I'm seeing some warning signs in this article when I dig into the sources: > University of Victoria economics professor Cornelis van Kooten warned of the threa

I'm seeing some warning signs in this article when I dig into the sources: > University of Victoria economics professor Cornelis van Kooten warned of the threat to free speech on campus. “I think the climate change movement has done extreme harm to academic freedom,” he said, and the movement isn’t alone. Why are we interviewing economics professors about suppression in the Climate science? Then we get to Judith Curry[0]: > Her Polar Bear Science blog came under fire in a 2017 study in the journal BioScience by 14 academics, including Penn State climatologist Michael E. Mann, decrying the influence of “denier blogs,” which Georgia Tech professor emeritus Judith Curry blasted as “absolutely the stupidest paper I have ever seen published.” On whom Wikipedia says: > In 2019 she stated that she would not “bother with” peer-reviewed journals, in favor of publishing her own papers so that she could editorialize and write what she wanted “without worrying about the norms and agendas of the ‘establishment.’”[1] It's very hard for me to find a source here in support of her that isn't spending a lot of time using coded language for, "the establishment is corrupt, you can't trust mainstream scientists, you can only trust this fringe group and the reason no one agrees with us is because they hate us, not because we're wrong." It reminds me a lot of when I was growing up in a Creationist community, and I'd hear regular reports about the 'brave' scientists that would get fired because they rejected fossil record evidence. I'm not going to outright say bias doesn't exist in climate science, but if a publication like the Washing Times wants to claim it does, I'd expect to see much more compelling evidence than this article provides. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry