HOT TEMPERS: For climate scientists, an inbox full of nasty emails is just part of the job. But some fear cyber-bullying might interfere with the public discourse.
Image: ISTOCKPHOTO/ALEPHX01
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The e-mails come thick and fast every time NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt appears in the press.
Rude and crass e-mails. E-mails calling him a fraud, a cheat, a scumbag and much worse.
To Schmidt and other researchers purging their inboxes daily of such correspondence, the barrage is simply part of the job of being a climate scientist. But others see the messages as threats and intimidation—cyber-bullying meant to shut down debate and cow scientists into limiting their participation in the public discourse.
"I get a lot of hate mail," said Schmidt, a climate modeler at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies who also runs RealClimate.org, a website devoted to debunking myths and errors about climate change. "I get a lot of praise mail, but pretty much every time I have a quote in a mainstream publication I'll get a string of emails from various people accusing me of various misdemeanors and fantasizing about my life in prison."
Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, has a 19-page document of "extremely foul, nasty, abusive" e-mails he's received just since November.
Australian author and academic Clive Hamilton noted that many of the country's most distinguished climate scientists are increasingly the target of e-mail attacks aimed at driving them from the public debate.
"The purpose of this new form of cyber-bullying seems clear; it is to upset and intimidate the targets, making them reluctant to participate further in the climate change debate," Hamilton wrote in a column published last week by Sydney's ABC News. "While the internet is often held up as the instrument of free speech, it is often used for the opposite purpose, to drive people out of the public debate."
The bullying has long been part of life for many climate scientists. Retired NCAR climate scientist Tom Wigley said he's been fighting it for the last 20 years or more. Most of the e-mails appear to be the work of frustrated individuals, ranting into the ether, scientists say. But some appear to be the work of coordinated campaigns, and many, scientists say, appear to be taking their cue from influential anti-climate change advocates like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and ClimateDepot.com.
Scientists say the bullying, if anything, emboldens them. But it does have a cost.
Organized, "McCarthyite" tactics aimed at specific scientists by various groups can be stressful, Schmidt said. "Frivolous" Freedom of Information Act requests can tie up considerable quantities of researchers' time.
But worst of all, he said, are "intimidating letters" from congressional members threatening dire consequences to scientists working on climate change.
"That is chilling the work of science in the agencies," Schmidt said. "It's certainly very off-putting for scientists who want to talk about their stuff in public but fear the political consequences."
"Nobody wants to create an enemy on the Hill."
For the most part, the rants have remained just that - rants. Threats of physical harm remain rare and are usually discounted, scientists say. "These people don't really know you," Schmidt added. "They're not really talking about you. You're just a symbol that has an e-mail address."
The pace picked up late last year, when several years' worth of stolen correspondence among climate scientists were published on the Web. The onslaught intensified as errors in the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's most recent report surfaced in January and policy makers and reporters began to question what has become the gold standard of climate science.
What's clear is the e-mails show anger and hostility. There's no effort to ask questions or seek what Trenberth called "the truth." Scientists aren't the only target; journalists covering the issue also routinely find their inbox stuffed with epithets.
"They do not tend to be reasonable," said Rudy Baum, editor-in-chief of Chemical and Engineering News, who has been covering science for the magazine for 30 years. "They do not seem to be interested in dialogue. They are shrill, they are unfriendly, and they are bullying."
Why so much venom and vitriol?
The answer is simple, said Marc Morano, executive editor at ClimateDepot.com, who has spent years trying to expose global warming hype: The public is bitterly angry at the "con job" perpetrated by climate scientists.
"You have every aspect of our lives subject to regulatory control - down to the light bulbs we can put in - based on climate science," Morano said. The researchers "never wanted to debate and they kept trying to demand the debate was over."
"Whenever you have someone ginning up a crisis and wanting to take power, you're going to have anger," he added. "When you've been conned at a used car dealer, you don't go back cheerily and politely to talk to them."
See what we're tweeting about
75 Comments
Add CommentThese attacks are yet another example of the sort of behaviour typical of the climate change denier crowd. Instead of undertaking civilized discourse within any number of scientific forums they resort to bullying, scare tactics and even outright criminal behaviour (such as hacking emails). The reason for this is, of course, that they have been so seriously discredited in the scientific community that they can only effectively express their uninformed and ultimately dangerous opinions in arenas where people don't bother to pay attention to facts and reasoned discourse. What an astonishing pack of fools.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmm... some interesting points. I suppose I just have a hard time accepting the fact that a political ideologue and an objective scientist can occupy the exact same space at the exact same time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTake the following quote: "Scientists say the bullying, if anything, emboldens them."
So the question then becomes, emboldens them to what? If the answer is to discover truth in the face of nay-saying then this is good. If the answer is to prove that their hypotheses are correct, then this is not good. Obviously, the latter would remove some measure of objectivity.
I agree it is disappointing to know that even members of Congress are delivering threats for political motivations. However I am suspicious of the idea that many scientists on the (shall we say) "liberal" side of the argument are afraid to discuss their results in public.
