[mistermann]

Judith Curry

https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/

Look at how this mildly (at best) informed senator encounters facts that don't support his hypothesis, look at how he, an amateur, speaks to a top scientist!

I believe many if not most scientists are at least partially lying to people, and by lying I don't mean they are accidentally mistaken, I mean that they know that some of what they are saying is speculative, but they pass it off as established fact. I look forward to stopping thinking this way when the scientific community admits to this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh6zDbWMuP0

I suppose (sigh) that I must pre-emptively add that no, indeed, she wasn't in fact literally prevented from speaking. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide for themselves whether all is well in this situation.

[DonHopkins]

You failed to prove she was "not allowed to speak" by posting a link to a video of her literally SPEAKING in front of Congress.

Did somebody interrupt her, and that's the best proof you can come up with of your assertion "There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak."

Being highly criticized by your peers is not the same as not being allowed to speak.

Do you have any better examples of scientists who were not allowed to speak -- perhaps a scientist who hasn't actually testified in front of Congress on live national television, written an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, boasts of having a total of 12,000 citations of her publications, and a blog that gets on average about 12,000 ‘hits’ per day, and 300-400 comments?

Or is that all you've got?

[mistermann]

It's interesting that even though I wrote "I suppose (sigh) that I must pre-emptively add that no, indeed, she wasn't in fact literally prevented from speaking", the main rebuttal to my post is that she isn't literally prevented from speaking.

Here, let's try a different approach: would you be willing to admit that in human society there is this behavior where peer pressure is sometimes used to persuade people to behave in one way or another? Please note that I am not asking you if that is the case here (that would be my next question), at this point I am simply asking if you are willing to admit that it is a legitimate phenomenon?

[DonHopkins]

You should have made an argument that was literally true in the first place, instead of preemptively disclaiming your argument in the next paragraph.

Don't move the goalposts. Explain and defend your original argument by defining exactly what you mean by "speaking", if not literally "speaking", and listing the names of highly trained scientists who are not allowed to "speak" because they don't support the party line.

[mistermann]

The mainstream assertion is that the scientific community is in 98% comprehensive (!) agreement on the matter of climate change, and the time for discussion is over.

My assertion is that this is an untrue statement.

PS: Why didn't you answer my question?

[DonHopkins]

You still didn't define what you mean by "not allowed to speak", and you didn't list any more names.

[Chris2048]

> by defining exactly what you mean by "speaking", if not literally "speaking"

conventions already exist.

If I say "99% of cats prefer whiskers", this needn't mean that of a worldwide population of 12,000 cats, exactly 11,880 prefer whiskers. It's understood as a statistical statement.

If I hold a gun to your head and tell you not to speak, it is understood you are not being allowed to speak, despite the fact that you are still able to do so. "not allowed" can conventionally mean "influenced in speaking freely".

In this case, whatever the standard of "not allowed" is, we don't need a formal definition when we have the actual example to hand; The implication here is no due respect is given to the scientist because they have an opposing view, marginalising opposition (e.g other scientists will not be keen to get the same treatment, and so less likely to speak up).

You have the rose to smell, there's no need to argue it's name.

[DonHopkins]

People like that usually have interesting discussions on their talk pages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Judith_Curry

Characterizing her as "not allowed to speak" or somehow oppressed and silenced by mainstream scientists is totally off base, since she herself has said: "I flat out don’t care; my feelings aren’t hurt, I don’t feel like my professional status is being jeopardized or challenged or whatever. I flat out don’t care at this point."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Judith_Curry#Collide-a-Sc...

[mistermann]

Did she go on to say all was well in the scientific community?

Judith herself obviously has quite a backbone and seems to be able to take this environment on, the more important point is: is there some truth to what she says? Is there in fact a lack of complete honesty in the scientific community, are some people "strongly encouraged" to not say certain things whether not it has a solid grounding in science?

[DonHopkins]

Is there some truth to what you say? "There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak."

