The ‘Skeptical Science’ Kidz go a bridge too far with blacklisting

Note from Anthony: Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. writes this morning to say that he has been “locked out of Twitter” is response to calling out Dana Nuccitelli and John Cook of the dishonestly named “Skeptical Science” website over claims that Dr. Judith Curry has should be “unhirable” due to her views on climate science. The SkS kidz don’t like Dr. Curry and her reasonable voice. His essay below explains why and illustrates how childish this is.


A Climate Blacklist That Works: “It Should Make Her Unhirable In Academia”

Guest essay by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.

(Reposted from Forbes at WUWT by request.)

A climate advocacy group called Skeptical Sciencehosts a list of academics that it has labeled “climate misinformers.” The list includes 17 academics and is intended as a blacklist. We know of this intent because one of the principals of Skeptical Science, a blogger named Dana Nuccitelli, said so last Friday, writing of one academic on their list, “if you look at the statements we cataloged and debunked on her [Skeptical Science] page, it should make her unhirable in academia.”

That so-called “unhirable” academic is Professor Judy Curry, formerly the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, and a Fellow of both the American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society. By any conventional academic metric, Curry has compiled an impressive record over many decades. The idea that she would be unhirable would seem laughable.

But there is nothing funny about Skeptical Science. Today, Curry should be a senior statesperson in the atmospheric sciences community. Instead, she is out of academia. She attributes that, at least in part, to being placed on the Skeptical Science blacklist and its use, as expressed by Nuccitelli, to make her “unhirable.”Today In: Business

I asked Professor Curry about this situation. She explained, “In 2012 I was informed by my Dean that the administration wanted me to step down as Chair. While there were several reasons for this, one obvious reason was extreme displeasure by several activist climate scientists who had a very direct pipeline to the Dean.”

So Curry stepped down and started looking for administrative positions at other universities, “At the time, I was getting numerous inquiries from academic headhunters encouraging me to apply for major administration positions, ranging from Dean to Vice Chancellor for Research. I applied for several of these, and actually interviewed for two of them. I did not make it to the final short list.”

The headhunter gave Curry the following feedback from the universities: “They thought I was an outstanding candidate, looked excellent on paper, articulated a strong vision, and interviewed very well in person. The show stopper was my public profile in the climate debate, as evidenced by a simple Google search.”

Indeed, in my own Google search of “Judy Curry,” and confirmed by others on my Twitter timeline, the Skeptical Science blacklist page for her appears on the first page of Google results, and for me it was the top listing.

How can it be that a website, founded by an Australian cartoonist named John Cook and run mainly by volunteer non-academics and amateur scientists, can rise to the position of not just claiming to arbitrate who is and who is not an appropriate hire for universities, but actually fulfilling that role?

Skeptical Science emerged in 2007, the peak of the climate blogging era. It was also a time when the pursuit of “climate skeptics” (or “deniers”) really took off. The website soon found a large audience and was promoted as an ally in the battle against climate skeptics and deniers. For instance, according to Wikipedia, “The Washington Post has praised it as the “most prominent and detailed” website to counter arguments by global warming deniers.”

But the main legitimizing factor in the rise of Skeptical Science as a powerful climate advocacy group was its endorsement by prominent scientists, such as by widely-known climate scientists Michael Mann of Penn State University and Katherine Hayhoe, of Texas Tech. Like Skeptical Science, Mann and Hayhoe focus much of their advocacy efforts on identifying and denigrating so-called climate skeptics or deniers.

The American Geophysical Union (AGU), a leading scientific association that includes many climate scientists, has routinely endorsed Skeptical Science. The AGU has even invoked the Skeptical Science blacklist, as recently as last December, when one of its writers dismissed an Australian academic by observing simply that he “has his own page on John Cook’s Skeptical Science site.” The mere fact of being listed on the Skeptical Science blacklist appears to be sufficient to be dismissed on the official website of the AGU, where Curry was elected a Fellow.

But what has happened to Curry is just the tip of the iceberg.

Upon discussing on Twitter the Skeptical Science claim that their “debunking” of Curry should make her “unhirable in academia,” a follower of mine pointed to a trove of hacked internal discussions among the Skeptical Science team. In those discussions from around 2010-2012, my father, Roger Pielke, Sr. — also a prominent atmospheric scientist — was mentioned some 3,700 times. Correspondingly, my father is also listed on the Skeptical Science blacklist.

I have read those internal discussions and what I saw is incredibly disturbing, for academic freedom and for simple human decency.

Let me take a step back and explain why I believe that it is appropriate to discuss the content of these hacked discussions. (Note: These hacked discussions are different than the Photoshopped imagery found in 2013 on an unprotected Skeptical Science website showing several Skeptical Science team members with their faces super imposed upon Nazi soldiers, with John Cook as Heinrich Himmler. According to Rob Honeycutt of Skeptical Science, those images were prepared as an in-group joke to make fun of a climate skeptic who appears on another of their lists, and were not intended for the public.)  

The discussions in the hacked conversations – like those in the Wikileaks releases, those of President Emanuel Macron’s hacked conversations, or even the Climategate emails – are legitimately in the public interest.

There are at least three reasons for this. One, the hacked forum reveals that Skeptical Science – a foreign advocacy group — in collaboration with the Center for American Progress (a DC-based progressive advocacy group), improperly obtained Congressional testimony in advance from several U.S. scientists and were engaged to help Democrats in the House to impeach the testimony of these scientists. Second, the leaked discussions reveal a coordinated effort to lobby U.S. elected officials by a foreign-based entity. While such coordination may or may not meet the legal definition of “lobbying,” the appropriateness of such foreign influence efforts in U.S. politics is certainly fair to question. Third, Skeptical Science has positioned itself as a public arbiter of truth, including rendering judgments as to who is or who is not employable by universities. Their claims to service in the public interest mean that evidence contrary to such claims is also in the public interest.

For these reasons I have made the judgment that discussing the leaked discussions relevant to their stated public interest mission – and which have been in the public domain for many years – is not only fair, it is important. As the editor of the Times of London wrote in 1852, “We are bound to tell the truth as we find it, without fear of consequences.”

Knowing full well the considerable power and influence wielded by Skeptical Science and their allies, I am fearful indeed, but truth matters more. And the truth here is ugly.

The internal discussions among the Skeptical Science team, with the 3,700 mentions of Pielke Sr., reveal a years-long campaign to destroy his reputation, and to elevate their stature at his expense. The effort was coordinated and brutal.