Trying to be as non-biased as possible I have to say that in my observation, it is by far a more common occurrence in general that the scientist who disagrees with the notion of climate change is ridiculed most heavily.
One correction to finish with: Glenn Beck is an open believer in the idea of global climate change and is open minded to the idea that it could be man-made as opposed to Rush Limbaugh who vehemently fights these notions. I direct you to USA Weekend's recent article "Don't Judge Beck By His Cover."
Please be careful of lumping all perceived "McCarthyites" together on the assumption that they always agree. To do so is a bit misleading.
Are those doing the bulling the same people that advocated "NUREMBERG-STYLE TRIALS PROPOSED FOR GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS" and/or tried for treason?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat goes around, comes around.
Are the people doing the bullying the same people that advocated "NUREMBERG-STYLE TRIALS PROPOSED FOR GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS" and suggesting the deniers were committing "treason against the planet."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMan! Now, that is bullying
Well, this is what the Right has been reduced to in the US--a group that things they can send thugs to shout down anything they don't like.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom my perspective it seems to be an altogether too often trod road in both directions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLegitimate questioners get burried under a barrage of name calling, 'denier' for all its implications and insulting intent, being among the least offensive.
So, in fairness Gavin Schmidt's point of view reveals something of how the issue has been hijacked by ideologues on both sides of the issue, some of whom are mere enthusiasts and whose rejection of perspectives different from theirown are outside of the realm of science where a single flaw can infact tip the scales, and where consensus is merely another metric, and not a sign of certainty. In otherwords, a Grammy and a Nobel Peace Prize are meaningless when it comes to the factual science and our policy makers should stop paying attention to those sorts of criteria and direct some attention to validating and even falsifying data so that we can more tightly constrain the speculation as to just what 'change' means.
I'd love to not be a skeptic but I have looked at the 100,000 year climate cycle data (based on ice core samples), and see the current warm cycle well within climate temperature and CO2 peaks of past cycles. What am I missing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI dare say that on the SciAm blog, the attacks are much more viscous coming from the AGW advocates.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this is part of a greater problem. As the author mentioned, the Internet was suppose to allow people to share ideas, but it seems to be having the opposite effect. We're at the point now where any idea, no matter how bizarre, has "mountains" of online evidence, supporting blogs, celebrity pundits, and communities of like-minded people. Pick any position on any topic, and you'll find support. It used to be that a person could read the "other" newspaper to get an idea of what the other side was thinking, but there's just too much now, too many sides. How will democracy work when two people, that are neighbours in the the physical world, can have views so contrary that they are unable to even understand each other's opinions? When each opinion is backed by evidence that the person finds convincing, evidence that person considers undeniable fact, when each opinion has entire communities of like-minded people, where can the discussion begin? Can democracy survive?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What am I missing?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTwo things:
You are missing the simple observation that a phenomena (rising temperatures) can have more than one cause. This is like saying that since forest fires have occurred naturally that arson is impossible.
Another thing you are missing is that no one predicts in a natural cycle that CO2 is going to start increasing without cause. No one says that. Perhaps you should start reading what the paleoclimatologist are actually saying, and look up the phenomena known as the Milankovitch Cycles:
When your argument is supported by nothing more than bullying, it's a rather weak argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese people are simply desperate to remain in denial.
Pitiful and boorish.
Thanks Trent. I fully understand and agree there are a lot of reasons why temperature would rise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is my concern. If the current rise is within the range of previous 100,000 year rises then how much influence does human generated causes really have? Clearly we have an effect but is the effect significant relative to the natural causes?
In regard to CO2, yes it must have a cause to rise. So was the CO2 peak 100,000 years ago caused by cavemen messing around with fire? If not, what was the cause of the previous cycle rise in CO2? Is the same cause principally responsible for most of our current rise?
My peeing in the ocean will cause a rise in sea level but how significant is the rise compared to rainfall?
I am going to look up Milankovitch Cycles and hope it makes me a believer.
Trent1492, whether you go by Milankovitch Cycles of about 26,000 years or longer cycles of 50 to 70 thousand years, this is the first time that the Arctic ice is melting in millions of years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomething has changed, and that something is the huge amount of fossil fuel discharge humans are putting into the atmosphere.
Wouldn't you agree?
Having been a denier for a number of years and having seen what happens to scientists that dared to deny AGW. Loss of funding, scorn in the media and personal threats. It is interesting to see the reaction when the shoe is on the other foot. People have a right to be pissed off. No one wants their taxes raised, their cost of living increased, World government imposed and their liberty lost on a complete Fraud.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally, I doubt the truth will ever be determined, not even by historians. I suspect the scientific community is subject to groupthink and siege mentality, and undoubtedly commercial and political (including scientific) communities are in an all out, death defying feeding frenzy. So how can us ignorant masses and non-combatants expect the best course of action to be taken? I wish us all good luck in the future, but we’ll probably only get what we deserve. Shame on us!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I'd love to not be a skeptic but I have looked at the 100,000 year climate cycle data (based on ice core samples), and see the current warm cycle well within climate temperature and CO2 peaks of past cycles. What am I missing?" your not missing Anything! but you won't get funding either $$ Its all about how much money . But in my case I hate to be told "you can't argue" that pisses me off and offends my 1st amendment right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJDK, you are much more likely to lose your liberties under the USA PATRIOT Act than any solutions to global warming... with global warming, you have the potential to lose far more than mere liberties.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWarpsix, did you read my comment? Why doesn't anyone that mentions the periodic cycles of climate change acknowledge that this is the first time in millions of years that the Arctic ice shelf is melting?
