided to release all of the intermediate calculations I had performed for our International Journal of Climatology paper. I made these datasets available to the entire scientific community. I did this because I wanted to continue with my scientific research. I did not want to spend all of my available time and energy responding to harassment incited by Mr. McIntyre’s blog.

Mr. Pearce does not mention that Mr. McIntyre had no need to file Freedom of Information Act requests, since Mr. McIntyre already had access to all of the raw climate model data we had used in our study (and to the methods we had used for performing intermediate calculations). Nor does Mr. Pearce mention the curious asymmetry in Mr. McIntyre’s “auditing”. To my knowledge, Mr. McIntyre — who purports to have considerable statistical expertise — has failed to “audit” the Douglass et al. paper, which contained serious statistical errors.

As the “Climategate” emails clearly show, there is a pattern of behavior here. My encounter with Mr. McIntyre’s use of FOIA requests for “audit” purposes is not an isolated event. In my opinion, Mr. McIntyre’s FOIA requests serve the purpose of initiating fishing expeditions, and are not being used for true scientific discovery.

Mr. McIntyre’s own words do not present a picture of a man engaged in purely dispassionate and objective scientific inquiry:

“But if Santer wants to try this kind of stunt, as I’ve said above, I’ve submitted FOI requests and we’ll see what they turn up. We’ll see what the journal policies require. I’ll also see what DOE and PCDMI administrators have to say. We’ll see if any of Santer’s buddies are obligated to produce the data. We’ll see if Santer ever sent any of the data to his buddies”

(Steven McIntyre; posting on his ClimateAudit blog; Nov. 21, 2008).

My research is subject to rigorous scrutiny. Mr. McIntyre’s blogging is not. He can issue FOIA requests at will. He is the master of his domain — the supreme, unchallenged ruler of the “ClimateAudit” universe. He is not a climate scientist, but he has the power to single-handedly destroy the reputations of exceptional men and women who have devoted their entire careers to the pursuit of climate science. Mr. McIntyre’s unchecked, extraordinary power is the real story of “Climategate”. I hope that someone has the courage to tell this story.

Benjamin D. Santer

John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Fellow

San Ramon, California

February 22, 2010*

*These remarks reflect the personal opinions of Benjamin D. Santer. They do not reflect the official views of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory or the U.S. Department of Energy.