In one representative exchange, they said, “We are HUNTING Pielke” and in another, “We are trying to bring him down,” and still another, “My vote is to take the bastard down!” Across 3,700 mentions in the dataset, there is no shortage of such expressed intent to damage, if not end, my father’s distinguished career.

Their strategy was sinister. They sought to define Pielke Sr. as a “climate denier,” and to use his prominent status in the field as the basis for elevating their own by then taking him down. Often they commented on how pleased they were to be able to use the stature of Pielke Sr. to elevate their own profile in the climate debate, “”The fact that Pielke even acknowledges SkS is a good thing.”

At times the Skeptical Science team was confused at why Pielke Sr. was engaging with them: “Why does a scientist of Dr. Pielke’s stature choose to spend so much of his time and enrgy posting on SkS? Doesn’t he have more important things to do?”

What they did not understand is that Pielke Sr. is a science nerd and is willing to talk atmospheric science with anyone – alarmist, skeptic, expert, non-expert – 24/7/365. They took advantage of this openness to discussion, and perhaps his naivete as to their motives, to seek to destroy him. They went so far as to strategically have one team member contact him by email on multiple occasions to appear friendly and engage in a side discussion to see if they could gather further information via a good cop/bad cop routine.

Some of the discussions of Pielke Sr. veered into the paranoid, with Skeptical Science team members on several occasions fantasizing that Pielke Sr. was perhaps the point man in a global climate denier conspiracy. If only they could somehow access his university emails, one mused, “Look, if the deniers’ emails are exposed I have no doubt that what we see will be unbelieveable, mind blowing, maybe even criminal. Why none has tried legitimitely (i.e., through FOIA) to access their emails is beyond me.”

The idea that Pielke Sr. is a climate denier is laughable. Skeptical Science consistently interpreted Pielke Sr.’s willingness to engage with their mortal enemies (such as Anthony Watts of the skeptical blog WattsUpWithThat) not as a sign of a magnanimous senior statesman willing to help anyone bring their ideas to the peer-reviewed literature, but as evidence of some sort of deep and irreparable moral turpitude. The hacked discussions are infused with such Manichean paranoia.

As time went by the Skeptical Science team’s attitude toward Pielke Sr. became increasingly unhinged and personal. John Cook, the founder of Skeptical Science, wrote, “”I’m finding myself very annoyed when I think about Pielke, having trouble thinking purely rationally and strategically when I think about him.” One team member expressed some concern about their attacks, “It looks like a great lion being mobbed by snarling jackals. I don’t like it.”

But in the end, the political aims of Skeptical Science meant that Pielke Sr. needed to be destroyed: “he lends the camouflage of scientific respectability to what is likely to be a very dangerous policy of fossil-fuel appeasement. I don’t care how Pielke is behaving: I’m playing to win.”

And win they have.

Even given my obvious biases, Pielke Sr. is undoubtedly a giant in the atmospheric sciences. It is hard to find any scientist of his generation with a stronger record of achievement. He was an early pioneer of computer modeling of weather, contributing to demonstrably better weather forecasts. He was also a leader in recognizing the role of land surface processes in regional and global climate. A full recounting of his achievements would span many columns here. At a time when he should be receiving lifetime achievement awards and celebrated for his contributions to science, he is instead ostracized and is still being denigrated by Skeptical Science and their followers.

My bias is not simply familial. You see, I am also on the Skeptical Science blacklist. Rarely does a day go by that this is not used on social media or, at times, in personal interactions to illustrate my lack of fitness to participate in scientific discussions, to damage my career and reputation.

Like Curry and Pielke Sr., I have seen firsthand the consequences of a public and behind-the-scenes campaign by Skeptical Science against me. Despite the widespread aversion of professor blacklisting, in climate science at least, such blacklisting is allowed and even encouraged by the community, and as a result, it works.

I have been locked out from Twitter for sharing some of the information from the hacked Skeptical Science discussions. Several Skeptical Science team members have contacted me by email in the past hours with vaguely sinister but eminently deniable threats. I expect they will come after this column next. And if you hear that I have left academia, like Curry, you’ll know why.

Even so, everything here is true, and truth matters more than fear.


Roger Pielke Contributor Energy

I research and write about science and technology in policy, politics and in sport

Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website.

173 thoughts on “The ‘Skeptical Science’ Kidz go a bridge too far with blacklisting

  1. I’d say tar and feather them and ride them out of town on a rail, but I got thrown in Twitter jail for using the phrase “tar and feather” … the PC thought police are everywhere.

    Grrrr … Dr. Roger, best of luck in fighting these scumballs, in particular because as you know, they don’t fight fair.

    w.

    • I read here the other day that you can’t pick up feathers in the US to use with the tar, but that doesn’t apply in GB; so when they come to Glasgow we can T & F them and then dunk them in the canal – particularly in Falkirk where the canal still has tar in it from the tarworks fire.

    • Can’t Judith Curry sue Skeptical Science for lost earnings due to slander? All she’d have to do was prove what they’ve said is untrue? And presumably what they have said IS untrue? If she were British we could sue here in the UK since my family own a law firm.

      I just called Dana Nuccitelli a maggot on Twitter, with the looks and soul of an SS Standartenfuhrer. That’s the best I could come up with. No doubt I’ll now be suspended.

      • Since Skeptical Science is a website that is read by numerous Britons, and hence can be assumed to have published in the UK, if these comments are untrue and defamatory and their publication has adversely affected Dr. Curry financially. there is possibly no need for Dr. Curry to be British or to live in England or Wales in order to sue.

        Perhaps an English lawyer familiar with libel actions could advise.

    • Doesn’t it speak volumes that the initials of Skeptical Science is ‘SS’.

      So we have Einzatsgruppenfuehrer Cook from ze SS pursuing new targets.

      Nothing more need be said except SEIG HEIL !

  2. Anthony

    “Note from Anthony: Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. writes this morning to say that he has been “locked out of Twitter” is in response to calling out Dana Nuccitelli and John Cook of the dishonestly named “Skeptical Science” ”

    Great post

    p.s. When does the new register thingy begin and where ?

    Tanx

  3. Well do you expect a movement which seeks to remove half or more of the human population from Earth for the sake of the planet to be nice people?
    Someone please send me a link to access the hacked Skeptical Science emails
    Keep up the good work Anthony and Roger

    • As I recall, they were not “hacked” but rather accessed easily if you had a rudementary understanding of computers, which SKS does not. You can probably search for it using the search engine of choice. It was all over the blogosphere.