If you don't mean "literally speak", then what exactly do you mean? What qualifies as "speaking"? Testifying in front of Congress on live national television? Writing an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal? Boasting of having a total of 12,000 citations of her publications, and a blog that gets on average about 12,000 ‘hits’ per day, and 300-400 comments? None of that counts as speech?

First, define "speech", then list the names of highly trained scientists who aren't allowed to speak because they don't fully support the party line.

[mistermann]

Let's approach it this way, in an attempt to clarify where it is we disagree: do you believe there is a single instance in recent scientific history of peer pressure being used to encourage/discourage certain ideas within the scientific community?

Don't forget, sometimes you don't see certain things because they have been eliminated, and a natural reaction might be to assume that they never existed. The idea that disagreements occur in professional environments I don't think is very controversial on HN, but what I seem to be hearing today is that HN believes that these disagreements do not occur in the field of science. There is certainly a very long history of disagreement in science, it is one of the primary strengths of the scientific method. And yet now, it has disappeared? That would certainly appear to be the case, all I'm saying is, I doubt that is the actual reality.

[DonHopkins]

Please stop trying to move the goalposts, and go back and 1) define what you mean by "not allowed to speak", and 2) list more names of scientists who are "not allowed to speak".

[Chris2048]

Please prove the goalposts have been moved...

[Chris2048]

> my feelings aren’t hurt, I don’t feel like my professional status

Is the implication that there is good reason to feel either might have been true? Is the same true of other scientists considering joining her position?

[dandrick]

So why do people trust the dissenting scientists? What leads them to that option over simply going with the majority? I've never understood that, but the cynic in me thinks they're simply looking for someone that they already agree with.

[mistermann]

> So why do people trust the dissenting scientists?

That's a great question. At least for myself, I don't immediately trust her (why would I without reading a substantial part of her work) - it is that when someone asks obviously informed questions, and answers are refused, I assume the person being asked the question is lying.

In the youtube video, the senator is very clearing presenting himself as being far more informed on the topic than he is. He is (perhaps unknowingly) being dishonest, so I trust her more.

[DonHopkins]

Since you're so adept at deciding who to trust and judging people's honesty by watching their facial expressions and body language on television, what do you have to say about Judith Curry blinking continuously at 85 blinks per minute during this FOX News interview?

https://youtu.be/g5LpwL4NKbw

Do you trust what this guy says about blinking and lying?

https://youtu.be/HiTbd4Mc3kk

Have you ever read and listened to the words she's actually written and said? Or did you only listen to Tucker Carlson's leading questions and slanted innuendo while interviewing her on FOX News? And how much do you think they're paying her to come on the show and stare into the camera and lie while blinking at 85 BPM?

She directly contradicts your claims (and her own) in her own words: "Nobody and certainly not myself is claiming that I am persecuted or there is a plot that is out to get me." -Judith Curry http://www.keithkloor.com/?p=3734 -- you're the one who's incorrectly claiming that she was somehow "silenced".

The late great Stephen Schneider said: "So they make this assertion that they’re being systematically excluded, because they have no other argument, they no have evidence for the assertion. Let them do a study. Let them show us the letters of all the papers that have been rejected. What we did is look at real evidence, independently collected: How many papers, and how many citations. That’s independent, and the only way you can claim it isn’t true is to invoke some massive conspiracy that is frankly laughable." -Stephen Schneider https://thinkprogress.org/interview-with-scientist-stephen-s...

So show us your evidence. Give us the names of scientists who have been silenced, or retract your false claim and conspiracy theory. But there is no doubt: Judith Curry is most certainly not one of those silenced scientists you hypothesize.

And remember what Stephen Schneider also said: "We've seen a lot of strawmen from Judy lately. It is frankly shocking to see such a good scientist take that kind of a turn to sloppy thinking. I have no explanation for it." -Steven Schneider http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.ht...

[Chris2048]

> Give us the names of scientists who have been silenced

"hear, hear, tell us what it sounded like, this tree that fell in the woods while no one was around!"

