The whole reason why Michael Mann smears scientists like Judith Curry is because he has no substantive rebuttal to her key points. The only thing she "denies" is climate hysteria.
I arrived here via a link posted by Roger Pielke Jr. Thanks to him for that. My comment to his post is below.
"Your link to the Judith Curry interview is invaluable and I hadn't seen it anywhere else. Thank you.
Curry's extensive review of climate science/politics is the best I have read in 20 years!!! I believe we should all adjust our minds ASAP to accord with her presentation.
That Curry was hounded from her position with Georgia Tech while Michael Mann was and still is celebrated at the University of Pennsylvania is a very sad commentary on university life in the age of Federal grants and the lamestream media."
My thoughts are in accord with yours and have been for ~15 years. Mann's "hockey stick" and subsequent actions were an abomination to the field of science, publishing, and use of the law.
This interview is a fascinating reminder of how deeply the climate conversation is shaped by narrative—not just data.
Curry emphasizes the need for skepticism, debate, and humility in climate science. Whether or not one agrees with all her views, her core point rings true: We risk undermining trust when we allow advocacy to outpace evidence.
The real issue isn’t about endorsing a particular stance—it’s about resisting the urge to conflate what is plausible with what is proven. Curry critiques the way narratives can harden into orthodoxy, especially when wrapped in moral urgency. That concern applies across fields.
Good science communication should be robust because the stakes are high—not shortcut nuance because the stakes are high. We can acknowledge real risks, real harms, and real responsibilities without turning complexity into certainty or framing questions as settled facts.
A viral BBC article warned of a climate-driven brain health crisis. I took a close look — both at the science it cited, and the story it spun.
The article raised real issues (heat and health), but veered into speculation that blurred the line between plausible concern and panic narrative. And when science communication does that, it makes real problems easier to dismiss.
I read Judith Curry's book recently and was impressed by the sanity and fairness in the assessments. I intend to write to her.
The whole reason why Michael Mann smears scientists like Judith Curry is because he has no substantive rebuttal to her key points. The only thing she "denies" is climate hysteria.
I love Judith Curry! She does great work! Way underappreciated.
I arrived here via a link posted by Roger Pielke Jr. Thanks to him for that. My comment to his post is below.
"Your link to the Judith Curry interview is invaluable and I hadn't seen it anywhere else. Thank you.
Curry's extensive review of climate science/politics is the best I have read in 20 years!!! I believe we should all adjust our minds ASAP to accord with her presentation.
That Curry was hounded from her position with Georgia Tech while Michael Mann was and still is celebrated at the University of Pennsylvania is a very sad commentary on university life in the age of Federal grants and the lamestream media."
My thoughts are in accord with yours and have been for ~15 years. Mann's "hockey stick" and subsequent actions were an abomination to the field of science, publishing, and use of the law.
Short and sweet and right to the point.
This interview is a fascinating reminder of how deeply the climate conversation is shaped by narrative—not just data.
Curry emphasizes the need for skepticism, debate, and humility in climate science. Whether or not one agrees with all her views, her core point rings true: We risk undermining trust when we allow advocacy to outpace evidence.
The real issue isn’t about endorsing a particular stance—it’s about resisting the urge to conflate what is plausible with what is proven. Curry critiques the way narratives can harden into orthodoxy, especially when wrapped in moral urgency. That concern applies across fields.
Good science communication should be robust because the stakes are high—not shortcut nuance because the stakes are high. We can acknowledge real risks, real harms, and real responsibilities without turning complexity into certainty or framing questions as settled facts.
I explored this dynamic in a recent piece:
🧠 Hot Brain Summer: When Climate Journalism Overheats: (https://beyondtheabstract.substack.com/p/hot-brain-summer-when-climate-journalism)
A viral BBC article warned of a climate-driven brain health crisis. I took a close look — both at the science it cited, and the story it spun.
The article raised real issues (heat and health), but veered into speculation that blurred the line between plausible concern and panic narrative. And when science communication does that, it makes real problems easier to dismiss.
👏🏼 👏🏼 👏🏼 thank you so much for this article!
Book: ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’
Book: ‘Human Caused Global Warming, the Biggest Deception in History’
https://www.technocracy.news/dr-tim-ball-on-climate-lies-wrapped-in-deception-smothered-with-delusion/
https://www.technocracy.news/tim-ball-the-evidence-proves-that-co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOEFQDcT_lM
Tim died Sept 24th 2022
Everything Reminds Me of Tim is now in the Kindle store!
https://www.amazon.com/Everything-Reminds-Me-Tim-Biography-ebook/dp/B0D9TWV4
The danger is looking at us with a cup of tea next to her. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/climate-change-hasnt-been-debunked?utm_source=publication-search