      • Sheri

        I think the messages were hacked but the photos of the dress-up were on a clickable link that was accidentally made publicly accessible.

        Corrections, anyone?

    • Another certifiably crazy person has similar views…
      Ted Kaczynski
      End capitalism
      End technological society
      Eliminate a significant quantity of the world population
      Read his manifesto

  4. Anthony

    “website over claims that Dr. Judith Curry has should be “unhirable” due to her views on climate science.”

  5. Thank you. I now understand why Judith Curry left my alma mater Georgia Tech. I am writing the President of Tech to remove me from their donor list!

    • Very important point! No one who gets the typical alma mater begging letters should support a university that behaves as a Neo-n a z i or Hitler youth enforcement org. STOP GIVING ! Register your displeasure. Tell them why. It’s the same as when the public is asked if they want to stop Catastrophic CO2 based climate change, and they say, oh, sure. But when their electricity rates and gas prices skyrocket, they suddenly DON’T want to do it anymore. Money talks. Bullshit walks. Stop supporting the livelihoods of these oppressive gits.

      And vote for Trump in 2020, even if you don’t like him, and you think (as do I) that he’s sometimes a braggart and a pig. To our friends across the pond in the UK, if you’re for Brexit, but you think you want more wind turbines to produce your electricity, STOP THAT RIGHT NOW! The wind turbines and the EU rules are part and parcel of the same political movement, the one that wants to rule over your life with an iron hand, Fabian-style, Hitler Youth style. Just STOP! Reach down and talk to your inner General Patton, not your inner Dwight Eisenhower, and certainly NOT your inner Field Marshal Montgomery. It must be your inner Patton. University Presidents, CAGW alarmists, the SS Kidz, the EU and American and UN bureaucrats are the Bulge, and we are besieged in Bastogne and the snow is falling! BE PATTON!

    • Wow! No hour long lag time, my post went right up.

      [We’re not always sure why some posts get flagged and put in moderation, but we get to them when we can. We apologize for any delays, and appreciate your continued patience. -mod]

    • Steve Case February 9, 2020 at 10:32 am
      re: “Another depressing post here at WattsUpWithThat.”

      Yet – you come, you read, and you post.

      Something brings you back, apparently, time after time.

      • _Jim

        Something went right over your head.

        It’s depressing to read about what has become of scientific debate.

        • re: “Something went right over your head.”

          Not at all Steve. I’m wonder WHAT is going in YOUR head is all; what is (was) your fascination with what you categorize as a “negative” post? Now we have some idea. I don’t agree, some of these things need AIRING in a public forum, in a public setting, seeing how they, this type of dishonest action by a ‘foe’ (yes, FOE) can build and affect a wider circle, can affect a larger group of people adversely IF THEY (the foe) ARE NOT CALLED ON IT.

          Maybe you missed this: SkS is affecting people’s livelihoods, their ability to earn a living, and their ability/their access (to something akin to the public square) to discourse. Have you ever heard the expression that begins thusly: “First they came for …”

          • SkS proves that backbiting and calumny are worse than murder. They’ve real and long-lasting effect on the intended victims. That it is done in such a deliberate and sustained manner is testimony to the purposeful nature of it – even without the admissions on record.

            It works. That’s why it is a crime.

  6. “I expect they will come after this column next. And if you hear that I have left academia, like Curry, you’ll know why.”
    Hopefully you will not be exiled to the salt mines gulags of Alaska, at least not yet.

  7. Wouldn’t it be great if governments decreed that from now on, all contributions to the study of climate can only be publicly published as anonymously authored, and open for anonymous public critique.

    Research funding would be have to be raised by researchers by appeal on public crowd-funding sites.

    Thereby, all ideas, hypotheses, research, predictions have to stand or fall on their own merits. No ‘elite’ currency for unabashed self-promoters.

    One overarching rule must apply however – the classic scientific method must be rigorously adhered to. No ifs, buts, exemptions.

    I dream a lot, don’t I?

    • “I dream a lot, don’t I?”

      Yes you do. They wouldn’t stay anonymous for long, at least not for those who say there is no catastrophe. It really wouldn’t get us anywhere.

    • Mr. February 9, 2020 at 10:38 am
      Wouldn’t it be great if governments …
      ____________________________________

      Thereby, all ideas, hypotheses, research, predictions have to stand or fall on their own merits. No ‘elite’ currency for unabashed self-promoters.

      Some ~10 ys ago our Host Anthony Watts asked how to continue – code names, abbreviations …

      I replied open visor. Sure not everyone is free to choose.
      ____________________________________

      One overarching rule must apply however – the classic scientific method must be rigorously adhered to. No ifs, buts, exemptions.

      With open visor that’s inevitable.

  8. These tactics are one small step away from acting like their true selves, just like 1930s/40s Germany, taking the transgressor out of a meeting & escorting him down a back alley, & beating the hell out of him, only this is a psychological form of persecution! AtB

  9. Never use violent language on Twitter. I was permanently banned for the most preposterously obvious and innocent metaphor involving Jeremy Corbyn.

    I have an image (meme) which quotes Noam Chomsky and the word ‘hanged’ referring’ to the Nuremberg trials. An image, not text and it won’t upload !! I changed it slightly and now it does upload.

  10. Dr. Pielke. The reason they devote so much effort to denigrating you, your father and Dr. Curry, is basically – they are afraid of the truth.

    • The green believers go for censorship on “hate speech” – when the discussion is about real world facts.

      Not about human justice, morals, religious matters – simply laws of nature, technical issues.

      ____________________________________

      Questions can arise about less noticed single aspects on the topic:

      / confrontation / discussion / debates / examinations / disputes / conflicts / engagement / arguments / ….

      Anyway – censorship will sooner or later get / biased / prejudiced / judgmental / partial / judgemental / opinionated / partisan / judging / preempted / ad.lib.

      https://www.google.com/search?q=censorship+hate+speech&oq=censorship+hat&aqs=chrome.

      ____________________________________

      Whoever acts like this has already lost on the substantive issues.

      – the libdems obviously believe in “other tricks up their sleeves”.

  11. Time to update the pejorative term “Lysenkoism” to “Mannism” as in Michael “Hide the Decline” Mann.

  12. I imagine that if these social media had been available circa 1920 communists would have behaved no differently than those at SS…

  13. Freedom of speech is under attack by these criminal thugs.

    Alumni should cease all donations to these schools.