Just curious.
I thought the debate was over? Isn't that what Al Gore said? Those who debated the climate change theory were "flat worlders".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat hypocrisy... those who chose to USE science to prove their hypothesis rather than to use science to find the truth now are miffed that they are the targets of "McCarthyism"? Weren't these the same nuts that chided publicly anyone who came out against them.. laughed at them, called them names as well?
I feel no empathy or sympathy for these debunked "scientists" who chose a path of scientific fascism backed by the UN and those of Al Gore's ilk. Al Gore is a fraud and should be in jail rather than at home counting the millions he and his cronies have bilked from others to buy "carbon credits"... what a scheme!
MCMalkemus, I pretty much know that AGW is B.S. I am not worried about it. I also, have read the Plans that the UN has for us. Which any one can find on the net, world governance is mentioned many times as they begin to out line their plans for their next farce in Bali.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHasn't much of the evil Patriot act expired.
Would like to have the names of Congress members referred to in this article. The public has a right to know who is playing so carelessly with the well-being of posterity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ Science Geek who said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"These attacks are yet another example of the sort of behaviour typical of the climate change denier crowd. Instead of undertaking civilized discourse..."
Gee, you call someone a denier, as in Holocaust Denier, then denigrate them when they do not engage in civilized discourse. Unfortunately, this is yet another example of the sort of behavior typical of alarmists. First, declare that the scientific method doesn't apply to climate science. Second, verbally abuse anyone skeptical of their opinion. Third, feign surprise that anyone should be offended by their abuse. Fourth, go back on the offensive in retribution for their heresy.
Gavin is worried about some threatening emails. Try being a meteorologist and being told your going to have your certification removed unless to repent from your skeptical viewpoint.
As far as FOI requests are concerned. If alarmist scientists had simply posted the data, computer code, analysis methodology, etc. (as the scientific method dictates), FOI requests would be unnecessary. The reason they refuse to post this info is the same reason they refuse FOI requests and public debate; every time they do, their assumptions of how the biosphere works are found wanting.
If Gavin wants to know how this issue could have devolved into such an uncivil affair, he need look only as far as the mirror.
@ Science Geek who said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"These attacks are yet another example of the sort of behaviour typical of the climate change denier crowd. Instead of undertaking civilized discourse..."
Gee, you call someone a denier, as in Holocaust Denier, then denigrate them when they do not engage in civilized discourse. Unfortunately, this is yet another example of the sort of behavior typical of alarmists. First, declare that the scientific method doesn't apply to climate science. Second, verbally abuse anyone skeptical of their opinion. Third, feign surprise that anyone should be offended by their abuse. Fourth, go back on the offensive in retribution for their heresy.
Gavin is worried about some threatening emails. Try being a meteorologist and being told your going to have your certification removed unless to repent from your skeptical viewpoint.
As far as FOI requests are concerned. If alarmist scientists had simply posted the data, computer code, analysis methodology, etc. (as the scientific method dictates), FOI requests would be unnecessary. The reason they refuse to post this info is the same reason they refuse FOI requests and public debate; every time they do, their assumptions of how the biosphere works are found wanting.
If Gavin wants to know how this issue could have devolved into such an uncivil affair, he need look only as far as the mirror.
The global warming crowd has cost people a lot of money. In many cases it's money they didn't have. If it was all to fraud, public discourse on the subject is no more appropriate that debating some tweaker that just smashed the window of your car and stole your stereo.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt really takes a scummy person to be a Pro-Climate Fraud. Why does anyone deny Climate-Fraud over taxpayers? The ClimateGate scientists have been fooling people for over three decades now and now they want the people to sympathize with them, puleeaze! It's laughable. So it's okay for Michael Mann calling the majority of the population who don't buy their AGW claims, "pig"? Cry me a river. I don't believe a word they say -- never again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRepeating erbarker:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Are the people doing the bullying the same people that advocated "NUREMBERG-STYLE TRIALS PROPOSED FOR GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS" and suggesting the deniers were committing "treason against the planet."
Man! Now, that is bullying."
Thanks, erbarker, well said.
People are getting angry and I don't blame them.
@MCMalkemus
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Something has changed, and that something is the huge amount of fossil fuel discharge humans are putting into the atmosphere.
Wouldn't you agree?"
Yes.
@Ebarker,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Are the people doing the bullying the same people that advocated "NUREMBERG-STYLE TRIALS PROPOSED FOR GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS" and suggesting the deniers were committing "treason against the planet."
