Mirroring an article posted last year, Judith Curry has a new piece where she once again laments the decline of free speech "with regards to the climate change debate." In this article, Curry argues that the institution of free speech is threatened because climate scientists are increasingly facing "enormous pressure…to conform to the so-called consensus [that climate change is real]."
It used to be that deniers would just deny the very existence of the 97 percent consensus, citing the debunked Oregon Petition to argue against the overwhelming evidence of global warming. Curry's newer tactic, however, accepts the reality of the scientific consensus on climate change but attempts to paint the consensus as coercive, saying, "The lack of tolerance for opposing perspectives in the climate debate is just staggering." The trouble is, science is not a debate to which people lend their perspectives. The consensus is not a coercive agent (like fossil fuel interest groups that fund the information they want to hear). Rather, the consensus represents the agreement of over a thousand independent climate scientist's research.
Ironically, Curry advocates that scientists have an open mind to the truth, overcoming the pressure they feel from funders and politicians. She says, "changing your mind [in science] is arguably a virtue – it reflects consideration of new evidence and active reasoning about the new evidence." Yet, as we know, it is the continuous investigation and incorporation of new evidence that has led to the current scientific consensus and understanding on climate change.
Though Curry does have a point. What remains is to free the likes of the Willie Soons and Judith Currys out there from the temptation they must feel when distorting science to please eager fossil fuel funders.