    UPDATED LIST OF THOSE FORCED FROM THEIR INSTITUTIONS BY GLOBAL WARMING THUGS

    George Taylor – Oregon State Climatologist
    Sallie Baliunas – Harvard University
    Pat Michaels – University of Virginia
    Murry Salby – Macquarie University, Australia
    Caleb Rossiter – Institute for Policy Studies
    Nickolas Drapela, PhD – Oregon State University
    Henrik Møller – Aalborg University, Denmark
    Bob Carter, James Cook University, Australia
    Peter Ridd, James Cook University, Australia
    Judith Curry, Georgia Tcch
    Susan Crockford, University of Victoria

    UPDATED LIST OF HONORABLE MENTIONS – FOR HARASSMENT BY THEIR INSTITUTIONS AND OTHERS:

    Willie Soon, Harvard University
    Roger Pielke Sr.
    Roger Pielke Jr.
    _________________

    A few quotes by Lenin will shed further light on this process:
    https://www.azquotes.com/author/8716-Vladimir_Lenin

    Truth is the most precious thing. That’s why we should ration it.
    [aka “Lie, lie, lie!”]

    We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.

    [There are many such examples in the global warming/climate change scam – for example, climate scammers call climate skeptics “deniers” and refuse to debate the bogus CAGW “settled science”.]

    There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.

    Free speech is a bourgeois prejudice.

    The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.

    People always have been and they always will be stupid victims of deceit and self-deception in politics.

    It is, of course, much easier to shout, abuse, and howl than to attempt to relate, to explain.

    **************************

    • It seems to me that your list of quotes (bar one) cannot be found in any printed works of Lenin.
      This topic is about the McCarthyism and false reporting of Skeptical Science.
      Its not appropriate to combat this with a long list of unattributable quotes .

      • It’s disturbing that the commenters here are doing much the same as they are criticising Sceptical Science for, attacking people they disagree with because of their alleged sins.

        Re Judith Curry, her page on SS just gives a list of statements from her papers and blogs, and says they are incorrect. She can equally quote SS and say they are incorrect.
        On the one hand, I don’t think she, or anyone else, deserves to lose, or not get a job, because of a scientific disagreement. But if this was the case, it was most likely because employers want to avoid public controversy.

        The problem is that in climate science disagreements fast descend into personal invective, on both sides. The allegations that pro-AGW researchers fake their data and are only in it for the money, often using some pretty nasty insults, are never-ending. No wonder the pro-AGW mob don’t like those who are sceptical of AGW.

        • re: “It’s disturbing that the commenters here are doing much the same as they are criticising Sceptical Science for, attacking people they disagree with because of their alleged sins.”

          Incorrect, boyo.

          Where do you hail from, Tom? What do you do, or what did you do, for a living? Carpentry, sheet rock, accounting, writer for the Guardian – what?

        • There’s a big difference between attacking someone, and trying to get them fired.

          I’m not surprised that you can’t see that difference.

        • Tom wrote:
          “The problem is that in climate science disagreements fast descend into personal invective, on both sides. The allegations that pro-AGW researchers fake their data and are only in it for the money, often using some pretty nasty insults, are never-ending. No wonder the pro-AGW mob don’t like those who are skeptical of AGW.”

          Tom, you are fabricating a deliberate deception by suggesting that the statements of the climate skeptics are similar or even worse than the chronic lies of the climate alarmists.

          Tony Heller has diligently recorded the many data fabrications of the climate extremists.

          The ability to predict is the best objective measure of scientific and technical competence. I and others have observed that all the scary global warming and climate change predictions made by the climate alarmists, totaling ~50 or more to date, have failed to materialize.

          This is not a debate among equals. Virtually every scary prediction made by global warming alarmists is false. Nobody should believe them – about anything.

      • Bryan wrote:
        “It seems to me that your list of quotes (bar one) cannot be found in any printed works of Lenin.”

        I’m going to bet you just made that up Bryan and that your statement is deliberately false.

        Are you really an expert on the writings of Lenin? Quelle surprise!

    • Yes, this is something I have been wondering about for 15 years or more. Why do the alarmists refuse to debate. If they are so sure its true, then they could remove all scepticism in a simple debate.

    • That’s quite a list, And who comes in to replace them? Methinks there’s more to this than getting people out. Perhaps it’s about taking control of institutions by getting people in. People who would never get hired by them ordinarily. Corruption anyone?

    • Five of the scientists on the above list are friends of mine.

      For the record, I disrespect and loath these institutions who have abused their power to dismiss and harass these competent, ethical scientists.

      These are not institutions of learning, they are leftist propaganda factories – boiler works of deceit. By their underhanded actions, they have abolished their right to exist.

      If it were within my power, I would put them out of business.

      SCIENCE’S UNTOLD SCANDAL: THE LOCKSTEP MARCH OF PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES TO PROMOTE CLIMATE CHANGE
      By Tom Harris and Dr. Jay Lehr, May 24, 2019
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/25/sciences-untold-scandal-the-lockstep-march-of-professional-societies-to-promote-the-climate-change-scare/

  14. Seems to me that COP26 needs as many folk like the Pielkes and co. to attend and put the record straight once and for all, if necessary hiring halls for their own presentations and swamping the so-called consensus mob.

    • Lord knows how many millions of our tax dollars will go to fund the propaganda machine at COP26, but not a cent to challenge it.

    • “Seems to me that COP26 needs as many folk like the Pielkes and co. to attend and put the record straight once and for all”

      No, because they are also alarmists. They believe CO2 is causing dangerous climate change.

      • Yes, the unspoken part is that the Pielkes’ story is one of “leftists eating their own.”

        Because ANY injection of the slightest bit of “reason” in the “climate” realm is cause for excommunication from the “climate” religion.

    • What are most suspicious are the PERCENTAGE and the CONSTANCY of the 97% meme.

      There are several points that the rational among us might consider:

      1. Opinions shift constantly. Even if it were true, surely it should go UP and DOWN like election polls. Instead is stays the same year after year.
      2. Exactly WHAT the 97% are supposed to agree with is maddeningly vague.
      3. 97% of climate scientists could not possibly agree about ANYTHING.
      4. 97% majorities are characteristic of tyrannical regimes like that of Saddam Hussein.

  15. The fact that ‘they’ managed to orchestrate a PhD for Cook in an area he doesn’t blog on tells me there are dark forces at work. He (SS) was widely quoted by the Guardian and by a million climate fanboy wannabees. He is a useful idiot who for reasons to do with his fundamentalist Christianity always wants to believe the worst about the climate.