Man! Now, that is bullying "
Tu Quque
"People are getting angry and I don't blame them."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou do not blame people who send death threats, threats of rape, and similar threats of harm to researchers' children and their spouses? These are understandable and sympathetic acts?
I pity people like you who think that violence against the innocent are justifiable.
"I dare say that on the SciAm blog, the attacks are much more viscous coming from the AGW advocates."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere have the editors and writers have Scientific American threatened murder and personal injury? Care to link to the appropriate article?
@ McMalkemus who stated:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...this is the first time that the Arctic ice is melting in millions of years."
I respectfully disagree. There is no proxy data / satellite / camera evidence to prove your point (or mine). We do have anecdotal evidence (see Wikipedia) that sailors were plying the Northwest Passage in the 1940s because of low Arctic ice extent. There is also much evidence to show that Artic ice extent is correlated to ocean oscillation.
Since the extent of Arctic ice has no proxy data record, saying that it has not melted (like this) in millions of years is not a verifiable statement. However, if raw temperature is your measure of Arctic ice extent, then the Arctic must have had less ice than today during the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan Warm Periods, all within the past few thousand years.
Climate Change is scary stuff. I can see that both sides are passionate about their case, regardless of merit. Both sides are invested in maintaining the quality of humna life - those who espouse Climate change, think that modifying our behavior is the best recourse. Those who don't, don't want to see changes and loss of control for something that is as hard to communicate and express as Global Warming. Good God, I can't number the people who have made reference to the last East coast snowfall to attempt to debunk Climate change. I could say it is a failure to understand... but conversely, the fault must be shared by those who are communicating as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only difference is that those who have done the science deserve to be heard more prominently. It should be a no brainer that fear of global consequence should trump fear of some possible degredation in the economy (this, btw, is not even agreed as a real consequence by many economists).
Sadly, as long as there is any argument about if there is a problem, we are not going to come up with a solution. In a match pitting all scientists against all non-scientists, science will lose every day. In today's political climate, scientists need to get another degree in communication. Otherwise we can all kiss our grandchildren's world goodbye.
@Trent1492
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'You are missing the simple observation that a phenomena (rising temperatures) can have more than one cause. This is like saying that since forest fires have occurred naturally that arson is impossible.'
I've never read/heard it explained so simply.
Great post!
I subscribed to SA thru my highschool years and into college and looked forward to Martin Gardner's Mathematical Games each month . SA is one of the institutions which has sadden me to watch tarnish itself in this statist fraud .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt happens I have a standing question to Gavin Schmidt from an email exchange last week prompted by my continuing frustration at not being able to find the quantitative physics which so alarms the alarmists :
I took a look at PierreHumbert's text when it first was posted . I saw nothing but non-quantitative hand-waving after a basic statement of Stefan-Boltzmann . I'm looking for Physics not Physics-for-Poets . I am looking for a Chandrasekhar level analysis , tho a single sphere is a much simpler problem than what he attacked . Certainly the fundamental physics , starting from Stefan-Boltzmann and Kirchhoff , should be able to be stated in at most a few pages of equations .
Claiming that "Venus does not violate the laws of thermodynamics in having an extreme greenhouse effect." does not make it so !
Such a bald , unsupported statement is exactly what I am pressing to get beyond . Surely the essential physics should not take more than a few equations to express . Given the enormous budgets on the governments' side , surely some succinct , engineering school level , public-domain explication should be web available . Referring to expensive and not easily available text books which may or may not provide the needed exposition seems a dodge . The question of mean temperature of a radiantly heated sphere , even with a gas blanket , is much simpler than understanding the details of flows within that blanket , just as determining the mean temperature of a volume of gas is much simpler than detailing the chaotic flows within it .
Frankly , I think my explication , linked at http://cosy.com/views/warm.htm , with executable algorithms in several modern array programming languages , while at this point limited to gray spheres ( because my budget is a purely unremunerated expense ) , is clearer and more general , because it handles the actual spherical geometry , than any explanation I have found on any catastrophist's site ... .
Let me ask one basic question : Is there an upper limit on the equilibrium temperature of a radiantly heated sphere and if so , what is it ?
So , if you want to convince me this is not an eco-leninism fraud , I repeat my question here : Show me the Physics .
Hardly any of the data supporting ACC is questioned by legitimate scientists, but that doesn't carry any weight with deniers. Those who think it is a conspiracy don't seem to realize that no climate scientist is getting rich off of this, no one is suddenly gaining any real power because of this. And besides, even if the observed climate change did turn out to be just a natural cycle and it stopped tomorrow, we would still have to change our behaviors eventually, oil won't last forever. "The government is even dictating what kind of lightbulbs we can have". Really? Why would you want to spend more money on bulbs that harm the environment anyway? Hell, why would you intentionally want to spend more money on lightbulbs? Just to spite the guy who said "don't use those nasty incandescent bulbs, use my CFLs"? Grow up, and quit using middle school tactics. Incidentally, this same problem has popped up on facebook recently on the "We can find 1,000,000 people who DO believe in evolution by June" page, there have been several creationists spamming that page like mad, and every time we tear their argument apart, they delete and repost, so it looks like we haven't responded and they win that round, when really they just cheated. It must be some anti-science reflex, to cheat when you can't win on merits alone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat you suggest sceptics are trying to shut down debate is the biggest joke of the year.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShutting down the debate is the modus operandi of Schmidt and his bunch of cronies, not the other way round.
