Lemonick includes a section in his blog post titled "Is it Irresponsible to Discuss Curry's Views?" and he writes:
Some people see Curry as a whistleblower; others (including many climate scientists) think she’s a bit of a crank. . .Lemonick makes clear in his blog post that he doesn't think much of Curry's views and that he sides with her critics. But at the same time he offers some subtle but good advice to the climate scientists who have been apparently lobbying him behind-the-scenes:
Simply by giving Judith Curry’s views a respectful airing, I’ve already drawn accusations of being irresponsible — and it’s valid to raise the question of whether giving her any sort of platform is a bad idea.
I also argue, as you’ll see in Scientific American, that the vehement reaction of climate scientists, while perfectly understandable, might be akin to the violent reaction of the human immune system to some bacteria and viruses — a reaction that’s sometimes more damaging than the original microbe.What are these guys so afraid of that they continue to seek to stage manage public debates? Lemonick doesn't name names and I am not aware of any climate scientists who have gone public calling for the silencing of Judy Curry. So far that action is all behind-the-scenes. Have these guys learned nothing? It seems that way.
Curry blogs here. You can judge for yourself if her views are irresponsible or should be silenced.