This is a really fascinating piece in Scientific American on Judith Curry, whose great crime — or achievement — is to have dealt with climate-change skeptics honestly and fairly. What really strikes me is how the chief complaint from the climate-change establishment (for the record, I was trying to come up with a neutral term there) is that she makes public relations and marketing more difficult. I think the author is trying his level best to be fair, which is one of the reasons why it’s such an interesting read — the fairness comes across as a heavy burden.
If I had to offer one criticism/comment, it would be this: There’s no discussion of financial motives. I’m not making a right-wing version of the vulgar-leftist claim that all non-irrational opposition to global warming is profit-driven. But there’s really no disputing that there are massive funding issues at work in the global-warming industry. Anger at Curry’s heresy may be overwhelmingly in good faith. But it seems ludicrous to completely ignore the fact that climate skepticism actually threatens a lot of scientists’ and activists’ livelihoods and lifestyles. Certainly, if the camps were reversed somehow, the Left wouldn’t hesitate to point this out.
Still, Michael Lemonick should be commended for his effort.