    “I’m a Christian and find myself strongly challenged by passages in the Bible like Amos 5 and Matthew 25”, he wrote. “… I care about the same things that the God I believe in cares about – the plight of the poor and vulnerable.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/aug/25/solar-physicist-religion

    There is a similar but much more dangerous useful idiot by the name of Bellingcat (underwear salesman Eliot Higgins ) who believes the Russians are to blame for everything. He is quoted by the BBC and The Guardian as a serious source and is now an employee of the Atlantic Council (NATO).

    ‘How a college drop out became a champion of investigative journalism’

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/30/bellingcat-eliot-higgins-exposed-novichok-russian-spy-anatoliy-chepiga

    • re: “… I care about the same things that the God I believe in cares about – the plight of the poor and vulnerable.

      A corrupt and ‘corrupted’ system benefits no one including the ‘poor and vulnerable’. Telling lies and fabricating stories and tales and outright lies will NOT earn one entry into heaven.

      Isaiah 5:20 “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”

      Jeremiah 23:1 “Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture!” declares the LORD.

      • “I care about the same things that the God I believe in cares about – the plight of the poor and vulnerable.”

        I don’t find any part of that statement believable.

        • “I don’t find…” A bold statement Jeff, of is it Griff?
          What makes you so quick to toss _Jim under the bus?

          • re: “What makes you so quick to toss _Jim under the bus?”

            No one one is paying attention, and are mis-attributing quotes.

    • Well ok, but what you have to remember is that people who read the Grauniad are increasingly being laughed at. It no longer has the influence it did.

    • It’s disturbing that the commenters here are doing much the same as they are criticising Sceptical Science for, attacking people they disagree with because of their alleged sins.

      Re Judith Curry, her page on SS just gives a list of statements from her papers and blogs, and says they are incorrect. She can equally quote SS and say they are incorrect.
      On the one hand, I don’t think she, or anyone else, deserves to lose, or not get a job, because of a scientific disagreement. But if this was the case, it was most likely because employers want to avoid public controversy.

      The problem is that in climate science disagreements fast descend into personal invective, on both sides. The allegations that pro-AGW researchers fake their data and are only in it for the money, often using some pretty nasty insults, are never-ending. No wonder the pro-AGW mob don’t like those who are sceptical of AGW.

      • re: “The problem is that in climate science disagreements fast descend into …”

        THEN there are those that have, IMO, “no mind”, like our friend Tom here, no mind in which to observe and understand what has been taking place in this ‘field’ for 40 plus years …

        People like Tom are also fair game for Social Democrats like AOC who take advantage of Tom’s “mo mind” condition to woo his vote, enticing him to vote for her with the promise of ‘goods’ stolen from his neighbor by the power of a government AOC would oversee.

      • A distant observer might agree with you Tom. It sounds like never-ending childish squabbling and sometimes that’s just what it is. The Climate Wars has caused many folks eyes to glaze over, particularly if they’re exposed to the most irrational and juvenile of the discussions.

        The cases of Pielke and Curry are quite different. To be convinced of this, as I am, one has to have followed the careers and publications of these individuals.

        As to Curry, she is a distinguished climate scientist with scores of publications and perhaps the finest of cli sci textbooks. She was a “consensus scientist” until the mid-2000’s when she concluded that many of the dire predictions just didn’t add up. Then the climategate emails broke onto the scene, and Curry was one of the principal defenders of the scientists who were trashed by the emails. This meant she opposed people like Michael Mann and Phil Jones, heroes of consensus science.

        After that Curry was a dedicated and fairly vocal “lukewarmist”-the equivalent of “denier” to the more militant warmists. She testified in Congress in opposition to warmist figures, which identified her with the Republicans and thus as a “political” figure in the national political madhouse. Once the establishment tide turns against you, there’s no mercy and rationality is history.

        I’m less familiar with Pielke’s history and I’ll let his story above speak for him. But his treatment at the hands of the establishment has probably been worse. FWIW his own account rings very true to me. Having witnessed (through blogs) the major episodes in his academic journey, I don’t see much to criticize in his account.

        If you take what Pielke says as basically true, you have to decide whether how they’ve been treated meets any standard of fairness or decency. Many of us find it difficult to believe that established academics can behave in this manner. Reading the climategate emails convinced me. To drag in another party, it’s incomprehensible that Twitter would pick sides and lock Pielke out of the platform.

        To come down in favor of Curry and Pielke requires you go somewhat against the orthodox view and take some commentary at face value. Or go back and read the accounts of the multiple encounters.

  16. Skeptical Science is an instrument of propaganda for profiteers of doom. It’s mission is to mis-inform, defame, and intimidate dissent from the party line. This ooperation is not science; it’s anti-science.

    It’s founder, John Cook, is eminently qualified to comment on climate science – After all, he holds a degree in.. psychology. But then that degree is from western Australia. And here’s the best part: Although he disavows public support, in truth, Cook is now funded by the US National *Science* Foundation, under the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University.

    https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/portfolio-view/john-cook/

    Corruption of science and public policy – by the Deep State, for the Deep State.
    Ameicans’ tax dollars hard at work!

    • It does not matter. Once having committed the CARDINAL SIN of thinking for himself, he will be forever barred by the Climate Crackpots. Independent thinking is the ONE CRIME for which there can be no forgiveness.

    • Maybe, but it sure calls into question his judgment.
      But then (like other purveyors of opinion) he’s a statistician, not a scientist.

      • Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has an opinion and research to back that up. While I don’t agree with his conclusions, I’m happy to say that he also doesn’t rail against everyone who DOESN”T believe him.

        He writes articles, you can read those articles, you can agree or disagree. That’s how it’s supposed to work.

    • Anyone wanting to resign the Paris Climate accord has greater problems than a hostile group of web predators going after him. It would suggest (putting the kindest spin on it I can) he has not read the document.
      Anyone wishing to throw $billions away to achieve no measurable outcome over an 85 year spending period, has some very deep issues.

  17. The darkest hour is just before dawn. The light of truth will soon send these purveyors of darkness scuttling. Only a matter of time.

    • The question is, are any of the things on their blacklist page valid? I’m not going to give them any clicks to find out.

      • I get Judith’s Twitter account, Judith Curry – Wikipedia, Climate Etc, IPCC attribution statement redux; There it is SKS is 5th.

