The sad case of Dr. Sarah Myhre

Lately, we’ve watched a gang of 14 authors (including Mike Mann and Stephan Lewandowsky) gang up on a single scientist (Dr. Susan Crockford) over her published and peer-reviewed view on polar bear research and the failure of models on sea ice loss to predict the decline of the polar bear. The bears just aren’t cooperating, and apparently doing pretty well, but these 14 bullies decided they had to teach that woman a lesson by publishing a hit piece under the guise of peer review, which is now being advised as needing retraction for the egregious errors and falsehoods it contains.

In another arena, Dr. Judith Curry is getting beat up by Dr. Sarah Myhre, and Dr. Curry will have none of it.

Dr. Sarah Myhre. Image from Seattle magazine where she was named “one of the 10 most influential people in Seattle”.

This is due to this tweet from March 2017, and now a recent audio podcast clip:

Listen to this podcast: #MeToo: The Harassment of Women Scientists Online – and Off.

Here is the text that accompanies the podcast:

Jacquelyn Gill and paleoclimatologist Dr. Sarah Myhre talk about the deep misogyny facing women scientists in online communities, and often in their places of work and study. Jacquelyn and Sarah don’t hold back, delving into their own stories of harassment and sexism in science.

Find Sarah on twitter at:

Check out her website at:

Sarah’s article on The Stranger:

It seems Dr. Myhre favors slogging Dr. Curry because she has a different viewpoint on climate. It seems overtly disingenuous to me, no wonder Dr. Curry called her out as a bully. I wonder if Dr. Myhre has the same viewpoint on Dr. Crockford.

Dr. Myhre seems happy to tell her story about the struggle of women in science while at the same time disrespecting Dr. Judith Curry’s struggle:

Hmmm, she’s got a “show” at this years AGU convention, seems less sciencey than emotional to me. Maybe a little less attitude and more empathy would go a long way.

UPDATE: Paul Matthews of cliscep points out that the podcast co-author Dr. Jacquelyn Gill is openly hostile towards Dr. Susan Crockford’s plight on Twitter.


Matthews responds:

Gosh. Such open-minded tolerance while preaching about the struggle of women in science on display.

UPDATE2: (h/t to John F. Hultquist in comments)

Professor Cliff Mass seems to have been the recipient of bullying from Dr. Myhre on the article she wrote for “The Stranger”, linked above and here on Nov. 17, and then updated it with long comment by Prof. Mass:

Cliff wrote:

“He stuck his finger in my face and threatened me: “If you don’t retract your public testimony, I will retract it for you.”

This is a total lie. I never said that and never stuck any fingers in anyone’s face. Sarah Myhre choose to defame me and call me names in her testimony. I had never heard of her before that. Several folks emailed me after her testimony telling me that she was “throwing me under the bus.” Her efforts to paint me as an extremist was both wrong and unnecessary, particularly as I not only am concerned about climate change, but was a major supporter of the carbon tax initiative. Now instead of calling her on her unprofessional name-calling in public, I asked her to have coffee with me. I asked her whether she could point out any technical errors in my published research, blogs, or public communication. She could not. Then she starting revving up on how I was aiding “deniers” by admitting uncertainty in climate projections and in interpreting current extreme events. She told me it was ok to exaggerate and deceive the public, to get them to do the right thing. Stunningly, she said she was willing to admit I was ok if I agreed to do an op-ed piece with her for the Seattle Times. I could not believe it. I believe Sarah Myhre is doing a substantial disservice to the effort to deal with climate change, reducing the chance of bipartisan action, and calling folks names she does not agree with.“


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Here’s the other participant in that debate, Jacquelyn Gill, expressing her sympathy (not) for the bullying attack on female scientist Susan Crockford:

Bryan A

Looks like just another school yard bully trying to shove the head of someone they view as inferior to themselves into the toilet

Pat Frank

Masculinist Critical Theory tells us that both these bullying women are exhibiting clear symptoms of estrogen poisoning.


This is an excellent example of Leftist ideology.


Linked in

Sarah E. Myhre, Ph.D

And Polar Bears?



Switzer Foundation, Belfast, Maine

“A vibrant community of environmental leaders”

Fellow: Sarah Myhre

D. J. Hawkins

To Dr. Judith Curry: “You go girl!”

To paraphrase Thunderdome, “Two women enter, one woman leaves.”


She accuses Curry of being a “climate contrarian.”

Think about that for a moment. We’ve reached a point where a scientist thinks contrarian perspectives are invalid.

This is a religion.

Andy Pattullo

In fact that should be taken as a compliment as it implies someone able to think for themselves, make lucid analyses of scientific outputs and come to valid conclusions about what is and what is not supported by evidence, all while swimming upstream against a massive flood of politically correct drivel and groupthink.

Pop Piasa

It’s reminiscent of the movie Farenheit 455.


4 degrees off. Fahrenheit 451. The temperature at which paper spontaneously ignites.

NW sage

That’s 455F using an uncalibrated thermometer!


No, I think pop piasa has it right. AGW is all on paper so it would have to show up here…


humans are basically emotional reactionaries, and the farther left you go, the more this applies, and emotionalism and religion are processed in the same part of the brain, so, yes the believers are “religious”


“… emotionalism and religion are processed in the same part of the brain …”

Emotionalism? Don’t you mean emotions? And what in the world makes you think the sort of ruthless attacks we are discussing here have anything to do with emotion (or religion)? It looks to me like people with little or no emotional awareness (psychopaths) behaving badly.

JohnKnight wrote:
“It looks to me like people with little or no emotional awareness (psychopaths) behaving badly.”

I suggest that John is correct – we are in many cases dealing with sociopaths – scientists who KNOW they are spouting lies about runaway global warming, wilder weather, etc. but also know that this is currently the low-risk, high-reward career path – where they can be part of a safe larger gang and obtain research grants for any nonsense funding proposal that includes the words “climate change”, a non-falsifiable hypothesis that has been concocted to replace the already-falsified hypothesis of catastrophic human-made global warming.

Sociopathy is the oldest defined mental illness, and has been defined as “an absence of conscience”. It is estimated that 1 in 25 people have sociopathic characteristics, and I suggest that this 4% rises much higher in subgroups who climb the business, academic and political ladders.

These unwarranted and vicious attacks on honest, competent scientists are consistent with the characteristics of sociopathy, as described in the seven elements in the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV” of the American Psychiatric Association, included below.

