This is an interesting (if ugly) process. Can all ‘respectable’ dissent ultimately be stamped out by making life very visibly miserable for those few remaining scientist skeptics (Curry, Pielke)? And note that these folks are not even skeptics of global warming in general, but it doesn’t take much heresy. Pielke, for example, has publicly challenged the idea that extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and severity and is in the midst of a dust-up with Obama presidential science advisor John Holdren:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2014/03/john-holdrens-epic-fail.html

When somebody with Hodren’s presumed political influence (especially over federal research monies) goes after a scientist hammer-and-tongs, how much does it really matter if the attack is well or badly founded?

Fair enough for most of what you wrote there. I didn’t say you were “defending McCarthy” just failing to acknowledge that he tried to violate a lot more people’s rights than he succeeded in violating.

I really must insist that being investigated by Congress for treason, which is a capital crime, is a lot more threatening than not finding the position you want in academia.

This is exactly what is starting to happen to people who hold certain non-P.C. opinions. If you’re on the right (as I am), you learn to keep your mouth shut about your opinions at work. In my office, at least, Leftists feel no such reticence; a friend of mine, I’m sorry to say, keeps a poster of Che on display in her office (a government office, btw); nobody objects.

I have no idea if they have Keynesians on the faculty at GMU; I was asking you. I assume you’re not suggesting that Keynesians have more trouble than free-marketeers finding positions in academic economics in the US.

I was not suggesting that you are a Stalinist sympathizer. I do, however, find it puzzling and troubling how much lamentation still comes from some sectors of the Left (not you personally) over the “plight” of actual Stalinist sympathizers of the 40s and 50s (when Stalin was in still in business) who lost jobs as a result of their pro-Stalin views. I don’t think any sensible person would feel sympathy for someone who lost his job (at least in the private sector) because he wrote a letter to the newspaper denying the Holocaust or led Klan rallies on weekends.

Accusing someone of committing treason is a lot different from accusing them of believing in the wrong scientific theory.

McCarthyism was called McCarthyism because of, well…McCarthy himself. And it was despite McCarthy’s efforts, not because of them, that many people’s rights were protected.

As the official spokesman for “the ” Left and my fellow Stalinist sympathizers can I ask you one thing? Do they really have Keynesian economists at GMU?

The main effect of what we call “McCarthyism” (of which McCarthy was only one proponent, another being Harry Truman) was that people who had been members of the Communist Party or had publicly advocated Communist principles and support for Soviet Communism (as opposed to cooperating with the Soviets in the war) had trouble finding jobs in government, media, entertainment, business and the professions for a number of years. This seems remarkably similar to the consequences that people opposing the Left on a number of hot-button issues (Islamism, immigration, racial issues, climate change, heritability of intelligence) are beginning to face. It seems that the Left today believes that supporting Stalin in the 40s and 50s was not as bad as taking non-P.C. positions on today’s hot-button issues, since they persist in paying homage to the “victims” of McCarthyism while they seek to visit equivalent penalties on the Left’s present-day opponents.

Incidentally, if you know of any universities with a free-market orientation (assuming any exist these days) that do not have Keynsian or further-left economists on their faculties, that would be interesting to hear about.

And so left wing economists do not advance or find support at universities known for a free market orientation. Believers in evolution do not advance or find support at religious schools that teach creationism. Same as it ever was.

In science as in other fields human nature prevails. But there are big rewards in science if you can produce new evidence that upsets the prevailing paradigm.

It would indeed be better if everyone was more open minded but they are not and they never have been. Calling this McCarthyism is wild hyperbole. McCarthy was accusing people of treason which is orders of magnitude more threatening than anything that has been alleged here.

So what is the impact on a scientist of the so-called climate McCarthyism? As a result of smearings by Romm, Mann, et al., I am excluded from serious consideration for administrative positions at universities, offices in professional societies, consideration for awards from professional societies, a number of people won’t collaborate with me, and anyone who wants to invite me to be a keynote speaker has to justify this in light of all the cr*p that shows up if you google ‘Judith Curry’. Does any of this really ‘matter’? I’ve convinced myself that it doesn’t (well not as much as my own conscience and integrity), but I suspect that such things would matter to most scientists.

It’s academia, in a subject that relies on retaining favor with a limited number of peer for positions, prestige, and grants; what did you expect it to look like?

The withdrawal of “support” and “joint authorship” do not add up to McCarthyism in my view. Perhaps more information on the “etc.” would have been more impressive.