How many posts on Real Climate are censored and or removed?
The cry babies are reaping their just reward for their criminal suppression of contrary opinion, upon which the whole scientific process depends.
That you should support and report these lies just underlines the way in which the media has been and is being manipulated by the non scientists.
Trent - I was referencing those participating in the blog - i.e. the comment section of the articles (AGW advocates vs. AGW skeptics), not those who write and edit the articles. If you want some evidence, see some of the posts of James Davis, especially in any article related to coal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr just see Vendicar9 post above.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the ignoring of evidence happens on both sides . I have several graphs on my CoSy.com which show how profound the greening of the planet by CO2 is bound to be , and how insignificant the change in temperature over the last century . Certainly the alarmist side has shown itself to be better at manufacturing evidence .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe arguments about the need to deal with finite oil and the rationality of purchasing CFLs , are off topic , but reveal a failure to understand that , as Hayek emphasized , no kilopages of government regs and thousands of square meters of bureaucrats , backed , as Greenspan once pointed out , by guns and prisons , can be as intelligent as free individuals making market choices for the welfare of their families . The abject basket case this cult of the omniscient state created in , for example , the old USSR , perhaps has been diluted in government schools over recent decades . That why you find so many of us fighting , often at substantial personal expense , with facts and logic against this attempt to criminalize the molecule upon which , with H2O , all life is build , and which is based on as close to nothing as you can get ( perhaps 0.3% change in temperature over a century ) . with no hard science in sight .
"Here is my concern. If the current rise is within the range of previous 100,000 year rises then how much influence does human generated causes really have? Clearly we have an effect but is the effect significant relative to the natural causes?" - American Fool
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has been quantified. Man is responsible for most of the warming. You can check out the last IPCC report for that best attribution currently known by science.
It is available on line.
So what is the reason for your ignorance?
Or are you asking for information that you already know?
"But some appear to be the work of coordinated campaigns, and many, scientists say, appear to be taking their cue from influential anti-climate change advocates like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and ClimateDepot.com."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this------------------------
Typical venom and vitriol from the rabid denialist crowd, more worried about any increase in taxes than making their world better for future generations.
"Climate Change is scary stuff." = ilde
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYa in the same way that bananas and shoe racks are scary.
The issue is strictly at hand is strictly moral. Climate change is projected to eradicate 30% of all species on the planet.
Currently the singular Conservative denialist species is preventing action to preserve that 30%.
The proper, moral, course of action is clear. Eradicate one species in order to preserve the other 30%.
"I also, have read the Plans that the UN has for us. " - JKD
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes. It is high time to get the U.N. out of the U.S. and the U.S. out of existance.
yes, the AGW crowd is extrememly proficient at slinging the mud. And then we have people that want to exterminate anyone that doesn't agree with them. Now really, who's the bully here?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisildenizen:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In today's political climate, scientists need to get another degree in communication. Otherwise we can all kiss our grandchildren's world goodbye."
----------------------
Excellent point, since this article points out extreme venom and vitriol by the denialists towards the scientists on a daily basis, which also includes nasty threats for doing their jobs. Many scientists are not good communicators, so for those we might see a need for a public relations manager as well, to at least offset the paid PR firms of the manufactured doubt industry!
Gregory CH:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I'd love to not be a skeptic but I have looked at the 100,000 year climate cycle data (based on ice core samples), and see the current warm cycle well within climate temperature and CO2 peaks of past cycles. What am I missing?"
-------------------------
Seems you're missing the current 388 ppm of atmospheric CO2 is much higher than at any time in the past 800,000 years of ice core data, and probably more than in the past few million years. The atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied by volume between 180 to 210 ppm during ice ages, increasing to 280 to 300 ppm during warmer interglacials, from the longest ice core sampling. This means that the current 388 ppm of atmospheric CO2, is 104 ppm (36%) above the 1832 antarctic ice core levels of 284 ppm.
If the world's climate is in such a perilous state that my lightbulbs are helping to bring about catastrophe, and the likes of Obama, Brown and our own dear Kevin (Oz PM) are insisting this is so and require us common folk to pay more taxes etc., why don't they shut down the Military industrial complex and save many lives and more?? That would make a more significant impact, one would venture, than my walking the two KMs to the shop to purchase my groceries (I enjoy walking, but a 20kg bag of chicken feed is a bit awkward).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe extraordinary hypocrisy of people who seriously believe that human beings are bringing on the end of civilisation and the annihilation of life on our beautiful blue planet (as in water and water vapour) but are still driving their cars, flying on planes and generating (I can guarantee) a damn sight more CO2 than I and my family of five produce (we grow much of our own food for example, and our income is less than $25 000...) speaks volumes.
As a former AGW advocate (I walked for a major Oz environmental organisation 1989-1992), I had a hard time justifying driving to the nearest big city (45 mins away) to take my kids to the cinema. So how committed are you??
If you're not reducing your personal footprint by never getting into a CO2 production vehicle again, then I can not believe a word of it.
The likes of Pachauri flying to Delhi for a cricket match for example - does he REALLY believe in what he is peddling - that the world is coming to an end? And Al Gore's production of CO2 in running his Lear jet, his mansions together with his belief in rising sea levels then buying a waterfront penthouse property in San Francisco...???
But so much more terrible, more tragic is the price ordinary people in the 3rd world are already paying - the doubling of food prices (see UN docs) so that we can have bio-fuels??
I used to be a 'true believer' and hung on the words of the sermons of Al Gore et al since the late 1980's. Then we decided to actually look at the evidence (scientific papers vs 'An Inconvenient Truth" etc. ) because we were home educating our daughter and thought it vital that she look at the different arguments, (us parents with a view to 'debunking' those who didn't agree with AGW hypothesis). We read and read and read papers, IPCC docs etc. It was, to be frank, an emotional experience and one I didn't want or expect to undertake. That was in 2006. Lesson learnt. CHALLENGE YOURSELF.
JKD:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Having been a denier for a number of years..."
---------------------
Congratulations.....but it's the glenn beck conspiracy theories of "world government" and "lost liberties" that I really have to challenge. My state's utility companies just announced they want to increase renewables to 30% by 2020, instead of the VOTER mandated 20%, because it's the correct thing to do!
Being a self-imposed denialist like you is one thing, but to fight renewable energy for the fossil fuel industry's profits, is just assinine.
Quick correction to my previous comment - I WORKED (rather than 'walked') as a paid campaigner, including writing Australian senate submissions on the impact of global warming on wilderness in 1989. My husband , who was working at the time on the links between social justice, environment and peace (a la 'Our Common Future' UN Report) for the peak body for aid organisations in Oz, also organised the first 'Greenhouse Bicycle Rally" in Hobart in 1989 - so we'd been in the AGW 'camp' for sometime before finally really examining the issues in 2006 - it's an interesting process and took me some months before I would even entertain the idea that there might be valid alternative perspectives to my own. I honestly thought that people who didn't believe what I did were dangerously and willfully ignorant. So I know the ideas and perspectives of environmental zealots very well, because I was one. No one can convince you, and any measure is justified in the righteous quest to save the world - even when evidence to the contrary is staring you in the face and asking you to consider it. ( I am indeed happy to be persuaded otherwise by evidence by the way.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe whole issue has been wrapped up in emotion and politics, so much so as to make it almost impossible for people to climb down from their pulpits of hellfire and damnation, curse and counter curse so as to re-examine data, research etc. in the cool hard light of scientific peer review and analysis. Enough said from me - may the debate continue and people climb down and come together in the spirit of what we all crave - respect, honesty and integrity on all sides of the debate.
vendicar9 said :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" It has been quantified. Man is responsible for most of the warming. You can check out the last IPCC report for that best attribution currently known by science.
It is available on line."
WHERE ?
As I have repeatedly asked : SHOW ME THE PHYSICS !
And by that I mean quantitative equations verified by experiment . The IPCC doesn't even mention Stefan-Boltzmann which is the starting point .
The arrogant insulting tone of the anonymous vendicar9 and lakota2012 coupled with apparently NO ability in hard science is all too typical of those who thirst for the Global State's guns and prisons to strangle free commerce and human welfare in their insane fear of the very molecule out of which they , as is all life , are constructed .
The arrogance of the mediocre is awesome . Luckily the instantaneous peer review of web is defeating them .
I know I get all my science from internet comments sections. Just like I get all my news from television and blogs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate is connected with my ether-gravity-vacuum theory of gravitoethertons and balloon inside balloon theory and we should try to connect all such phenomena instead of complaining about the present climate theories.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't blame people for getting angry at the "garbage in and garbage out" results giving by ClimateGate scientists in regard to AGW.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI said nothing about threats, no one is advocating threats of any type on anyone.
Now we now with certainty that the warming from 1975 to 1998 was not in anyway "unprecedented" thanks to the testimony of Dr. Phil Jones. This alone should stop the the global warming scam. When ClimateGate scientists push garbage science down people throat, well, they aren't going to take it.
Give the people "honest" (can't believe I have to use the "honest") science and that is all required of the ClimateGate scientists. I don't think that is too much to ask for.
I work as a microscopist analyzing environmental samples for EPA to detect health hazardous contaminants. I have to be certain my results are precise -- if they aren't, a business could be shut down and millions of dollars could be spent on remediation and lawsuits. And when I am uncertain about my results, I turn to my fellow analysts for second opinion. My data is always available, heck I sometime ask others to look at my data, not concealing and manipulating it to fit my findings.
Why is everyone against "honest" science and deny claim-fraud? Why? Afraid Al Gore might lose billions of dollars?