Excerpt from: “THE SOCIOPATH NEXT DOOR”, by Dr. Martha Stout, 2005

I trust that imagining yourself as any of these people feels insane to you, because such people are insane, dangerously so. Insane but real – they even have a label. Many mental health professionals refer to the condition of little or no conscience as “antisocial personality disorder,” a noncorrectable disfigurement of character that is now thought to be present in about 4 percent of the population – that is to say, one in twenty-five people. This condition of missing conscience is called by other names, too, most often “sociopathy,” or the somewhat more familiar term, psychopathy. Guiltlessness was in fact the first personality disorder to be recognized by psychiatry, and terms that have been used at times over the past century include manie sans delire, psychopathic inferiority, moral insanity, and moral imbecility.

According to the current bible of psychiatric labels, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV of the American Psychiatric Association, the clinical diagnosis of “antisocial personality disorder” should be considered when an individual possesses at least three of the following seven characteristics:
(1) failure to conform to social norms;
(2) deceitfulness, manipulativeness;
(3) impulsivity, failure to plan ahead;
(4) irritability, aggressiveness;
(5) reckless disregard for the safety of self or others;
(6) consistent irresponsibility;
(7) lack of remorse after having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another person.
The presence in an individual of any three of these “symptoms,” taken together, is enough to make many psychiatrists suspect the disorder.

Other researchers and clinicians, many of whom think the APA’s definition describes simple “criminality” better than true “psychopathy’ or “sociopathy,” point to additional documented characteristics of sociopaths as a group. One of the more frequently observed of these traits is a glib and superficial charm that allows the true sociopath to seduce other people, figuratively or literally – a kind of glow or charisma that, initially, can make the sociopath seem more charming or more interesting than most of the normal people around him. He or she is more spontaneous, or more intense, or somehow more “complex,” or sexier, or more entertaining than everyone else. Sometimes this “sociopathic charisma” is accompanied by a grandiose sense of self-worth that may be compelling at first, but upon closer inspection may seem odd or perhaps laughable. (“Someday the world will realize how special I am,” or “You know that after me, no other lover will do.”)

In addition, sociopaths have a greater than normal need for stimulation, which results in their taking frequent social, physical, financial, or legal risks. Characteristically, they can charm others into attempting dangerous ventures with them, and as a group they are known for their pathological lying and conning, and their parasitic relationships with “friends.” Regardless of how educated or highly placed as adults, they may have a history of early behavior problems, sometimes including drug use or recorded juvenile delinquency, and always including a failure to acknowledge responsibility for any problems that occurred.


N. Ominous

NME666, I hope you don’t mind a minor linguistic point. A reactionary, by definition, is someone who opposes social or political progress rather than someone who reacts emotionally.


It’s a cult, not a religion.

Dr. Curry is part of the 97% consensus that the cult leaders and followers love to tout, but at the same time they denigrate anyone not chanting in line with the alarmist dogma. Their day of reckoning is coming soon.

Yes, she is definitely being a bit of a cult.

Clyde Spencer

Charles Gerard Nelson,
Auto-correct strikes again! 🙂

Christopher Paino

“It’s a cult, not a religion.”

A difference that makes no difference.

D. J. Hawkins

Cults are usually long on personality and short on dogma. They frequently don’t survive the death of their founder.


Christopher, you shouldn’t be so quick to display your ignorance.

Jeff Alberts

The only difference between a cult and a religion is scale.


Jeff, It really is sad when those who know nothing about a subject proceed to share the ignorance with the world.

Clyde Spencer

Instead of just disagreeing and criticizing, you might consider offering a definition that would explain your criticism.


Cults are generally typified by the type of control asserted towards members. And the types of punishment for a lack of compliance.
They tend to make people socially dependent to the extent that a person believes that they will have no friends and no support if they dare to leave.
it seems to me that this applies very clearly in this situation. you’re a denier oh, you are a heretic, you’re apostate, and you must be punished. you will be shunned, no one will speak to you., no one will admit knowing you. Everything depends on your acceptance to the group.

Religion can be like that but it usually is not. Usually if you leave a church they don’t punish you and people still speak to you.

Evan Jones

The 97% meme is a Fake Dichotomy. Going by those questions, I am “Mr. 97%”, myself. It is what those in the historical community refer to as a fallacy of question framing.


Julie: “Usually if you leave a church they don’t punish you and people still speak to you.”

So, are you saying that Islam is a cult rather than a religion?


It is just sour grape groupspeak, the public have spoken at numerous elections on the issue.

The 2017 Deloitte Millennial Survey is out and this is the voting group they need to drive the CAGW dream and it failed monumentally.

It is of note that environment/climate change lies toward the bottom of millennials’ personal concerns. That’s somewhat surprising, given that when we asked about the world’s greatest challenges in 2014, climate change and resource scarcity, taken together, topped the list.

It has gone from top of the list to close to bottom in 2 years and I know from my interactions with millennials it has become a standing joke.


It’s amazing how being subjected to the real world makes imagined problems seem less threatening.


I’m pleased to hear that, although I’m not sure your circle of millennials is large enough to be an adequate sample. I’m still hearing from educated millennials (in Kalifornia) that GW is a major problem. Of course, the professors (according to those in university) push GW very hard. Anyone espousing a different view is subject to harassment on several levels, from professors to students.
But my circle of millennials is strictly in Kalifornia.


Reason #4,285 to not believe a single work the CAGW crowd says.


Oops, “word” not “work”.

Gunga Din

In the case of the hit piece on Dr. Crawford, Lew papers, Mann’s trea ring readings, etc.; I think “work” works. 😎


agreed .

Roger Knights

Judith is a lukewarmer; i.e., at the sweet spot in the continuum from denier to alarmist.


A lukewarmer is merely someone who acknowledges that the earth’s climate is getting warmer; that man has a small bit to do with it; but that it’s no cause for worry and may actually have more benefits than not. I think most rational people are in this camp, but the CAGW crowd cannot tolerate indifference. Pure Deniers are easy to ridicule and attack, but they can’t deal with a reasonable person.

Louis Hooffstetter

A scientist doesn’t call another scientist an “absolute denier, a climate contrarian and irresponsible”. However, activists and trolls do, and they do it often. Like Michael Mann, Sarah Myrhe is not a scientist, she’s a troll.


Think about it for a moment. We’ve reached a point where calling someone a “contrarian” is considered an accusation.

F. Leghorn

A “FREE” show, eh? Still too expensive.


…unless it’s free and worth every penny!


Their science is in big trouble…..when they resort to screaming…..just prove the science and they wouldn’t have any problems

Clyde Spencer

I agree that the recent tirades speak of frustration and desperation on the part of alarmists. Last May, Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) remarked, “When people realize their arguments are not irrational, they attack the messenger on the other side. If you have been well-behaved in a debate, and you trigger an oversized personal attack, it means you won. When people have facts and reasons in their armory, they use them first. When they run out of rational arguments, they attack the messenger.” [ ] I think that pretty well explains the behavior of those zealots who sink to personal attacks on influential people who don’t share their beliefs. While it is painful to be on the receiving end of a personal attack, one should rejoice in the realization that it is the price to pay to win. And, the recent examples demonstrate that skeptics are winning!

