It seems Judith Curry isn't at all in defense of the free speech that she claims to be.
She's only in favor of it when it attacks her scientific enemies. When the shoe is on the other foot, she reacts to it with censorship.
Yes, my post earlier tonight was a spoof.
It accused Curry of scientific fraud, for her claim (in Liu & Curry PNAS 2010) that the Southern Ocean has been warming.
Did I really mean that? Of course not.
Though I do have some concerns about that result, since my own calculation of SST trends from 60°S to the south pole from 1/3/1990 to 1/29/2014 find definite cooling (-0.082 C/decade), as did this Bob Tisdale result for the period 1980-2010. (Tisdale's graph is only a hint; I certainly don't consider blog posts of the same caliper as peer-reviewed papers, nor my own simple calculations.)
Curry's period of calculation was 1950-1999. Her paper was submitted and published in 2010, so I don't know why their data analysis stopped as of 1999.
(When I asked Curry about this on Feb 3rd, she replied that "Tisdale's data analysis is usually reliable." My question to her was motivated by this Tisdale comment on Curry's own blog.)
The rest of my comments on Curry's post of today? Total spoofing -- though I certainly have at least just as much evidence as Mark Steyn does about Michael Mann.
Naturally, Curry's syncophants fell for it. However, unlike what I expected, so did she, in just about two hours -- that's how long it took her to turn on comment moderation and start blocking my comments:
That was far easier than I ever expected -- her "defense of free speech" quickly stopped when the shoe was on the other foot.
I don't know if the lesson will get through. But it should.