Actually, it's the ClimateGate scientists who have been "discredited" for their end of the world claims when they don't even have the data to prove CO2 drive climate (it can't). All they have are fortune predictions based on flawed models and theory. End of discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks to the people who proved my point. People are tossing URLs around like rocks in a playground fight. Why? Has ANYONE here actually changed their mind about AGW? Anyone? I doubt it. Even the people who attempt to be open-minded just go to the "opposing" URLs and skim down long enough to find some point they know to be wrong, no matter how trivial, and then declare the whole argument bunk.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd, so, as the original author pointed out, it devolves to "conservatives have to die" and "string them up as traitors." It's entirely possible these posters live in the same town, their kids might go to the same school, for all they know.
There is something called "the politics of identity." I won't bother citing, google if you want. Basically, it says that when people actually get to the point where they identify with a group, any group: Christians, skeptics, proponents, deniers, conservatives, whatever, they make a leap that defies reason. Once an individual is a member of group, and derives part of their identity from that group, then defend the group. Losing an argument means losing a part of themselves. If you want to win an argument with these people, you have to separate them from the group. Shoving people into a group and then telling them the group is wrong is about as useful as screaming at a rock.
Unfortunately, it seems the most useful function of the Internet is to bring small groups of people together, just big enough that they form group identities and then start defending that identity with near hysterical furvour, as demonstrated here. The article wasn't even about the validity of AGW, it was about the Internet and it is stifling free speech. How can democracy survive this?
@Bob Armstrong
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
"As I have repeatedly asked : SHOW ME THE PHYSICS !"
Why lookie here! Here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/#more-367
Here is a list of the radiative transfer codes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atmospheric_radiative_transfer_codes
You have been served.
@Cry Me a River,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou keep on rabbiting on about faked data. Show it. I want you to name specifically what databases were corrupted and which papers are fraudulent. Again, which papers? Connect those papers and databases with those stolen E-mails. Post those E-mails up here in FULL with a link. Now go do it.
@Soccer Dad,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou claim that commentators have threatened to rape and kill children. If this is true you need to report it to the police. So where has this occurred.? If this is true I WILL CALL the POLICE. Now show it please.
"Actually, it's the ClimateGate scientists who have been "discredited" for their end of the world claims when they don't even have the data to prove CO2 drive climate (it can't). "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpoken like a true ideologue.
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
"Rude and crass e-mails. E-mails calling him a fraud, a cheat, a scumbag and much worse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut others see the messages as threats and intimidationcyber-bullying meant to shut down debate and cow scientists into limiting their participation in the public discourse."
------------------------
CryMeARiver:
"I said nothing about threats, no one is advocating threats of any type on anyone."
----------------------
Certainly doesn't mean it is not happening as the article above proves you're wrong.
Anytime politicians like Gore or monckton are mentioned like you did, merely proves you spew nothing but political rhetoric from a preconceived ideology.
Bob Armstrong:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The arrogant insulting tone of the anonymous vendicar9 and lakota2012 coupled with apparently NO ability in hard science is all too typical..."
----------------------
Try looking in the mirror bobby, since you posted nothing but ad hominem attacks in a most arrogant insulting tone.
Then you close by saying:
"The arrogance of the mediocre is awesome . Luckily the instantaneous peer review of web is defeating them ."
"Peer review" by junk science BLOGS is hardly justifiable or defeating any real science, but people like you will continue to ask for more and more proof while quickly discrediting anyone or anything with your political rhetoric about "lost freedoms" with statements like, "strangle free commerce and human welfare." I'm certainly surprised you didn't mention higher taxes and higher energy costs too!
People like you could be shown the science over and over again, yet you will continue to believe your preconceived ideology no matter what you are shown.
Inevitably, there will be scientists who are skeptical about man-made global warming. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what is most interesting is responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
CryMeARiver:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Actually, it's the ClimateGate scientists who have been discredited for their end of the world claims..."
----------------------
Really? And where did you get that OPINION? YOU seem to have a very vivid imagination while spewing political rhetoric, in such an alarmist mode.
While some of the private correspondance is not commendable, an informed examination of their "suggestive" emails reveal technical discussions using techniques well known in the peer reviewed literature. Focusing on a few suggestive emails merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.
An important point to realise is that the emails involve a handful of scientists discussing a few pieces of climate data. Even without this data, there is still an overwhelming and consistent body of evidence, painstakingly compiled by independent scientific teams from institutions across the world.
To wrongly 'think' that there is a 'smoking gun' disproving AGW in the stolen emails, is quite delusional, but just like a rabid pit bull, the denialists cannot let go!
Cyber Bullying Intensifies as Climate Data Questioned
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResearchers must purge e-mail in-boxes daily of threatening correspondence
---------------------------------
CryMeARiver:
"I said nothing about threats, no one is advocating threats of any type on anyone."
----------------------
Talk is cheap....PROVE your silly statement, since it appears that the denialists are getting much more arrogant and vile.
Bob Armstrong,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFollowing are two links to the type of Physics documents I believe you are requesting.