Roger Knights

I think you misquoted Adams (with an extraneous “ir” or “not”) as saying:

““When people realize their arguments are not irrational, they attack the messenger “

Clyde Spencer

Roger Knights,
I copied and pasted directly from the link. That is, it is a direct quote. Perhaps Adams meant something other than what he wrote. However, you’ll have to take that up with him.

Doug S

@Chip, I couldn’t agree more. This ignorant and intolerant behavior by so called “scientists” convinces me that CAGW is a religious movement now.


Simplism and dogmatism are locked in a negative output perpetual feedback loop. Energy in over energy out equals infinity.


One where there is no redemption for the laity, only endless eco-penance. And where the self-styled clergy line their pockets with carbon tithes and sell themselves carbon indulgences.


Bear in lair,
Liar in Myhre.


Some pronounce it “mere,” as in “a mere envious misrepresentation.”


Liar in Myhre
Shed a tear

Coach Springer

Being an activist with a degree doesn’t make you a scientist. Correction: It makes you “not a scientist.”


It makes you “anti-science” and someone who refuses to use the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is specifically designed to reject Confirmation Bias and Appeal to Authority by requiring examination of competing hypothesis and judging them solely on the basis of empirical evidence.

The UN IPCC AGW crowd refuses to do this, which means they are more than simply wrong, they are anti-scientific.


However some activists have a degree of skill in mastication of Chicle and/or chicle-type polymers, containing plasticizers, resins, sweeteners, and flavorings while simultaneously demonstrating personal ambulatory effort.


Is this what liberals do? They bully. They rape. They intimidate. They lie.


Sounds like the classic liberal line.
You are only a true (woman, minority, whatever) if you agree with us.
Thus conservative women aren’t “true” women.
Conservative minorities aren’t “true” minorities.

Absolutely. Furthermore they reserve the most toxic venom for those who are perceived to be de facto victims belonging to Liberal protectorate minorities who reject the party line. Tolerant folk these Liberals.


Indeed. There’s a Youtube video of an SJW accusing a black Trump supporter of being a “race traitor”. The real racists are always on the Left.


“Tolerant folk these Liberals.”

Intolerant folk these illiberals, I say.

(If they take to calling themselves Heros, or Saints, I sure hope more people think twice before helping to make the label stick ; )


Antebellum Democrats exploited minorities for cheap, compulsory labor. Modern Democrats exploit minorities for cheap, grievance-driven votes. Antebellum Democrats suppressed education for enslaved minorities to make them less likely to escape or revolt. Modern Democrats suppress economic opportunity for minorities to keep them dependent on welfare state handouts, and react to conservative minorities in much the same way Antebellum Democrats reacted to revolting slaves.

Democrats of any era never help minorities in a meaningful way. They just pretend to help them so they can exploit them.


AKA the “nae true Scotsman” fallacy.


Women are not a minority, at least in the West they are not


Tell that to the liberals, not me.


And the hatred! As an old guy, octogenarian about to be a… what, nonagenarian?…, I have not seen such hatred for the other side since the communists of the 30s and 40s. Any connection?


A very good question.
As I am sure you know!

Plus plenty!

Auto – and Happy Birthday soon! May it be a fun-filled day!

Myhre and Gill sound like trainee sociology harridans

M Seward

“Dr. Myhre is a leading voice in the field of climate science, science communication, and academic-boundary partnership. She is also an uncompromising advocate for women’s voices and leadership, both in science and society.

There has never been a more important time to speak truth in public and to advocate for equity and diversity within science. Dr. Myhre is a scientific and communicative leader at the forefront of the global climate crisis.”

Say no more.


Has anyone here ever heard of her before this? My idea of a “leading voice” would be someone like Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth, who actually makes sensible statements from time to time.


Women in science, just as vicious as the men. Says a lot about the “softer gentler touch” that women can bring to science and other places such as politics and business.



By the way, had a woman science professor that everyone stayed as far away from as possible.


I’m pretty well read on the subject, and I for one have never heard of her before now.
I would not expect a “leading voice” to be someone unheard of.

M Seward

Ok, I’ll say some more.

To paraphrase the marketing spin, it seems that Dr Myhre is a self promoting wannabe CAGW attack dog with a look at moi, look at moi PC wardrobe that probably resonates loudly with the likes of Michael Mann and Stephan Lewandowsky et al.

Say no more.


There are a lot of folk out there.
‘Leading’ may need to have a revisit or repurposing of its definition.

One thought: –
Might Dr. Sarah Myhre be related – second cousin or so, perhaps? – to Lise Myhre, author of the ‘Nemi’ cartoon strips – who DOES have a (brief) entry on Wikipedia – which we all trust implicitly, because we can all edit it . . . . . . .
The cartoons have interesting – and often perceptive – humour.

[OK – Myhre might be the third most common family name in Gotland or the Lofoten Islands . . .
My ignorance].


Myhre and Gill sound like trainee Sirens.
Originally these Sirens were a challenge Odysseus had to face in the epic poem ‘The Odyssey’ by Homer. Odysseus was warned by Circe that he alone must endure the Siren song, which if he were unlucky, could drive him insane.

This will be reverberating round the world of science.

Sadly Judith Curry and Susan Crockford are having to tolerate this disgusting behaviour, but it will do them, or sceptics any harm at all.

Every responsible scientist will be ashamed of these climate bullies.

Wont do.


People who sling mud can’t help but get some on themselves. They’ve stepped out of their single minded “safe space” echo chamber to do so. I suspect Dr.’s Crockford and Curry are more than up the challenge from Dr.’s Gill and Myhre. Contrarians are much more practiced at dealing with confrontation than conformists.

Wow, she’ going to AGU to tell “free stories” about earth science to a bunch of… earth scientists.

Watch out this will play out in the press. Reporters will drop into a session or two of the real science, not understand a word being said, and wander away. They’ll drop into the story telling session though and get some scare stories in language they can understand. The stories they report will say things like “it was reported at the AGU that (insert something scary)…..” It will sound to the public like science, they’ll never know is was from a “story telling” session.


Nor will they care.

science is held up as truth. the very definition of religion.

scientists themselves routinely talk about theories as though they were facts and ridicule those with different beliefs.

consider the theory of evolution. question this and you will be labelled a crackpot or worse. yet it is very likely the scientists of the future will laugh at our primitive understanding of how life developed.

why should climate science be any different? experts always like to believe there is very little left to discover. and history always proves them wrong.

when it comes to predicting the future, luck has a better track record than science.


