Mote, upset that Albright was broadly distributing e-mails about the issue, last week told Albright that he would have to let Mote preview any e-mails before sending them out, if he was tying his work to the state climatologist’s office.

Mote’s position as the state climatologist is a volunteer job that doesn’t carry any official recognition or rules. Mote agreed to do the job several years ago, and his colleagues accepted it. The office collects and disseminates climate information and advises the state on climate-related issues.

When Albright refused Mote’s ultimatum, Mote barred him from associating himself with the state climatologist’s office.

Mote said Albright was sending out messages showing just his side of the story, and airing an analysis that hadn’t gone through proper quality checks. As a representative of the climatologist’s office, there needed to be standards, he said.

“I’m not trying to squelch debate by any means,” Mote said.

It details numerous well documented and highly public cases where those in the scientific field who challenged the ‘science’ of Catastrophic AGW where censored, censured, professionally ridiculed or dismissed.

Can there be any doubt at all that advocates of Catastrophic AGW have tried to defend their theories by silencing their critics politically? The basis isn’t science at all, it’s based on their lack of sufficient faith in the advocate’s beliefs, per se, regardless any scientific factors at all.

“can we find evidence of a professor / scientists dismissed on these grounds?”

At least 1

The associate Washington state climatologist looked in a claim of ‘unprecedented glacier melt’ on Mt Rainier, and based on his review of the meticulous records that have been kept since 1931 concluded there wasn’t any. He was promptly stripped of his title. We had another event in 2009…someone found a survey marker on bare ground on Mt Rainier and claimed ‘unprecedented melting’, some brave sole at USGS looked into the record and sure enough, the survey marker had been placed on ‘bare ground’ in 1956. Don’t know if the USGS person kept there job or not.

News link and excerpt
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008094636_climate06m.html
“The dispute traces back to 2007, when UW meteorologist Mark Albright, an associate of Mass and co-author of the new study, challenged claims that Northwest snowpacks had fallen by half in the second half of the 20th century.
In the ensuing debate, Mote stripped Albright of his title as associate state climatologist. Mass then accused Mote of censorship.”

“There are a number of possible reasons for this phenomena. The kindest is virtuous corruption (basically -belief that the goal of AGW is more important than the science)”

I have to disagree. I’m a member of a chemistry department, with quite a few people whom I consider smarter than myself. Most of them support AGW – but no one benefits personally in any way. In discussions I had with several of them, it became clear that they simply hadn’t looked into the evidence themselves. Some readily use terms like “denialists” and so on, making it pretty plain that they get their information from the MSM rather than the scientific literature.

Most of them are politically left of center and quite sure of these beliefs, without spending much intellectual effort on justifying such positions either. The correlation between AGW skepticism and conservative outlook feeds the dismissive attitude – lumping AGW skeptics together with creationists and other marginally literate right-wingers is quite effective with our crowd.

So, I’d say it’s another case of “never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence”. Outside their area of specialization, scientists are no less incompetent than other folks.

BTW it’s “this phenomenon” – phenomena is plural, like media (singular: medium), data (sg. datum), criteria (sg. criterion). The word “phenomenon” means “thing”, phenomena “things”, which is much easier to get right.