I think they provide the technical analysis and formal demonstration you seek.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf
Another biased report from the clearly biased Sci-Am. Anyone reading CRU leaked e-mail knows who the real bullies are! Gavin is one of the biggest black kettles of all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisG. Karst,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it fair to infer from your post about "the clearly biased Sci-Am", the "CRU leaked e-mail", and that Dr. Schmidt is a perp rather than a victim, that you do not condemn the threats sent to him and other climate scientists?
I thank SciAm for the forum to discuss this situation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd like to explain why 2010 was for the AGW group the year the music died.
Think logically for a moment. The concept was that global warming was being caused by humans. OK, obviously the only way this could be changed was by humans changing their behaviour. Doing this meant understanding human behaviour and motivation. Instead what we got out of the AGW true believers was their ideas on scientific mechanisms as to how to change directions. Look at Kyoto, look at Copenhagen, has this been a raging success? It's been a signal failure. Notice any change in this approach? Not me. Stop blaming deniers, start blaming yourself for not doing a better job of understanding people and persuading them.
To change human behaviour you first have to understand it. The AGW crowd had shown themselves to be woefully inadequate in this regard. Kyoto showed this, Copenhagen showed this. Do you see any change in the thinking or approach? Or results?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChryses:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course I condemn threats made to anyone. The point is fanatical ideologues make threats to both AGW convinced and AGW unconvinced, all the time. However, anyone AGW unconvinced will be subject to much more abuse and threats whenever he/she tries to publish or speak publicly. When people think they are trying to save humanity, all things are justifiable... ie the end justifies the means (ergo=> CRU emails). GK
This all seems very "Stalinesque", you know, the communist leader of the Soviet who was so paranoid he had all his best scientists executed. These actions that contrarians take are heinous, uncalled for, barbarous, and honestly, should be treated as criminal cases. When someone threatens another persons life, whether it be in person, on the phone, in a letter, in an email, or even via morse code, it should be taken seriously, and the consequences should be jail time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know a few of these scientists and it goes way beyond cyber bullying. They even get death threats. I write blogs frequently on the science and I can count on the same old emails. Unsigned with Al Gore mentioned detrimentally in the first paragraph.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese people are really a small number though, they just get an inordinate amount of attention.
Not sure you could get most of them to actually read any of the number of well written answers to their misconceptions. John Cook of Skeptical Science is among the best of these.
I haven't seen a new claim by these folks in two years..
Dan Satterfield
Chief Metr.
WHNT TV
Huntsville AL
mememine69,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Scientists not only polluted the planet with their chemicals they developed, they produced cruise missiles, toxic chemicals, land mine technology, nuclear weapons, germ warfare, strip mining technology, deep sea drilling technology and now climate change."
Is <b>Science</b> responsible? Did Scientists do these things?
Or were these activities the products of Manufacturing, the Military, and Energy Companies? Did citizens of democracies vote in and out the governments that condoned, encouraged, and yes, on occasion demanded theme?
Who is responsible?
We have all read, and most would agree with Oppenheimer's insight, "In some sort of crude sense which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin; and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose". Nevertheless, I ask you how, or in what way you might respond to another comment of his, "There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors."
Do you, or any other of the <i>honest</i> AGW skeptics, truly believe that defunding, or otherwise inhibiting climate research will benefit your children? If not, then why condemn the results to date?
Threats and intimidation are unacceptable and the practioners are as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat doesn't change the fact that AGW proponents are ahead of the science. Their models have major issues, the arctic ice isn't melting and the planet stopped warming in 1997. The radical protocols proposed to limit CO2 are already having major negative economic impacts across the world (e.g., increased electricity costs in Europe, Airbus losing major contracts to China and India).
Mann, the IPCC, the UEA and the rest of the AGW proponents need to cool their rhetoric and stop the Al Gore style scare tactics. The science is not settled.
So both sides should stand down, the world can wait another 30 years to measure, watch refine and then make some common sense decisions.
Jww
There's bad behavior on both sides of this debate. Both the warmists and the deniers are guilty of threats and abuse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about a balanced piece that discusses both sides?
@Jeff,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you at all aware that you are spewing nonsense? The warmest decade on the instrument record has been the 2000's.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
Arctic sea ice has been in decline for decades.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
When will you lot learn you can not decide trends over a couple of months of data or even a couple of years.
The physics has been known for over a century and been shown to be right over and over again. Are you at all aware that some of the successful predictions of what we would see in CO2 warmed world are over a century old?
Such predictions as:
Nights warming faster than days.
Winters warming faster than Summers
The Arctic warming faster than anywhere else on the planet.
All of the above was predicted using models with pencil and paper. May I suggest that you go and spend your time reading what the scientist in the field are actually saying?
@Jeff,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are engaging in false equivalency here. There has never been such a sustained assault on science in the western world as what is being experienced now. Did you read the article?
Climate scientist and their families have been subjected to legal threats, manufactured scandals, attempts to fire them, and a general smear campaign that has been funded through conservative think tanks.