…the fact that they have to resort to constantly conducting polls to see how many people agree with them….tells you everything you need to know

Gunga Din



I don’t think it’s fair to lump all scientists (or science) together like that, ferdberple . . and that’s why I sometimes use the term Siants ; )


Climate+scientist = Witch Doctor.


Indeed ferdberple,

So many forget that science is not absolute truth, and not a catalog of absolute facts — it is merely a patchy agglomeration of approximations by which we seek to understand the universe and it’s workings.
We still have no idea of the scale of unknowns we do not know.


your self proclaimed patchy agglomeration is a pushy aberration and self diagnosis.
if becomes self evident when you are asked to prove that what you say is true – after you deny there is such a thing as truth
there is no such thing as ‘relative truth’. there is truth or not
if you have no clear understanding of the nature of truth, why do you have anything to say about it?



I feel you are deluding yourself if you believe (for that is all you have) humans hold any absolute truths.
You blather about ‘relative truth’ is your problem not mine.
We have just approximations and part of science’s task is to improve our approximation and our understand of them.


and i credit your statement with all the veracity you claim it can not have. what more do you want?
i will add that you are not a spokesthing for science. you don’t even think what you say can be true.
and you are not bright enough to spot a self contradiction. a self contradiction is a lie, incidentally.
science is the systematic discovery of truth. not your fatuous sophistry.


You are amusing!
I never claimed to be a spokesperson for science, I write on behalf of myself and what I observe. Science is not the repository of absolutes is what I see. Not the “science is the systematic discovery of truth” but work in progress, stumbling half-blind, this way and that, attempting to improve by refining our approximate knowledge, understanding, and interpretation of the natural universe.

So enjoy your utter belief in scientism as the new religion, a sanctuary of rationalize absolutes. I do however, envy your certainty that science can hold such fundamental and invariant truth. It is, I would say, no more than a delusion, and a very popular one these days. Such delusions however can be dangerous.


To try and prevent anyone else misunderstanding what I have written, I would invite you to please watch, listen, and think about the message carried in this video —

Ascent Of Man, episode 11 – Knowledge Or Certainty
Dr. Jacob Bronowski

Especially at the point were he says “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken”

We can not ever be absolutely sure!
We can not afford to have another tick-tock society run exclusively by autocrats and technocrats elites, who by dint of their certainty fail to understand our own human fallibility.

The Ascent of Man excerpt is much more powerful within the full episode 11, and better after seeing episodes 1-10.

Christmas is coming.


Absolutely I first watched it in my younger years when first broadcast. I have since seen it a few time since. It is indeed a powerful piece of work, made back when the message was not tainted with political correctness.


“We can not ever be absolutely sure!”
and yet you are so sure about that.
the next thing you must claim, having abandoned reason, is that your certain knowledge was divinely revealed, right? because surely you expect me to take it on faith that what you say is true? because your mystical metaphysics is based on the fundamental notion that it is true that there is no such thing as truth?
but, logically, since you insist there be no truth, everything you say is a lie…lol
and you just don’t get it that at the very root of your epistemology is a self contradiction…
that makes you a really awesome example for study – for your embrace of unreason epitomizes the Descent of Man – and that first step is a doozy.


And yet you miss the point that I’m not sure of that. It is what I have said.
By saying “We can not ever be absolutely sure!” is in itself an unsure statement. I am absolutely adamant about that, and all scientist should also be so. 🙂


i didn’t miss a thing.
and i was not asleep during logic 101
a self contradiction is false. period. the end.
your statement falsifies itself. it is a lie. QED.
you can not possibly be certain of anything now- not even whether you are uncertain- because you deny the existence of any truth.
so forget any pretense of reason when you deny the basis of it
and forget any pretense of knowledge when you deny the nature of it.
a bird that struggles to mangle its own wings is a monstrosity. a tree that struggles to mangle its own roots is destined for extinction. a man who strives to contradict his primary virtue (reason) and means of survival (reason) which is the distinguishing characteristic of his nature – that’s monstrous.
you can do worse, though- you can go about trying to infect others with your sickness.
perhaps you will find children are less critical and you can deform them more easily?
you might find a natural home as a school teacher!


Are you definite on that?
A person remote from you?
Your judgement of me is indeed interesting.
I do not deny ” the existence of any truth.” I am unsure that humans can fully understand, and appreciate the totally of truth. It is not the reality of the natural universe that I deny, it is humankind’s ability to correctly and completely understand it, though struggle as we must to do it, with our science and our observations. The truth is there somewhere, it is us humans that strive, and fail, to see it correctly see all of it.

Mike Restin

imho If one female scientist had a difference of opinion with another female scientist, I would think they would have much more in common than not.They are both suffering the pains of working in a male dominated field. Why didn’t she send a private email to Dr Curry to discuss and persuade instead of bullying openly on line?
Oh, that must be it… she’s totally wrong!
btw It must be clear by my name and attitude that I am an old, angry white man so,…

Mike Restin

imho If one female scientist had a difference of opinion with another female scientist, I would think they would have much more in common than not.They are both suffering the pains of working in a male dominated field. Why didn’t she send a private email to Dr Curry to discuss and persuade instead of bullying openly on line?
Oh, that must be it… she’s totally wrong!
btw It must be clear by my name and attitude that I am an old, angry white man so,…

Patrick B

Well, if nothing else, Dr. Myhre has done a service to other universities who might have considered hiring her. Nobody wants to hire someone that sounds like they’re one step away from filing a discrimination suit. I would like to think no Department Chair would be foolish enough to hire someone with her agenda.

Dave Fair

Wrong-O, Patrick. All the Academics are in her court; this elevates her stature in their opinion.

“What happens at the intersection of politics, life, & science?”
science gets third billing.

it is quite evident what happens. truth flies out the window. everything we believe is good. everything you believe is bad. unless of course you believe what we believe.

we take these truths to be self evident because of course they have all been proven by science and we can point to the peer reviewed papers that make it so.

Dave Fair

Until you ask for the peer review (validation) of the CAGW foundational IPCC climate models.

John M. Ware

I think it is dangerous to equate science with truth. Science should be a search for truth, but it should never include the assumption of truth, since future discoveries may well falsify what current science holds. Yesterday’s incontrovertible truth is today’s outmoded belief; that’s science, and that’s what it must be. The scientist who accepts today’s beliefs and results as ultimate truth is in for a letdown, because science–true science–is always open to question and revision.

Tom Halla

As I have noted before, “climate science” as connected to CAGW fits Eric Hoffer’s definition of a mass movement, True Believers in a quasi-religious cause. Dr Curry is a threat to the narrative, so the faithful feel obligated to attack her.