        Just because you asked so nicely, I jumped off the cliff to read the SkS entry.
        They have on the left a set of quotes from Judith, and on the right their “scincey” rebuttal.
        It says exactly what you would expect. Selective quotes and appeal to authority retort.
        PS: the photo of Judith is one of a grumpy face.

      • I checked out the SkS page on Judith Curry. What I saw appeared to me as cherrypicking and some selective quoting with attempt to take some tidbit parts of things Curry said away from the context she was saying these things in.

        Meanwhile, Dr. Curry apparently favors climate sensitivity figures around 1.5 degrees C per 2xCO2, which require some positive feedback although a fraction as much as necessary to achieve the higher “most likely” or “middle of probable range” (my words) (about 2.5 degrees C per 2xCO2) climate sensitivity that the IPCC favors on basis of climate models that I see as biased to warming due to not considering multidecadal oscillations while having enough other parameters to tune enough for hindcasting to “fit an elephant”.

  18. Skeptical Science’s 198 “Global Warming & Climate Change Myths” all appear to be conclusions, based on a brief scan. Numbers 4 (“Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing”) and 146 are both about 97%, several more are about carbon dioxide. Their number four fallacy is that “Expertise in climate science” correlates with % of consensus based on Cook’s analysis. Not a very impressive graph as 4 of 16 above 80% consensus are below 50% in expertise.

    “In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them.” Not a very impressive field if everybody has quit arguing. “Only 16% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%.”

    • and Levrentiy Beria (who studied petroleum engineering in Baku before discovering his true calling)

      • After Stalin’s death, Khrushchev accused Beria of being in pay of the British intelligence, and no true Communist believer. After a short summary trial when the death sentence announced Beria begged on his knees for mercy, but to no avail, he was shot dead and his wife and son were sent to a Siberian gulag.

  19. Maybe John Cook is related to James Cook University? Ask Peter Ridd? What is it about the Cook name in Australia?

      • Thanks Vuk. I live in New Zealand, “discovered” by Captain James Cook in 1769. Our two main islands are separated by Cook Strait. I’ve visited James Cook University, so I don’t need a Wikipedia item. I was drawing attention to a coincidence between climate twaddle deriving from two Cooks, but clearly my witty observation fell flat. Apologies.

        • Hi David
          No apology needed, after reading the wiki’s long article I learned a lot of new stuff I didn’t know before, I’m sure there are few other readers that may find something new in there, so thank you for your witty question?
          I knew about Cook’s demise, but didn’t realise it was so gruesome, I hope the upper-mentioned Cook is not too much disturbed by the fate of his long gone namesake.
          The body was disembowelled, baked to facilitate removal of the flesh, and the bones were carefully cleaned for preservation. Some of Cook’s remains, thus preserved, were eventually returned to his crew for a formal burial at sea.

  20. “if you look at the statements we cataloged and debunked on her [Skeptical Science] page, it should make her unhirable in academia.”

    Now that is a badge of honour.
    Academia has made its self unemployable in the real world.
    Trust is gone.Tax dollars will also disappear,as we flatly refuse to fund enemies.
    And this open attack on private citizens,promotion of climate porn and horror, by state funded agencies is hard to miss.

    Big government has exposed its inherent corruption.
    Next move is over to the citizens.

    • If you go and read what they’ve actually written; it should make zero difference to her employment prospects.

      Apparently those who hear about it don’t read it either. They just give in to their demands and their propaganda.

    • David Niven when he was the army was warned off Trubshawe who was regarded by the brass hats to be a bad lot , so made a particular point of getting to see him.
      They ended up great friends.
      It’s a pity the universities don’t follow Niven’s example when recruiting researchers.
      After all, if someone has upset another researcher they can’t be all bad?

  21. Here it is, near 70-years later and what do we have? We have McCarthyism redux, this time from the left. Where are this generations Edward R. Murrow and Senator Flanders when we need them?

  22. I saw Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.’s twitter barrage. He showed lots of screen shots of hacked emails that included email addresses. I was wondering if he went too far with that.

    • Those email addresses are nearly two decades old.
      The details are out of date or in the public sector.
      The exposed corruption is a stain that fades more slowly.

  23. “A climate advocacy group called Skeptical Science”

    Climate advocacy? Is that when the climate needs counseling, it goes to these guys? Well, I guess it is the end times after all.

  24. The greatest gift to those wanting a review of climate science is AOC..

    AOC promoted Impeachment, nay, demanded it. Look at what a disaster that has been for the Democrats.

    Before that her advocacy of the Green New Deal exposed the Democrats plans. It is terrifying.

    The polls now indicate that President Trump is rising in popular support. Thank you AOC.

    In November we will see the result. It is possible that the Red Team/Blue Team approach to a review of climate science will be underway a year hence.

    There is still hope. (It is sad day that the National Academy of Sciences is AWOL on this effort.)

    • (It is sad day that the National Academy of Sciences is AWOL on this effort.)

      That’s because the vast majority of the members are in too deep to admit that such an effort is even needed.

  25. You want to see what happens when scientific free speech is eliminated: Dr. Li in Wuhan could tell you but…

    • There are similarities between Skeptical Science and the Southern Poverty Law Center. The latter has been successfully sued, and lawsuits against government entities which rely on the SPLC for decision-making input are being sued, notably by the American Family Law Center in Michigan.

  26. Racketeers have to persistently invalidate those who are exposing the truth.

    At the earliest signs of bullying, evidence needs to be compiled, so that names of the bullies and hard evidence become part of a thorough documentation process.
    As, bullying develops into serious harm, legal action taken will be made easier if everything is organized in a file, so that the key people who orchestrated the crime can all be exposed.

  27. I think it’s possible that the blocking of his twitter account might turn out to be a black eye for twitter.

    I’d like to get a copy of those emails…

  28. Wasn’t if the University of Virginia (UVA) that gladly handed over the work emails of Pat Michaels, but fought tooth and nail to keep from turning over Mann’s? Assuming I’m remembering that correctly, that should tell you all you need to know.

  29. There is a lot of big money behind the Skeptical Science thugs.
    We saw just a tip of the Iceberg of that money in the ExxonKnew trial testimony, a trail that ended with a slap-down judgement against the NY State Attorney General Letitia James and her shakedown crew funded by Bloomberg’s attorney’s for hire scheme as well as other GreenSlimers.

    One Group stood out in that NY vs Exxon trial testimony: CERES.org.

    Ceres.org is the nexus, a money washing operation for the climate scam, whereby a lot of the climate hustle funds come in, and goes out to fund without the real donors being identifiable.

