February 28th 2020
Nothing frightens climate alarmists more than actual scientists and other influencers who might offer an opinion that counters the narrative that carbon dioxide emitted by mankind is causing catastrophic global warming. Because of the fear of scientific nonbelievers, one climate-alarmist website has created a blacklist of scientists, politicians, journalists, and others who they say are engaging in "misinformation" in the climate-change debate.
The website Skeptical Science (SkS), founded by Australian cartoonist and self-described cognitive scientist John Cook, has created its own "climate misinformation by source" database, which is intended to offer a heads-up to universities, think tanks, and anyone else who might consider hiring or even listening to these "climate deniers."
Among the scientists on the list are Judith Curry; William Happer; Richard Lindzen; Roger Pielke, Sr.; Roger Pielke, Jr.; John Cristy, and Roy Spencer - all of whom are much more qualified to discuss climate science than Cook.
In Curry's case, her skepticism of the climate-change narrative led to her being ousted from her longtime job as the head of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech University - a job she was eminently qualified for.
In a Forbes article written by another blacklist dweller, Roger Pielke, Jr., Curry recounted what occurred. "In 2012, I was informed by my Dean that the administration wanted me to step down as Chair," Curry said. "One obvious reason was extreme displeasure by several activist climate scientists who had a very direct pipeline to the Dean."
When Curry bowed out at Georgia Tech, she attempted to gain new employment at other universities, but despite her obvious qualifications, she found that no one would hire her. One of the headhunters who contacted her gave her feedback on why she was not being hired.
"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, a quick Google search of Curry lists her blog and Wikipedia page along with several articles about how Curry is a climate "heretic" and a ThinkProgress piece that claims that Curry "abandons science." And of course, SkS's page which attempts to "debunk" Curry, is prominently listed as well.
One of SkS's longtime contributors, Dana Nuccitelli confirmed that this type of academic censorship was, indeed, one of the reasons for the creation of the blacklist. "If you look at the statements we cataloged on [Curry's Skeptical Science] page, it should make her un-hirable in academia."
In other words, if you can't refute their arguments, make sure to shut them up.
Curry's case is far from the only example of intimidation and censorship exhibited by SkS and the climate-alarmist community at large. SkS was hacked in March of 2012, and much of that hacked correspondence offers a window into the motivations of Cook and rest of the SkS mob.
Among their victims was prominent climate researcher and meteorologist Roger Pielke, Sr., whose name was brought up 3,700 times by the SkS team in a concerted effort to discredit him. Among the exchanges between SkS personnel:
"We are HUNTING Pielke," declared one.
"We are trying to bring [Pielke] down," said another.
"My vote is to bring the bast**d down!"
In the Forbes article and on Twitter, Pielke, Jr. chose to post some of the hacked correspondence and was promptly banned from Twitter for his troubles. Nevertheless, Pielke, Jr. felt it was in the public interest to expose the correspondence.
Among his reasons was the fact that SkS's blacklist is meant not to inform the public, but to destroy the individuals named on it. "Skeptical Science has positioned itself as a public arbiter of truth, including rendering judgements as to who is or who is not employable by universities."
The hacked correspondence presented an accurate view of the motivations of SkS in creating their blacklist. By positioning themselves as impartial truth-tellers, they open themselves up to presentation of evidence to the contrary.
Real scientists are not afraid of those who might come from a contrarian point of view. In fact, a true scientist welcomes and encourages skeptical review of their work. This is not the case with the scientists (or their acolytes) who promote anthropogenic global warming as fact. It's because they know that their hypotheses can not stand true scientific scrutiny. And so, instead of engaging critics in rigorous debate, they work to silence them.
Photo: BrilliantEye / iStock / Getty Images Plus
James Murphy is a freelance journalist who writes on a variety of subjects, with a primary focus on the ongoing anthropogenic climate-change hoax and cultural issues. He can be reached at jcmurphyABR@mail.com