The Scientosophists are a lethal virus to the body social and scientific. They feed off public funds and are unable to make a living if asked to provide anything of value and utility right now.

Therefore, the stake through the heart of Scientosophy is to cut off their funding. Funding about which General President Eisenhower warned us about 57 years ago, and that was rocket fueled by the combination of (un)civil service regs, governement unions, and permanent legislative tenure (i.e.) politics as a career.

John F. Hultquist

Sarah Myhre, bless her little heart, has had a feud with Prof. Cliff Mass.
A blog, or ‘slog’; science blog, on “the stranger”


. . . posted a rant by Sarah on Nov. 17, and then updated it with long comment by Prof. Mass:
Cliff wrote:
“He stuck his finger in my face and threatened me: “If you don’t retract your public testimony, I will retract it for you.”
This is a total lie. I never said that and never stuck any fingers in anyone’s face. Sarah Myhre choose to defame me and call me names in her testimony. I had never heard of her before that. Several folks emailed me after her testimony telling me that she was “throwing me under the bus.” Her efforts to paint me as an extremist was both wrong and unnecessary, particularly as I not only am concerned about climate change, but was a major supporter of the carbon tax initiative. Now instead of calling her on her unprofessional name-calling in public, I asked her to have coffee with me. I asked her whether she could point out any technical errors in my published research, blogs, or public communication. She could not. Then she starting revving up on how I was aiding “deniers” by admitting uncertainty in climate projections and in interpreting current extreme events. She told me it was ok to exaggerate and deceive the public, to get them to do the right thing. Stunningly, she said she was willing to admit I was ok if I agreed to do an op-ed piece with her for the Seattle Times. I could not believe it. I believe Sarah Myhre is doing a substantial disservice to the effort to deal with climate change, reducing the chance of bipartisan action, and calling folks names she does not agree with.


I’m surprised that she is willing to admit that it’s ok to lie and deceive so long as it works to get the public to do what they want.

Clyde Spencer

Why are you surprised? It has been my observation that zealots are willing to do, and rationalize, any and all excess means that they feel will achieve their ends. This is about achieving their political goals, not about searching for the ‘Truth.’ A zealot ‘knows’ what the Truth is and must now move on to converting all the ‘heathens.’ In that sense, it is uncomfortably close to past practices in religions to “save the souls” of non-believers, whatever the cost to the potential convert.

Dave Fair

The ends justify the means.


Clyde, I expect the behavior. It’s just the honesty, in that she openly admitted to it that surprises me.


This poor woman has PTSD. She is in dire need of psychiatric help.
From the Stranger article above:

As a student and then a professional scientist, I have been assaulted, raped, harassed, demeaned, belittled, and threatened on the job. That is right. Every single professional gig that you might read on my CV comes with a litany of backstories of abuse and violence. I am not unique. I am the norm, and I have persevered in science exactly because of the rage that has transported me recently through the streets of Seattle. The rage protects as much as it exhausts and depletes.


It seems the rage also unhinges. Yeesh.


“As a student and then as a professional scientist, I have been assaulted, raped, harassed, demeaned, belittled, and threatened on the job.”

Blimey. That will come as a surprise to my female scientist colleagues, not one of whom has ever complained in my hearing about sexism at work.


This is stock and trade propaganda baloney, which means she is a leftist feminist.


“I have been assaulted, raped, harassed, demeaned, belittled, and threatened on the job. That is right. Every single professional gig that you might read on my CV comes with a litany of backstories of abuse and violence.”

So she just called all her male professors rapists.
I’m sure that’ll open doors of academia for her. No one will collaborate with anyone like her.
No one will share drill samples with her.
Probably an NGO/ecoterrorist group gig is all she has in her future.

Gunga Din

She say’s, “I am the norm,”?
I thought she claimed a scientist, not a Hollywood actress.


In my experience, if the same thing happens to you in job after job, it’s not others who are the problem. It’s you.


In my experience, if the same thing happens to you in job after job, it’s not others who are the problem. It’s you.



She claims: ” … I have been assaulted, raped … on the job”.

If she is not shy to say that then surely she would name her accusers and settle the matter in criminal court.

Unless, of course, there is no one to accuse.

Roger Knights

Perhaps she rubs people the wrong way, leading to most of the hostility she encounters.

Dave Fair

She may regret staring down strange men, depending.


I would like to see the court documents on that one.

Dave Fair

We must, must, I say, believe all accusers.

Dave Fair

With her attitudes, I can believe she was threatened with termination for failure to get along with her coworkers.


Regarding the deep misogyny facing the women of science, does anybody else wonder if the current naming of male abusers is becoming another case of mass hysteria fed by the market for politically correct yet salacious news? Undoubtedly there are sexual predators out there but how quickly we forget the hundreds of lives shattered by false Satanist child abuser accusations or by the “recovery” of false repressed memories on the 80s. There are dozens of cases of mass hysteria where the media have failed in their duty to be sceptical when accusations have become widespread and incredible sounding. The relevance to AGW is the demonstrated unreliability of MSM when they are shielded by political correctness.

Clyde Spencer

You make the case why the Rule of Law, and Due Process, should be foremost as procedure, rather that trying the accused in a public Kangaroo Court held by the Media.


Or a university kangaroo court, in some cases.

Gunga Din

Reminds me of Anita Hill. Her accusations were examined and found wanting by the Judiciary Committee examining the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.
The Left was desperate to keep him out. (He’d actually read the Constitution and Bill of Rights and thought they are the Law of the Land.) So Senator Metzenbaum’s office leaked (or should that be “leeked”?) her accusations to the MSM.
Ever since then (targeted) sexual harassment claims need not be proven. The “claim” is enough. Guilty till proven innocent.

Dave Fair

Her claim of actual rape rings hollow.


Gunga Din, that’s only true for conservatives.
When the accused is a liberal you must always apply the one free grope rule.


” … does anybody else wonder if the current naming of male abusers is becoming another case of mass hysteria fed by the market for politically correct yet salacious news?”

It seems very calculated (and coordinated with the politicos/acedimios and mass media elites), to me. Corruption leads to packs of liars and cheats acting as a mob. (Gangs, mafias, cartels, crime syndicates and so on are quite real, not fairy stories, after all.) Power is slipping away from the entrenched “kingpins” (and queenpins ; ) at what to them must be an alarming rate, and setting up more ways to control people and narratives is just a “natural” reaction, it seems to me.

Any demand for “salacious news” is a convenient excuse, but I think just as positive advertising can be profitable, so can what amounts to extortion be, if people/organizations are threatened with “negative advertising”/hit pieces and such . . (including both true and false claims/accusations).