    The GreenSlime is not just the billionaires looking for big money payoffs from the renewable energy scams, but also big public employee retirement funds (like CalPERS and CalSTRS) are active in CERES.org and have positions on the board of directors. These public employee retirement funds are desperately looking for new ways to amp-up their investment returns for the under-funded state (to future retirement obligations) of their portfolio. That brings a lot of political pressures to bear to keep the climate scam going and suppress any dissent coming out of academia. And the renewable energy climate scam driving up everyones electric bills is how these funds are using that indirect taxation to fleece the middle class of its affluence.

  30. You say you have emails outlining a conspiracy to defame your father and put him out of his job, and that said conspiracy was successful?

    Have you spoken to a lawyer about suing these conspirators for deliberately injuring your father?

    • The emails are openly available.
      That means the allegations are “common knowledge”.
      The truth or not is irrelevant as the defendants can claim it is common knowledge and so fair to repeat.
      Freedom of speech is precious. On balance they will win.

  31. Totally off topic, but it’s been a bit warm in Europe lately, apparently in other places too. The usual Dr Spencer’s temperature update has not been published on WUWT, how come?

  32. It was a lot harder to change the past and/or control information before silicon chips.
    “Freedom of the Press”, “Freedom of Speech” was about printed opinions not being censured by The Government.
    But, back then, the Press was a bunch of locally owned papers not controlled by a few. (Today’s MSM.)
    I’m not a fan of those who change meaning and intent of The Constitution and The Bill of Rights’ by claiming it’s a “living document” so it means whatever we can twist it into, but, in this case and these times … a semi-monopoly public outlet should not be allowed to censure views that conflict with their chosen opinions. At least the legalities should be explore.
    I mean, it’s not like Curry and Pielke are talking about “Hiroshima Bombs” or anything like that.
    PS If Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc weren’t semi-monopoly public outlets in their fields, I might not like what they do, but I would have “let it pass”.

  33. I recently watched Margaret Hoover’s Firing Line on PBS. Here guests were Cornel West and Robert George. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/firing-line/video/cornel-west-and-robert-george-mpaztt/

    No two gentlemen are more polar opposites or deeper personal friends. It is sad that the same respect for differing opinions and valuing the importance of listening to their expression cannot be demonstrated in Climate Science discussions. The climate/media Leninists are demonstrating their required obedience to their orthodoxy. The heretics to be drowned or burned to ashes in suffocating searing rhetoric.

  34. Anti-science, anti-reason, anti-reality “global warming”/”climate change” fanatics are disgusting. Part & parcel w/ statists, collectivists, & PC SJWs trying to destroy our freedom and our rights. Bullies, cowards, & thieves undeserving of respect. Watermelons.

    As for Twitter and social media, in general, if they are going act as editors, they should not have Sec. 230 protections. I don’t mean that government should regulate social media. But social media should be forced to choose: be common carriers a la phone companies or publishers a la magazines. As of now, they benefit from liability limits while censoring to their heart’s content, all the while pretending to “neutrality.”

    See “Social Media and Freedom”: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B083S1BBVV

  35. We are losing. We need a different approach.

    Blacklisting is just the start. The Climate Issue Political machine has removed logic and reason from policy making …

    …. and are working to make it a crime to question the ‘climate change emergency’ slogan that they created and to question the spending of money on green stuff that does not work.

    Dr. Judith Curry is not a ‘skeptic’.

    Her writings are 100% in accordance with the IPCC incorrect paradigm.

    The problem is the science part of the IPCC reports does not even support CAGW.

    Shutdown countries by making energy unbelievably expensive will not change the climate…

    … and it is impossible for practical engineering reasons to get to carbon emission absolute zero.

    The UK Absolute Zero plan would ban the use of Cement, ban Airplane air travel, and ban Ships. It would require the end of the Mining and the Hydrocarbon industries. It would be impossible to manufacturing anything.

    ‘Absolute Zero’ is group suicided:

    The mantra is:

    1) Declare a climate emergency. Justification media control to keep on message and hide stuff.
    2) We ignore GDP cuts and increased unemployment because it is a climate emergency.

    https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/299414/Absolute-Zero-digital-280120-v2.pdf?sequence=6&isAllowed=y

    • ”We are losing. We need a different approach.”

      Nah, we just keep doing what we’re doing. Once the seed of doubt is sown – and it has been – it will grow.
      Just sit back and watch the show.
      I have noticed more and more people are quite happy to voice their (true) scepticism in the narrative.
      This is especially true with the fire situation here in Australia. When you ask people for proof that CC is a major factor, you get crickets. Lookers-on notice this.
      There are noises in politics here in AU about new coal fired power plants. Whether they eventuate or not, folks are talking and reality is stirring.
      We need patience but truth will win.

      • “Nah, we just keep doing what we’re doing. Once the seed of doubt is sown – and it has been – it will grow.
        Just sit back and watch the show.”

        I think Mike has it right. I don’t think we are losing the argument. What we are really seeing is stepped-up hyperbole from all the usual suspects, including an orchestrated effort by the leftwing media, and they are doing all this because they also think they are losing the argument.

        The alarmists have turned up the volume but the actual science is going against them and there’s nothing they can do about that, other than try to obscure the truth by being real noisy and distracting, which equates to trying to scare people to death over CO2.

        The True Believers in Human-caused Climate Change are going to have a hard time dealing with the truth when it finally becomes obvious to everyone. The Liars will just move on to the next lie.

        • And speaking of the orchestrated effort by the leftwing media to hype CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming), I watched a Nova tv science program yesterday on Public Television and it was an hour-long prmotion of CAGW.

          Their main point was comparing temperatures at various times in history with CO2 levels and then making the claim that the CO2 levels were driving the temperatures.

          Of course, the argument could be made that what we are seeing is really temperature driving atmospheric CO2 levels, but that wasn’t their focus since they were promoting CAGW not trying to knock it down.

    • “Dr. Judith Curry is not a ‘skeptic’.”

      Neither are either of the Pielke’s – Jnr always uses IPCC approved, peer-reviewed research to make his case, for example.
      Doesn’t matter.
      He’s “off message”, so a target.
      It really is that simple – or so it seems.

  36. My own father suffered similar vilification.
    He was the first to suggest that the radiative effect of CO2 could be used to attack fossil fuel use back in 1980, back when the big scare was acid rain.
    Being the first sceptic he was de facto evidence that it was a political drive that spawned thee science rather than hypotheses derived from evidence.

