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.

Sarah Myhre I am calling you out. You are one of the biggest online climate bullies out there. In case you haven't noticed, I am a 'woman in science' https://t.co/OfytGikyMV https://t.co/vztgEqADUA
— Judith Curry (@curryja) December 7, 2017
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: twitter.com/SarahEMyhre
Check out her website at: sarahmyhre.com/
Sarah’s article on The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/11/17/25572044/the-culture-of-harassing-and-demeaning-women-scientists
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:
YAAAASSSSS
I can't wait for this. I am gonna wipe the floor with my story – it's gonna be spotless in that theater when I am done. https://t.co/bsCmllmz3s
— Dr. Sarah E. Myhre (@SarahEMyhre) December 5, 2017
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.
What happens at the intersection of politics, life, & science? Hear from @SarahEMyhre as she tells her story for a FREE show w/ at #AGU17 on Thursday, 14 Dec. RSVP today! https://t.co/3jqKG4noF4 #scicomm #storytelling pic.twitter.com/FFCNLYvvuP
— Sharing Science (@AGU_SciComm) December 5, 2017
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:
What an unpleasant, vicious, and unsensitive response.
You've also fabricated a quote. She does not say "the same as" rape. Stop it. It's quite clear from the title that she's making an analogy.— Paul Matthews (@etzpcm) December 7, 2017
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.“
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Here’s the other participant in that debate, Jacquelyn Gill, expressing her sympathy (not) for the bullying attack on female scientist Susan Crockford:
https://twitter.com/JacquelynGill/status/938779195739697153
Looks like just another school yard bully trying to shove the head of someone they view as inferior to themselves into the toilet
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?
Profile:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/sarah-e-myhre-ph-d-a4270437
Switzer Foundation, Belfast, Maine
“A vibrant community of environmental leaders”
Fellow: Sarah Myhre
http://www.switzernetwork.org/user/614
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.
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.
It’s reminiscent of the movie Farenheit 455.
4 degrees off. Fahrenheit 451. The temperature at which paper spontaneously ignites.
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.
****************
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.
Charles Gerard Nelson,
Auto-correct strikes again! 🙂
“It’s a cult, not a religion.”
A difference that makes no difference.
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.
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.
MarkW,
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.
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.
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/About-Deloitte/gx-deloitte-millennial-survey-2017-executive-summary.pdf
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”.
In the case of the hit piece on Dr. Crawford, Lew papers, Mann’s trea ring readings, etc.; I think “work” works. 😎
agreed .
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.
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.
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
Latitude,
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.” [ http://blog.dilbert.com/2017/05/15/how-to-know-you-won-a-political-debate-on-the/ ] 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!
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 “
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.
@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
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.
Etc.
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?
texasjimbrock
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
“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.
uh-huh…..
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.
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.
Auto
[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
++++++++++++++++++++++++++etc!
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?
gnomish
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.
https://www.amazon.com/Ascent-Man-Dvd-Set/dp/B000NDI3SK/ref=sr_1_2
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.
And with that we are back to https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/07/the-sad-case-of-dr-sarah-myhre/comment-page-1/#comment-2688445
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,…
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,…
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.
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.
Until you ask for the peer review (validation) of the CAGW foundational IPCC climate models.
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.
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.
Sarah Myhre, bless her little heart, has had a feud with Prof. Cliff Mass.
A blog, or ‘slog’; science blog, on “the stranger”
LINK
. . . 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.
MarkW,
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.
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:
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.
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.
Absolutely!
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.
Perhaps she rubs people the wrong way, leading to most of the hostility she encounters.
She may regret staring down strange men, depending.
Raped?????
Really????
I would like to see the court documents on that one.
We must, must, I say, believe all accusers.
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.
BCBill,
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.
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.
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.
ROTFL!
Say what! Do you have a link? Are there pictures? 😀
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.