“I’m not reading anything that makes such a bullshit, harmful false equivalence.”

You don’t want these women to read anything you just make an equivalence to rape apparently. This is a whole new angle I hadn’t thought of with the warmenistas and their scribblings

‘No mention of the bullying and harassment of climatologists then Jacquelyn?”

I was going to listen to the podcast. truly I was. then I happened upon an article on why female nipples were banned on the internet while male nipples were not. and the obvious horrors of female breasts with male nipples pasted on to get past the censors. and the equally chilling prospect of male breasts with female nipples pasted on giving way to latent desires. and by then coffee was ready and I was forced to skip the podcast.




Say what! Do you have a link? Are there pictures? 😀

Gunga Din

Of course there are.
But a picture is not worth a thousand words.
After I got married (well, a bit before then) I was happy to discover that they are not really pixelated rectangles!


Someone needs to tell Chelsea Handler that female nipples are banned on the internet. The boob just can’t stop showing her boobs and it appears to be the only thing she is famous for.

Some people on the activist wing of climate science seem to be intent on self-destruction at the moment.


Those glasses!!! How does she hope to be seen as credible wearing these problem glasses? Maybe she should dye her hair green.

Clyde Spencer

You said, ” Maybe she should dye her hair green.” How about a Mohawk haircut as a statement in support of feminism? Why should only men be allowed to sport Mohawks?


“While it is true that these peer-reviewed papers are not the result of field or laboratory research on polar bears and most do not focus exclusively on polar bears”

Not a polar bear scientist -she says so herself

Griff, by your logic climate modellers cannot be climate scientists . indeed none of the current crop would appear to qualify. having spent most of their professional lives locked inside avoiding the natural climate in favor of a strictly artificial man made climate.
the true climate scientists must be the ones reading the weather stations and collecting the data.
or the true scientists are you and me. adding co2 to the atmosphere in a daring experiment to see what happens.


I have actually skied a lot on snow. Most climate scientists have not done this fieldwork and have little first-hand knowledge on how snow behaves. I insist all climate scientists need to ski at +2C, +0C, -0C, -5C, -15C and -30C. Also, a midwinter forest trip at 65°N is required, plus an over a lake ski trip in May.

None of the real experts may claim knowledge on snow before this fieldwork is done! Smug snigger, they’ll need woollies. And a rifle, if they’re gonna miss the polar bears.


“I never seen you saying anything good. You only come here to play your side.”

Posting on a Guardian CIF blog as ‘egriff’, griff boasted about visiting science blogs such as WUWT to – and I quote – “tweak the tails of the deniers”.

Griff is in fact a thoroughly unprincipled, abusive individual, scientifically illiterate and with zero intention of having any form of serious debate, purely derailing discussions and winding contributors up.


Mann is not a climate scientist. His degree is in physics.

Mark T

No it’s not. Not his PhD, at least. He couldn’t pass his Physics PhD qualifying exam.

Tom Halla

Griff, a specialist in polar bear evolution would almost certainly do most of their work in museum collections, not doing field paleontology herself.
Most work on evolutionary processes is literature review and review of data collected by others. Steven Jay Gould did field work on land snails, which has damn little relevance to macroevolutionary trends.


Griff, is your reading comprehension really that poor.


Griff, I think you are not a polar bear scientist, nor a climate scientist. But I think you are behaving seriously and deliberately rudely. I’m starting to believe you are a part-time orchestrated attack, an activist who works here in shifts. I never seen you saying anything good. You only come here to play your side.

I’m not at all surprised by women attacking at women – in my opinion, being really aggressive is more common by a woman to a peer woman than by man to peer woman. Our instincts cause that.
While I think using rape is a bad analogy, I’d like to point out Swedes defined rape so that it is possible to rape over internet. So the ‘rape is rape’ very weakly covers different forms of crime that are called rape in the juridicial systems world wide.

Clyde Spencer


OK, I guess we now have an explanation for why you never apologized for claiming Crockford had no credentials — you have rationalized what you want to believe.

Your quote, “…MOST do not focus exclusively on polar bears” does not support your following claim that she is “not a polar bear scientist.” The best you could claim, if intellectually honest, is that she doesn’t focus exclusively on polar bears. It is difficult for me to understand how someone can so consistently make a fool of himself and show no embarrassment!


At times I’ve been almost convinced that Griff is actually a False Flag operation run by a Skeptic (Pointman?) To see what kind of crazy things can be said by an Alarmist without any of their fellow travelers calling them on it.

The only problem with this theory is that actual ‘Climate Scientists’ (Mann, Hanson, Gleick, Lew) and other Alarmists and Climate Faithful (Stokes, Tamino, ATTP, etc.) regularly say things just as crazy with no prompting.



Another drive-by from Griff.
Do you hold yourself up to the same high standards Griff?


Griff and standards. Two words that do not belong in the same sentence.


Griff, you are wrong as usual:


You (referring here, and below, to the journal collectively with the authors) falsely alleged that I have no expertise on the subject of polar bears.

The paper states: “Notably, as of this writing, Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on polar bears.”

The paper fails to mention that my Ph.D. dissertation on speciation included polar bears: the paper only says that the Global Warming Policy Foundation describes me as “an expert on polar bear evolution” (as if this is probably a lie). Zoology is the relevant general field for the study of polar bears. My particular specialty of evolutionary theory has a zero field or laboratory component but that does not mean I am not a qualified zoologist, or that I lack expertise in polar bear biology.

In addition to my dissertation that features polar bears, I have an article on evolution in a peer-reviewed journal in which polar bears are prominently featured (Crockford 2003), and two official comments, with references, on polar bear hybridization (which is how official responses to published papers are handled in these two journals). I also have a paper in a peer-reviewed book chapter on ringed seals, the primary prey of polar bears (Crockford and Frederick 2011), and a peer-reviewed journal article on the paleohistory of Bering Sea ice, the habitat of Chukchi Sea polar bears (Crockford and Frederick 2007).”

You did the same thing they did,misrepresent her research.


Nothing like taking things out of context to try to make a point, eh Griff?

Why did you elide “… they do deal with the history of polar bear habitat, the ecology and physiology of their primary prey, and the evolution of polar bears as a species (which requires a firm understanding of their zoogeography, ecology, genetics, physiology, behaviour, and life history).”

Gunga Din

Please define just what a “polar bear scientist” is and include some names of those who you meet the qualifications of your “definition”?
And don’t forget to link the names with their qualifications.


Like all warmists, Griff defines a scientist as someone who agrees with them.


This Dr. Crockford polar bear affair looks like a set-up? Put a woman out in front to take her down?

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Urumqi

Griff, you claimed, erroneously, that she had not published anything on polar bears and didn’t know anything about them and did not have standing to comment on them.

