Climate scientists face death threats, organized harassment

[AETEN II]

*hitting head against desk* IhatemycountryIhatemycountryIhatemycountry.

Hasn't that become the daily ritual of the sane American?

[Salandriagado]

sure you would. science isn't a conspiracy. if there was data that contradicted the accepted ideas, you can bet that people would be making their entire careers based on showing it. that's how this game is played.

But if a claim is entrenched enough, who would make it that far in their departments to begin with? Certainly not those who dispute it. (Examples of such scientists at about 4 minutes in.) Obviously those who agree with the claim, or would go along with it to force a sense of urgency to environmental issues, would not be as likely to even want to make entire careers on deconstructing it.

That isn't how science work. If you provide data and evidence to support your claim, people listen. Period. If you don't, people laugh. Period.

[Free Soviets]

i think that we need to ensure the privacy of scholars' communications in order to protect and promote academic freedom and the ability of researchers to actually conduct their research and collaborate without having to worry about what some jackass might use against them.

Anyone can be taken out of context. Just let people have access. If person X wants to misrepresent something, there will always be some person Y whose claims person X will be expected to compete with.

And "privacy" is for your personal life. When applied to your professional life, I would consider it more along the lines of "secrecy."

suppose i want to do a study on the victims of rape. i get in contact with people and have extended conversations with them about very sensitive topics over email. in my actual study, i will obviously keep their identities secret. its not only the right thing to do, but the only way i can get the information i need from people who have already been hurt very badly.

should you have the right to demand access to my email?

sure you would. science isn't a conspiracy. if there was data that contradicted the accepted ideas, you can bet that people would be making their entire careers based on showing it. that's how this game is played.

But if a claim is entrenched enough, who would make it that far in their departments to begin with? Certainly not those who dispute it. (Examples of such scientists at about 4 minutes in.) Obviously those who agree with the claim, or would go along with it to force a sense of urgency to environmental issues, would not be as likely to even want to make entire careers on deconstructing it.

um, all of those denialists besides ball hold tenured positions (ball traded his in to make money on the wingnut welfare circuit). their work is routinely shot full of holes, but this has not stopped them from speaking to idiots like stossel in the slightest. the problem they actually have is just how little scrutiny their ideas can stand up to, not that they are being silenced.

[Paulmania]

Meanwhile, I'm sure crazy environmentalists have made plenty of death threats.

[Emile Zola]

Meanwhile, I'm sure crazy environmentalists have made plenty of death threats.

Like when?

[Zephie]

anyone who thinks all the crap we put out from our cars/power plants/etc doesn't affect our environments are idiots. On the flipside, giving the government all of your money isn't going to help at all. The car industry buys out clean energy technology applications to vehicles so people have little to no choice in that matter, then the government wants to exercise a carbon tax on its people for using gas-powered vehicles, when that's the ONLY CHOICE GIVEN TO THEM. Some electric vehicles are out, but they are hardly practical.

[Ukrussiaine]

Climate-change propaganda.

Every political/ social movement/ organization/ etc. faces some kind of harassment/ death threats.

[Tarvelia]

I don't believe people should be sending death-threats. Not even to tree-huggers.

But when a liberal gets a death-threat it's practically international news.

When Todd Akin, Scott Walker or other conservatives recieve death threats (and there was even a movie about assassinating GW. Bush) it's a matter of free speech.

[Emile Zola]

I don't believe people should be sending death-threats. Not even to tree-huggers.

But when a liberal gets a death-threat it's practically international news.

When Todd Akin, Scott Walker or other conservatives recieve death threats (and there was even a movie about assassinating GW. Bush) it's a matter of free speech.

You're right no one should ever get death threats.

But... don't equate people advocating to protect the environment or acknowledging the data that confirms climate change to be equal of the people who want to take away women and workers rights.

[Revolutopia]

(and there was even a movie about assassinating GW. Bush) it's a matter of free speech.

Did you actually see the movie or are you just assuming that it was about encouraging the assassination of Bush?

[Fnordgasm 5]

I don't believe people should be sending death-threats. Not even to tree-huggers.

But when a liberal gets a death-threat it's practically international news.

When Todd Akin, Scott Walker or other conservatives recieve death threats (and there was even a movie about assassinating GW. Bush) it's a matter of free speech.

Do you even care how much CO2 you're releasing into the atmosphere by burning such an egregious straw man?

[The Murry]

Here in Australia there introducing laws that for all intents and purposes make it a crime to openly admit to being a climate sceptic

[Fnordgasm 5]

Here in Australia there introducing laws that for all intents and purposes make it a crime to openly admit to being a climate sceptic

You got a source for that? Even the Australians can't be that silly can they?