[DonHopkins]

So the one person you named wasn't silenced, you don't know any more names, and don't have any other evidence to support your claim, so therefore your conspiracy theory is that it's impossible to even know them, but they exist anyway. You've just proven my point.

The late Stephen Schneider also made the same point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider

"So they make this assertion that they’re being systematically excluded, because they have no other argument, they no have evidence for the assertion. Let them do a study. Let them show us the letters of all the papers that have been rejected. What we did is look at real evidence, independently collected: How many papers, and how many citations. That’s independent, and the only way you can claim it isn’t true is to invoke some massive conspiracy that is frankly laughable." -Stephen Schneider

https://thinkprogress.org/interview-with-scientist-stephen-s...

And remember what Stephen Schneider also said about the person whose words and conspiracy theories you and misterman are parroting: "We've seen a lot of strawmen from Judy lately. It is frankly shocking to see such a good scientist take that kind of a turn to sloppy thinking. I have no explanation for it." -Steven Schneider

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.ht...

[Chris2048]

I didn't name them; but I already commented on the nature of "influence".

> you and misterman are parroting

I didn't parrot anything, try reading my posts.

> "We've seen a lot of strawmen from Judy lately."

And what has Judith said about Steve?

[yongjik]

So, what you really mean is:

> There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are invited to congressional hearings, publish books and papers, and keep a personal blog where they can discuss anything, and nobody can tell them to GTFO because they're tenured professors, but they may ultimately decide to resign, because working in an environment where everyone else think you're being crazy is just too stressful.

Yeah, I can sympathize with the last part, but I must tell it doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

[mistermann]

How do we know that there aren't plenty more dissenters who have been bullied into silence? (Judith's words, not mine.)

[DonHopkins]

Is this the source of "Judith's words, not mine" that you're parroting?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry#cite_note-...

http://julesandjames.blogspot.nl/2010/11/wheres-beef-curry.h...

https://judithcurry.com/2010/11/03/reversing-the-direction-o...

https://judithcurry.com/2010/11/03/reversing-the-direction-o...

James Annan (2010-11-06). Where's the beef, Curry?. James' Empty Blog. Retrieved on 2010-11-12. “She's really building up quite a history of throwing up vague or demonstrably wrong claims, then running away when shown to be wrong. Here on the no-feedback climate sensitivity, for example. Gryposaurus took her to task here on aerosols and D&A (based partly on comments from Gavin) and found her response lacking. Here is Eric Steig refuting her absurd claim about the IPCC that "they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC." Her eventual response (which had to be dragged out of her through repeated challenges that she kept on ducking) was merely to dismiss it as an "anecdote", even though one single case serves to refutes her claim. Well, I don't think I got quite such a rapturous response as Eric did, with my attempts to improve the AR4 drafts, but I certainly didn't get trampled and discredited either - merely made to feel mildly unwelcome, which I find tends to happen when I criticise people outside the IPCC too. But they did change the report in various ways. While I'm not an unalloyed fan of the IPCC process, my experience is not what she describes it as. So make that two anecdotes. Maybe I'm an "insider" too, in her book :-) If she ever deigns to address the substantive point on probability, maybe she can let me know, but I'm not holding my breath. Her main tactic seems to be throwing up layers upon layers of an increasing shaky edifice as quickly as possible hoping that no-one will notice that the foundations are collapsing as quickly as people can read.”

In her own words:

"Nobody and certainly not myself is claiming that I am persecuted or there is a plot that is out to get me." -Judith Curry, October 23, 2010 at 4:43 pm, http://www.keithkloor.com/?p=3734

[DonHopkins]

Well you could define what you mean by "not allowed to speak", and list the names of more scientists who you claim were bullied and "not allowed to speak". Science is evidence based: give us some evidence.

Or are you refusing to define your terms and provide any evidence, because you claim without any evidence that these theoretical silent scientists actually exist, but cannot be measured or counted, like undetectable dark matter in white lab coats?