You were, as usual, wrong. Yet still you seek to malign her.


You really are a profoundly unpleasant individual, aren’t you?

And profoundly stupid with it.

By your logic there are very few climate scientists either.

Now apologise, you malicious, malevolent little buffoon.


Oops, I forgot to add “mendacious”.


From her very own website:

Dr. Myhre is a leading voice in the field of climate science,

She’s clearly suffering from narcissistic personality disorder.

Checked out her website. Definitely a legend in her own mind.

Robert Austin

Probably a product of affirmative action in the STEM field.

rist, don’t you mean she’s a leg end (:-))


After reading her CV it appears she’s the product of an Obama era education. No wonder she’s such a radical leftist.


I think she misspelled “vice”.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Urumqi

Exactly which sub-sub-sub-section of this vast enterprise does she ‘lead’? I can’t see any leadership qualities in those diatribes.

Roger Knights

“Exactly which sub-sub-sub-section of this vast enterprise does she ‘lead’? ”


Dave Fair

A leader in her own mind. Nasty personality, though.

In reading Sarah’s “wipe the floor” comment, it made me believe I was witnessing a pre-bout buildup by Hulk Hogan or Mike Tyson.

What happened to the dignity of science? Has it devolved to such an extent that the most visible in their profession see their role as ass kickers?

Every day it becomes easier to dismiss the top climate scientists as nothing but street thugs.


Ever since I was a little kid I’ve had an urge to pick on people that seemed to be looking for an (rational or irrational) excuse to become upset or indignant. They needed that little emotional boost, so I would help them out even if it made me look like an insensitive idiot.

“… I am gonna wipe the floor with my story – it’s gonna be spotless …”

‘Well, my maid is taking the month off … visiting family in Mexico, and my kitchen floor is getting pretty bad. When you’re done with that floor maybe you could come over to my house?’

“…it’s gonna be spotless…”

Out, out, damn spot. How will she ever erase the damage to her bullying target, one Judith Curry?


What I found fascinating was that she intended to use her story to wipe the floor.
Most scientists want to use facts. She seems to feel that her “story” is what gives her credibility, not her achievements.



How unfortunate for Dr. Curry to be tormented by a pale oceanographer from Seattle. I suppose it is very hard to maintain a good tan there.


So much for science. It sounds more like a junior high school flame war.


A lot of “science” looks like that nowadays.

Rape is rape. Nothing else is “the same as rape.
what about character assassination and the loss of ones good name? isn’t this what keeps rape victims silent? isn’t this what victims fear the most?

Andrew Burnette

Yeah. She forgot to add the ” … ” where she omitted ” kind of power attack ” from the quote.

Rape is about power and humiliation, not sex.

Clyde Spencer



‘She forgot to add the ” … ” where she omitted ” kind of power attack ”’

Scientists are taught to show elision. Draw your own conclusion.

Geoff Sherrington

In some P G Wodehouse descriptions of the workings of British aristocracy, a preferred method of attack is pellets to the body from an air rifle. Next day, the protagonists are back in the House of Lords to govern the masses.
That nasty word ‘rape’ is unspoken because the power of the air rifle exceeds it in the settings described. Real people, real scientists do not rape each other in public, because there is a more powerful means to express dissent. Among proper people it is named ‘discretionary silence’ or similar. Geoff.

Walter Sobchak

It seems that official climate scientists who identify as women can act just like middle school mean girls. Their slogan seems to be there is only one queen bee in this hive.

I think you have just seen the proof that the whole AGW nonsense is entirely false. The proponents have nothing at all, no evidence save imaginary computer models they have concocted. They have been asked for evidence so many times, and failed to provide any at all, and refused to acknowledge the experiments of others which provide evidence that their claims are false. They have shut down any other publication by means of the bogus peer review process, whilst reviewing one another’s work as satisfactory!

It is time for all this to end, and perhaps Trump is doing that ending.


paleoclimatologist, enough said really..
Magic 🌲 rings and other guess work based on poorly understood proxies with error do wide you could fly a 747 through them sideways. I guess when you are that deep in BS you nolonger notice when you are talking it.


Error bars


The problem for paleoclimatology is that most of the low-hanging fruit has been picked. It’s the same in many disciplines now. Every conceivable isotopic combination has been tried by others and the few that work (to some degree) have been calibrated, samples tested, results published. Timelines for all epochs/ages have been tested. Most of the work now is confirmatory. No glory in confirmatory work.

And the even deeper problem for a paleoclimatologist who deeply “believes” in current day climate change (like Myhre) is regularly buffeted with cognitive dissonance about past climate changes, their sometimes abruptness in the paleo-records, and their non-CO2 causality. Cognitive dissonance must be a regular discomfort for an alarmists and still be a functioning paleoclimatologist who has to meet institutional ethical standards for publication of work.

Kaiser Derden

You don’t need a “story” if you have facts and science …


Does anyone else know about this?

Quite the kerfuffle. Shows that Mannian behavior is deeply imbedded in most warmunists.
The more they expose themselves with this unacceptible behavior, the shakier the whole CAGW edifice becomes.
Reminds me of an old legal adage. If you got the facts, pound the facts. If you got the law, pound the law. If you got nothing, pound the table. Whole lot of table pounding going on.


Behind that pretty face lurks a soul-less, empty shell. Myhre is using gender baiting and playing the #Metoo card in an attempt to gain legitimacy, a form of compensation. She wants legitimacy she feels she is owed simply for her average less-than stellar accomplishments as a scientist.

When guys of certain age want to compensate, they go out and buy a flashy sportscar to wag under the noses of their buddies and think it impresses the women. When women reach that certain age and want to compensate, they go out and attack other women, a cat fight.

Yeah, maybe that’s little misogynistic. But There’s certainly some truth to it.


joelobryan: Maybe you’re right about some ‘guys of a certain age’ – however, others have been car enthusiasts since childhood, and have worked long and hard to get together enough money to buy their favourite piece of machinery. Finally, with the advent of middle age, they’re able to do it. Impressing the ladies is not why they buy the car – believe me, I know!


I was specifically referring to older guy who doesn’t own a flashy sports car. One day he looks in the mirror after a shower and sees a balding, slightly pudgy, shrinking-unit man standing there. What is the urge? Go out and buy a flashy sports car. It wouldn’t be the stereotypical response if weren’t true in many cases.

Another Ian


Have you read “Top Gear’s Midlife Crisis Cars”?

“The greater the pate the more certain his fate”


I have a lovely, rather late mid-life crisis convertible. I also have as full a head of hair as I did at 18 (albeit not as long). I don’t think the cars we buy at this age have anything to do with hair. It’s more about money and lack of responsibility once again!