    So they destroyed him.

  37. Roger:
    I will say a guerrilla war is in progress, outside of the more visible media/institutional warfare, that seeks to bring science/logic/common sense to people one-on-one and in small groups. Some need a science-based argument, others logic or common sense. Some respond to the political argument that climate alarmists align with socialism or worse (communism is evil and socialism is just a step or two away).

    While this under-the-radar engagement has not, or may not, help you, your father, Judith or others past and present, it is a resistance to those that wish to bury science to political, even religious, zeal and that zeal will eventually yield to truth as it has done in the past. This “ground war” is where the victory will be won.

  38. Interesting that a search for Judith Curry on Google brings up Skeptical Science. A searcj on DuckDuckGo brings up JudithCurry.com

    • Huh…I guess Google’s explanation of how all those quotes about their “fairness” algorithms was a complete lie. Who would have thunk it?

  39. Interesting that a search for Judith Curry on Google brings up Skeptical Science. A search on DuckDuckGo brings up JudithCurry.com

  40. The debating style on Skeptical Science is pretty basic. They note that somebody has said something they deplore and they say, “The opposite is correct.”

    Someone will write that the climate change models have mostly failed. Skeptical Science just says, the models have been accurate. And that’s the argument. There debating point is just to cite their favoured orthodoxies as if they were axioms.

  41. I wonder if the fact that they have damaged the careers of a number of people, with the expressed intent of doing so could be the basis for a class action lawsuit agains SkS.

  42. SKS is an astroturfing outfit.

    And Pelki jr et al cowards for not suing them out of existence if they as claimed spread lies an around.

    Easiest option in the world sue the scum for the damaged careers…….

    Many ways to fund a case these days with crowd funding.
    And if Dr Ball can do it, then so should young men like Pelki Jr, estroy the b@stards.

  43. I mean seriously coming here whining about the school bullies instead of standing up to them.
    Do something , push back then come to us asking for help, but ffs atleast try and fight back before meakly surrendering to the mob.

    Grow a set, be a man.

    • And ps.

      I was there during Pelki snr episode at SS.
      I followed the threads for about 2 years, Postma was there with 2 or 3 of his guys aswell as several others defending his dad.

      All through the stealth editing the contrived bans the whole 9 yards.
      Curry has a bigger set of balls than junior.

      • Those that were there remember them as the ”treehouse kids”..
        That’s the nickname they got when they first started flash mobbing the different blogs on the global warming circuit of blogs we all went around every day….

        Don’t take my anger here to heart, it isn’t focused on anyone here, or junior even.
        I just despise that whole sophist lying progressive mob.

        Junior owes it to his father to destroy them.

  44. The English Comedian Andrew Doyle, author of “Woke:a Guide to Social Justice,” a terrific sendup of the sort of idiocies prevalent today says this (tongue in cheek) of censorship by organisations like Twitter-
    “If you don’t want to be censored, don’t say the wrong thing. It’s that simple really.”
    Perhaps this is the rule at Twitter.
    The satire of the author is lost on many.
    Who is next to say ‘the wrong thing’?

      • Titania McGrath
        @TitaniaMcGrath
        ·
        6 Feb
        I feel a profound connection with people of colour. Perhaps it’s because when I was growing up most of our staff were Filipinos.

        The penis is an alt-right hate symbol

        Titania McGrath
        @TitaniaMcGrath
        ·
        29 Jan
        Given the fact that some women have wombs, and some transwomen have testicles, surely we’ve reached the point where we no longer require men in order to exist as a species?

        https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath

  45. A climate advocacy group called Skeptical Science, hosts a list of academics that it has labeled “climate misinformers.” The list includes 17 academics and is intended as a blacklist.

    If the science was sound, they wouldn’t need to attack the man. Their actions speaks volumes.

    I’m astounded at how many times alarmists double down on their claims of urgency and impending devastation when those aren’t supported by any science at all. And increasingly bad weather is blamed on climate change whereas the vast majority of days have average weather and people dont blame climate change for those.

    • “I’m astounded at how many times alarmists double down on their claims of urgency and impending devastation when those aren’t supported by any science at all. And increasingly bad weather is blamed on climate change whereas the vast majority of days have average weather and people dont blame climate change for those.”

      The alarmists are reduced to hyping severe weather as being connected to human-derived CO2 because the science is going against them along with public opinion. So now they hype every severe weather event as being evidence of Human-caused Climate Change even though there is exactly zero evidence to support such a claim.

      Unfortunately for the alarmists, history is against them because they can’t find an unprecedented weather event to hype. There seems to always be a time in the past that had even more severe weather with no connection to human-derived CO2, and the alarmists can’t explain this away, although they try.

  46. So, Curry shouldn’t be hired but the likes of Mann should? How does any sane person even consider this?

  47. When the tide turns – and turn it must because truth will always prevail eventually – whole departments in history, science and psychology will be working for a generation to analyse, catalogue and understand what happened in the first half of the 21st century, how it happened and how good people allowed it to happen.

    Unfortunately, this turning will not take place for many years – decades actually – and not before many of the actors are no longer alive.

  48. Nobody takes Judith Curry seriously because her “science” is a joke. She hasn’t published anything worth reading in decades (and she’s clearly a nutter).

    The list of blacklisted “scientists” on Skeptical Science are mostly old washed up libertarian contrarians, most of whom are not climatologists.

  49. “I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours,” Biden said in retelling the story. “If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’”

    “Well, son of a bitch, he got fired.

  50. Stories like this make Michael Mann’s Congressional testimony all the more obscene and hateful. In what certainly looked like a pre-arranged question from a leftist Congressman, Mann described (accurately) the story of Trofim Lysenko. In dramatic, and it seemed even at the time rehearsed, fashion, Mann told of how this sham agronomist used the power of the Soviet government, where he was well connected, to destroy the careers and lives of hundreds to thousands of genuine scientists who disagreed with him. And by destroy the lives, I mean that literally. Many were executed as enemies of the state.

    The question had been posed in the form of asking Mann to describe the kind of struggles climate “scientists” such as himself faced, and were they anything like what Lysenko did. Mann’s response implied that he and his fellow climate alarmists were the equivalent of Lysenko’s victims – when Mann is actually, himself, the equivalent of Lysenko. It was the most outrageous Congressional testimony I’ve ever heard.

    These people have to be fought with everything we can muster.

Comments are closed.