That's not very scientific of you. (Or of Judith Curry, whose words you claim to quote. If she really promotes unscientific "silent scientist" conspiracy theories like that, then no wonder her colleagues are so critical of her! Calling bullshit isn't censorship, and she's anything but silent herself. So please link to your source where Judith Curry actually said those words that you quote.)

As un-silent, outspoken, widely published and nationally televised as Judith Curry is, she's said "I don’t feel like my professional status is being jeopardized or challenged or whatever" [1]. So Judith Curry's case is actually evidence that dissenting scientists (and even ones who "literally say" ridiculous things like you quoted her saying) are NOT bullied into silence.

"Judith A. Curry is chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She runs a climate blog and has been invited by Republicans on several occasions to testify at climate hearings about uncertainties in climate understanding and predictions. Climate scientists criticize her uncertainty-focused climate outreach communication for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence. Curry is a regular at Anthony Watts' denier blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit, another denier site. She has further embarrassed herself (and her university) by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn't even read it in the first place." [2]

"Curry receives ongoing funding from the fossil fuel industry. In an interview with Curry for a October 2010 Scientific American profile, Michael Lemonick reports (pers. comm.) that he asked Curry about potential conflicts of interest, and she responded,

"I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company...does hurricane forecasting...for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements."

"Criticisms of outreach communication: Laundry list: Curry's contrarian-leaning "public outreach" public communication is criticized by prominent climate scientists and other science-aligned climate bloggers for a propensity toward "inflammatory language and over-the-top accusations ...with the...absence of any concrete evidence and [with] errors in matters of simple fact.".

"...Examples of the unreliability of Curry's blog publications are illustrated by Michael Tobis and James Annan, who both showed basic flaws in her understanding of uncertainty and probability, or at least an irresponsible level of sloppiness in expressing herself. Arthur Smith pointed out an under-grad level misunderstanding in her own field's basic terminology," said Coby Beck. Climate scientist James Annan has provided examples (with rebuttals) of assertions made by Curry on topics like no-feedback climate sensitivity, aerosols, climate change detection&attribution, and the IPCC tolerance of challengers; he finds there's a pattern of "throwing up vague or demonstrably wrong claims, then running away when shown to be wrong",

"Willingness to criticize based on second-hand info from contrarian, inexpert sources: "In a 2010 comment she called blogger Deep Climate's detailed and well-documented investigation into the Wegman Report "one of the most reprehensible attacks on a reputable scientist that I have seen" even as she revealed in her incorrect synopsis of the charges that she had not even read it for herself. ... [i.e.] she shows herself ready to publicly criticise someone else in the strongest terms based entirely on second hand information gleaned from places like Climate Audit and Watts Up With That."

"Offering off-the-cuff, uninformed criticism of mainstream climate science: Gavin Schmidt has criticised Curry for "not knowing enough about what she has chosen to talk about, for not thinking clearly about the claims she has made with respect to the IPCC, and for flinging serious accusations at other scientists without just cause.". (It goes on and on... see [2].)

"We've seen a lot of strawmen from Judy lately," [Stanford University's Stephen H.] Schneider [3] said. "It is frankly shocking to see such a good scientist take that kind of a turn to sloppy thinking. I have no explanation for it." [1]

So do you have any examples better than Judith Curry?

[1] The Judith Curry Phenomenon: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.ht... Discussion: http://www.keithkloor.com/?p=3734

[2] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider

[mistermann]

> Well you could define what you mean by "not allowed to speak"

Of course I meant she is not allowed to speak, quite literally. What else could it possibly mean after all, right?

So, in the spirit of this discussion, I will have to concede that what I was trying to articulate is absolutely 100% incorrect as it is based on a false premise, that she is literally not allowed to speak. Indeed, she is on camera numerous times speaking, which proves absolutely that I am wrong.

You win Don Hopkins. Congratulations.