Gee, I passed throught that “certain age” in a Honda Civic. Or maybe I’m just a late bloomer – still time for the Lambo?


Yay, Honda Civic!! What color?


My midlife crisis car was a Jeep Grand Cherokee.

Except it was less a crisis and more ‘I finally can afford a car that isn’t a beater, and Northern Indiana gets plenty of snow, so gimme a dependable 4wd.’

I did pick out the Black one with the extra Chrome, though.


Clyde Spencer

I’m reminded of the line in the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy, where after the B Ark crash lands on primitive Earth, the survivors attempt to recreat technology with committees. The marketing manager presents her latest version of the wheel, which she proudly displays as a multi-colored octogon with the axis parallel to the plane of the ‘wheel.’ Dent strongly rebuffs her effort by exclaiming that they can’t even get one of the simplest inventions in history right. Her stern, hands-on-hips response to him is, “Well, if you’re so smart, what color would you paint it?” So, what color was your Honda? 🙂


I’m 57 and I drive a Fiat 500.
I’m more concerned with cost of ownership than horsepower.


MarkW. You’re still waiting for that cheque from the Koch brothers as well.


No need for a lambo. That honda civic is fine. Just take out the turbo engine, whack it in an Arial Atom, and do 0 to 60 in under 3 seconds.


“Science” is now a Mean Girls clique in high school. You’ve come a long way, baby!

Caligula Jones

“I had never heard of her before that.”

Indeed. This seems to be the script with most exaggerators out there, trying to be noticed in a bloated online world that has the attention span of a three year old: their only hope for some semblance of relevancy is to cry wolf until their bleats get traction, then dine off the exposure.

In a real world with honest victims of true assaults, it is stomach-churning to even contemplate the existence of such truly disturbed people posing as scientists.

I think she is setting herself up to get into Harvard; when Oreskes retires.


“She told me it was ok to exaggerate and deceive the public, to get them to do the right thing. ”

That has been the modus operandi for the left for over a century.

According to LinkedIn, Dr Mahre’s PhD from UC Davis is in “Climate Change, Oceanography, and Climate Communication”… whatever the h*ll that means.


I think it means propaganda pusher. Joseph Goebbels or Baghdad Bob are good examples.

John F. Hultquist

Baghdad Bob of 2003.
A person would have to be about 25 or older to have seen Bob’s press appearances at that time. Fake news at its finest.

What a pathetic, spiteful, ignorant(?) woman.
This “Global Warming”… sorry – “Climate Chane” thing has definitely become religion.

The snake oil cabal does not appreciate anyone telling the truth.


Her pinned tweet says it all – I’m a star!

II think most people with at splash of humility would tone it down at least a little to say, “I was NAMED (or selected as) one of 2017’s Most Influential People in Seattle. Sharing your unmitigated agreement and endorsing it to say “I am one” shows a lot of ego.

Blake Shelton knows better.

Bryan A

She does have the look about her which is similar to that of certain youne women who gang up on and beat up unsuspecting girls, video tape the incident and post it on Instagram, Youtube, and Facebook

Dave Fair

I’ve seen that nasty look on a number of people. Invariably they are small-minded and vindictive.

It works in both large businesses and academia. Eventually they are shuttled off into high-paying sinecures where they can’t damage the organization as a whole.

Bryan A

Sounds like being promoted in direct proportion to the level of your incompetence

Dave Fair

I have worked both in and with bureaucracies. Most of the senior, non-line positions are eventually filled with these types. As a result, the focus is on the trivial at the expense of efficiency (government) or profit.

The Feds get away with it because of unlimited funds. Private bureaucracies eventually go out of business. It can take some time, evidenced by railroads and airlines.

Clyde Spencer

Bryan A,
But she doesn’t have the requisite qualifications to by judged by the ‘Peter’ Principle.

Dave Fair

Despite that, she will be welcomed in academia. A nice cushy, low-effort job for life, with brief forays trashing others in compliant media.

Bryan A

Never having seen her as would be required, I can neither confirm nor refute your statement regarding The Peter Principle

Clyde Spencer

Bryan A,
Since her photo doesn’t reveal a prominent Adam’s Apple, the probability is high that she also lacks the other requisite feature. Although, admittedly, something like 1 in 10,000 births are “gender ambiguous.” As with any good experiment, there is nothing better than first-hand verification of the hypothesis.

Gunga Din
Well, there’s a “peer reviewed” science journal if I ever saw one.
“Proud advocate for science and human rights.”
Something very wrong about linking those two with the word “advocate”.

PS Instead of saying that I tempted to just say, “Today Seattle! Tomorrow the World!”.


Sarah Myhre : “As a student and then a professional scientist, I have been assaulted, raped, harassed, demeaned, belittled, and threatened on the job.”

Raped??? Either this woman has filed complaints and obtained convictions, or she is crazier than nuts and needs urgent help.


“demeaned, belittled”

Her whole arrogant, selfish attitude “demeans and belittles” her very being.


One thing I have noticed. The nastier the person, the less tolerant they are of others returning that nastiness.
They are honestly surprised anytime one of their victims strikes back.


I’d be pretty upset too, if I just found out the tens of thousands of dollars I’d spent on college, not to mention the years of study, was wasted.

Dr. Myhre appears to have majored in ‘Climate Communication’ with a minor in ‘Being Triggered’. I’m sure her professors all assured her that there would be many great career opportunities for her upon graduation, but WHOOPS, Trump got elected, and suddenly it’s no longer the end of a career to admit in public that you have some doubts about the whole Climate Crisis.

We are looking at the end game for the Climate Alarm, and we will see many more such melt downs as more of the Faithful come to face the fact that the population regard their religion as a scam. Or worse, a joke.



The phrase “Climate Scientologist” seems to appropriately describe Myhre. I am reluctant to call her “Dr.”.

Extreme Hiatus

In cases like this the “Dr.” means Doctored.

This particular doctored climatute sure she’s to be highly impressed with herself.


Yeah….because she got a nod from someone else in the echo chamber. They drink each others bath water. What a joke.

Caligula Jones

“Climate Scientologist”

I hope you don’t mind me stealing this one…


Xenu approves.

Gunga Din

But Xena is the one you need to worry about!


The environment is so target rich. Seems like a good time to pick a target that will ……where is a Trump tweet when you really need one……get everyone’s attention.

Michael Jankowski

Women bullying women is more excusable.

Curry has gotten plenty of bullying from men in climate “science.”

BTW, where was the outrage from these women towards Rajendra Pachauri?


When Bill Clinton was being accused of groping a women, the head of NOW declared that this was a non-issue because he stopped when asked.
This is now referred to as the one-free grope rule.