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.“
Those glasses!!! How does she hope to be seen as credible wearing these problem glasses? Maybe she should dye her hair green.
Billy,
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.
No it’s not. Not his PhD, at least. He couldn’t pass his Physics PhD qualifying exam.
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.
Griff,
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:
“MISREPRESENTING MY CREDENTIALS AND EXPERTISE
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).”
Griff,
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?
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:
She’s clearly suffering from narcissistic personality disorder.
Checked out her website. Definitely a legend in her own mind.
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”.
Exactly which sub-sub-sub-section of this vast enterprise does she ‘lead’? I can’t see any leadership qualities in those diatribes.
“Exactly which sub-sub-sub-section of this vast enterprise does she ‘lead’? ”
Voicey-ness?
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?
Yeah. She forgot to add the ” … ” where she omitted ” kind of power attack ” from the quote.
Rape is about power and humiliation, not sex.
susanjcrockford,
Exactly!
‘She forgot to add the ” … ” where she omitted ” kind of power attack ”’
Scientists are taught to show elision. Draw your own conclusion.
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.
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.
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.
Joelobryan
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.
^¿^
jorgekafkazar,
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!
“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.
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!
https://twitter.com/SarahEMyhre/status/923267517287514113
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.
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
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.
Sounds like being promoted in direct proportion to the level of your incompetence
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.
Bryan A,
But she doesn’t have the requisite qualifications to by judged by the ‘Peter’ Principle.
Despite that, she will be welcomed in academia. A nice cushy, low-effort job for life, with brief forays trashing others in compliant media.
Clyde,
Never having seen her as would be required, I can neither confirm nor refute your statement regarding The Peter Principle
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.
http://www.seattlemag.com/
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.”.
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.
“Climate Scientologist”
I hope you don’t mind me stealing this one…
Xenu approves.
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.
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.