Climate Scientists Face Organized Harassment in U.S.

Post Reply New Topic

Death threats are not disagreement, buddyboy.

Yes, people shouldn't make death threats but I doubt the seriousness of any of them if any of them do exist. It's not like the are anti-global warming terrorist groups, the same can't be said for the other side.

One thing a lot of people do when facing an onslaught of criticism is seize upon the overzealous comments of a few to attack all their critics, some even make up these threats all together. I take it all with a grain of salt.

The majority article seems to be more of them whining than them actually getting harassed.

I agree. Death Threats are completely out of bounds.

ruveyn

Yah, think carbon taxes are total BS, just meant to give large corporations a loophole to pollute and to put smaller competitors out of business who can't afford to pay the tax. There's no guarantee they'll even reinvest the money into developing environmentally neutral technology in any serious way. I think we should just draft standard, environmental legislation to prevent oil spills, nuclear melt downs, and other industry related, environmental catastrophes. ...and more grant money should be given to solar and wind projects. The government only spends a very small fraction on developing renewables compared to what they spend on nuclear and oil.

My classes spent plenty of time addressing identifying junk science. Perhaps more effort was given to this than to teaching actual science.

That's naive wishful thinking. Give people education and cold hard facts, it doesn't change human nature. Ideology trumps facts 9 out of 10 times. People with a conservative and/or pro-business/anti-government ideological leaning will bash anthropogenic climate change no matter what. It's a de facto requirement if you don't want to be a "tree-hugging liberal".

It's like part of their identity, like a name tag the walk around wearing that says "I ain't no silly goddamned tree-hugger, I'm a down-to-earth red-blooded independent minded person. I know better than them gubbermint funded scientists trying to blow smoke up my ass damnit!! ! Them parasites are just lookin for another goddamned handout, give them all that fancy scientist grant money with my hard earned tax dollars!! !! Capitalism rules!! !! Ya'll environmentalists are brainwashed idiots!! ! Hardy Harr Harr!! !!" It wouldn't matter if the data was so simple and undeniable that you'd think nobody in their right mind would dismiss it, they'll find some ingenuous mental gymnastics to perform in order to avoid having to change their opinion.

The real science is far to complex for average Joe to understand. There are several cases of skeptics who actually decided to got their hands dirty and do the careful research for themselves, with grant money funded by the oil industry. Boo hiss! The oil industry didn't get the result they wanted. Instead the skeptics were skeptics no more.

I don't know....the AGW denialism is very common among US right-wingers and far less among European(and in general not US) right-wingers

I think AGW denialism is one of the very specific form of mostly US-centric cretinism like creationism

Are you talking about politicians or the general population? I don't think it's quite the same as creationism as it's not tied so specifically to the religious right. I've also seen a study which showed that education didn't help. Beliefs seem to be determined by ideological identification more than education level. The other issue is that media sensationalism and the views of the more radical environmentalists that blame every single severe weather event on AGW are mistaken for the views of actual researchers. Very few people on either side take a balanced approach.

It is no longer called AGW. It is call ACC, anthropogenic climate change. That way whether it gets too hot or too cold, the eco-phreaks can blame the capitalists.

ruveyn

Or perhaps the re-labelling is due to the fact that most people miss the fact that anthropogenic climate change is expected to result in not only a higher average temperature, but also a greater variance in temperatures...

This country has instituted a carbon tax.

Ironically, since the state I am in is run by the opposition, they are currently attempting to get laws passed banning the teaching of climate science in all educational instutitions, including primary, secondary and tertiary throughout the state.

The Sun is radiating its energy into cold space. However the sun IS getting hotter. As it uses up hydrogen it will begin to fuse helium which will radiate energy at higher temperatures. The sun is getting hotter has time goes on.

ruveyn

That's so idiotic and just plain ass backwards. I think its stupid when states pass laws to ban certain subject matter from being taught in school curricula. Its a form of censorship and arguably is an affront to the first amendment. There's also this assumption that just because you acknowledge climate change, you some how agree with any legislation thats passed to address it. its very irrational.

This past January was just weird. It felt more like spring than winter.

There were also several time periods in the past where the Earth was warmer than it is now. Not to mention scientists got caught putting their thermometers on blacktop, by the exhausts of air conditioners (if you run an air conditioner in reverse you get a heater), etc.

Fact of the matter is that this debate has been so politicized on both sides that I think the politicians need to get the hell out of this debate, and everything needs to be retested from scratch.

Whether people here want to admit it or not, numbers were tampered with by the scientists claiming global warming is real (not all of the scientists, but quite a few, which threw off the simulations of other scientists in the US). There are also idiots on the other side that have arguably played loose with the numbers. So at this point neither side has any credibility.

Funny that you would use the word "credibility".

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf+html

... If providing rebuttals, please include references to peer-reviewed journals... Oh, and "Energy & Environment" might not be the best starting point...