[Johz]

But if a claim is entrenched enough, who would make it that far in their departments to begin with? Certainly not those who dispute it. (Examples of such scientists at about 4 minutes in.) Obviously those who agree with the claim, or would go along with it to force a sense of urgency to environmental issues, would not be as likely to even want to make entire careers on deconstructing it.

That isn't how science work. If you provide data and evidence to support your claim, people listen. Period. If you don't, people laugh. Period.

That's not quite true. University departments aren't quite completely open, and do discriminate on a variety of factors, including views on key topics. So for example, there was a period a while ago where no-one would be caught dead as a string theorist, and it was worked out by independent scientists. Suddenly it works, and no-one would be seen doing anything else, for fear of their research budgets.

Or so I'm told.

[SaintB]

It simply boils down to one fact: The United States of America is immature. Immature people, immature leaders, immature in just about every way.

[Emile Zola]

Here in Australia there introducing laws that for all intents and purposes make it a crime to openly admit to being a climate sceptic

What you're actually saying is that I'm making it up. Also what's the difference between a skeptic and a denier these days?

[Ifreann]

Remember, the consensus once was the earth was flat.

Yes, back when people were so ignorant that they couldn't conceive of a world beyond their immediate surroundings. A little more work has gone into Climate Change.

---

Meanwhile, I'm sure crazy environmentalists have made plenty of death threats.

What does that have to do with anything? Do you think it's okay to threaten the lives of climate scientists because some extreme environmentalists have made death threats?

[Samuraikoku]

Lack of education, in an extreme way.

[Kubrath]

Naysayers are gonna nay-say. People are like that for pretty much everything that's threatening to crack their perfect world. "There's climate change!? And we may have a fault!? Impossible, liars!"

[Salandriagado]

That isn't how science work. If you provide data and evidence to support your claim, people listen. Period. If you don't, people laugh. Period.

That's not quite true. University departments aren't quite completely open, and do discriminate on a variety of factors, including views on key topics. So for example, there was a period a while ago where no-one would be caught dead as a string theorist, and it was worked out by independent scientists. Suddenly it works, and no-one would be seen doing anything else, for fear of their research budgets.

Or so I'm told.

Because they didn't have data to support their claims. Hence, people laughed.

[Johz]

That's not quite true. University departments aren't quite completely open, and do discriminate on a variety of factors, including views on key topics. So for example, there was a period a while ago where no-one would be caught dead as a string theorist, and it was worked out by independent scientists. Suddenly it works, and no-one would be seen doing anything else, for fear of their research budgets.

Or so I'm told.

Because they didn't have data to support their claims. Hence, people laughed.

String theorists today have as much supporting data as they did when the subject started. They just also have a lot more data saying that string theory isn't here, here, or here.

[Mavorpen]

That's not quite true. University departments aren't quite completely open, and do discriminate on a variety of factors, including views on key topics. So for example, there was a period a while ago where no-one would be caught dead as a string theorist, and it was worked out by independent scientists. Suddenly it works, and no-one would be seen doing anything else, for fear of their research budgets.

Or so I'm told.

No. That's extremely false. Many scientists like it because it's mathematically beautiful, but most recognize that the evidence just isn't all that convincing. It has potential, and it's being taken seriously, but it's nowhere near the point you're speaking of.

[Shadowlandistan]

Religion and corporate interest is behind anti climate change fanatics. Either they believe the world is only 3000 years old, or they are in it for the money and don't care about the environment at all. It's quite sickening.

[Libertasia Universum]

There is something of importance going on right now. We may see America impose trade tariffs on China, their currency is not pegged as they would like, and outside investors are now allowed to open bank accounts held currency in the Yuan in China. I doubt they will impose trade tariffs because the USA and China have a very interdependent relation with each other and it may harm their relations more than it would if they didn't do this. Anyway, how will this effect the environment, it could mean very costly imports of solar panels, wind turbines and all their parts that are madein China. Just something to think about. There are some camapaigns against this move. America and Germany do manufacture a lot but no longer leading this market.

multiple edits; spelling and typos errors...speed typing...not good for my fingers...

oh yes, socialist media has opposed this protectionism, despite what some left wingers say, it does more harm than good.

[Sociobiology]

But such assumptions about what is relevant strike me as dogmatic. You never know what relevant information some scientists may be hiding from us.

sure you would. science isn't a conspiracy. if there was data that contradicted the accepted ideas, you can bet that people would be making their entire careers based on showing it. that's how this game is played.

this is true. The easiest way to become famous in science is to conclusively disprove something widely believed.