Climate scientists face death threats, organized harassment

by **Giovenith** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:50 pm

Wisconsin9 wrote:
Giovenith wrote:Well, people are like children sometimes. When they hear something they really, really don't want to hear, they have a tendency to try and look for a way to tell the person telling them it to shut up. And as adults, that can often degrade to something as dark as death threats and petty sabotage. It really shouldn't surprise us all too much.

I'm insulted that you compared me to those halfwits.

Hey, I said sometimes and tendency.

by **Fluffy Coyotes** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:53 pm

Avenio wrote:
Fluffy Coyotes wrote:Those few excerpts taken out of contexts may mean something else... but they didn't bother to explain it until it was made public,

They didn't bother to explain private e-mails between scientists using technical jargon to the public... before their computer systems were hacked and their e-mails were released?

They cannot prove that they were honest, and the rest of us cannot prove that they were not. Climategate was about uncertainty. Some claimed certainty that they were guilty, but these are a vocal minority of those whose minds were changed by Climategate. (Actually, I think those who claimed certainty about it probably tended to doubt the honesty of the scientific community well before it.) There is not strong enough evidence to justify prosecuting, let alone even semi-justify threatening, the scientists involved, but it just casts the almost dogmatic nature of many about climate science in a new light.

It seems odd to use different jargon in their emails than they would on things that could be cited as being from well before Climategate. Perhaps this should be a lesson on being willing to talk to the public as one would talk to their colleagues. Better to err on the side of openness than secrecy.

by **Mavorpen** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:55 pm

Fluffy Coyotes wrote:It seems odd to use different jargon in their emails than they would on things that could be cited as being from well before Climategate.

What?

by **Ostroeuropa** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:56 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Fluffy Coyotes wrote:It seems odd to use different jargon in their emails than they would on things that could be cited as being from well before Climategate.

What?

I'm sure you would use words like lol, and brb in an official document just because you might use them in emails...

by **Mavorpen** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:57 pm

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:What?

I'm sure you would use words like lol, and brb in an official document just because you might use them in emails...

That's like me using Debate jargon in an email about a Debate tournament, then them being released and conspiracy theorists go wild because of it.

by **Ostroeuropa** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:58 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
I'm sure you would use words like lol, and brb in an official document just because you might use them in emails...

That's like me using Debate jargon in an email about a Debate tournament, then them being released and conspiracy theorists go wild because of it.

WORDS!
Words we don't understand!
OMG!
FLEEEEeeeeeeeeeee

by **Fluffy Coyotes** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:59 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
Fluffy Coyotes wrote:It seems odd to use different jargon in their emails than they would on things that could be cited as being from well before Climategate.

What?

If the kinds of phrases cited by the conspiracy theorists were used in past articles available to the public, that could be cited, and thus more strongly indicate that this is not some sort of ass-covering move. I have yet to hear of citing such past articles.

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:What?

I'm sure you would use words like lol, and brb in an official document just because you might use them in emails...

I don't use them in emails either. But that's a false equivalence anyway, as such words are used in public contexts (Facebook) and people's use of them has been subjected to scrutiny (in the contexts of jobs) and their meaning is publicly known and easy to cite.

by **Mavorpen** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:00 pm

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:
That's like me using Debate jargon in an email about a Debate tournament, then them being released and conspiracy theorists go wild because of it.

WORDS!
Words we don't understand!
OMG!
FLEEEEeeeeeeeeeee

"OMG WHY R THEY TALKING ABOUT THE NFL!?"

"They must be planning to destroy it!"

"Look! It says LD! They must mean LSD! They're drug dealers!"

by **Free Soviets** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:00 pm

Fluffy Coyotes wrote:
Avenio wrote:
They didn't bother to explain private e-mails between scientists using technical jargon to the public... before their computer systems were hacked and their e-mails were released?

They cannot prove that they were honest

they can and have. there is no there there, no matter how loudly conservatives clap.

Fluffy Coyotes wrote:It seems odd to use different jargon in their emails than they would on things that could be cited as being from well before Climategate.

in what possible way? have you ever worked in a technical field? everything gets a slang name, because official ones are always awkward as hell. doesn't mean you don't use the officials when communicating officially.

by **Xsyne** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:59 pm

Free Soviets wrote:
Fluffy Coyotes wrote:They cannot prove that they were honest

they can and have. there is no there there, no matter how loudly conservatives clap.

Fluffy Coyotes wrote:It seems odd to use different jargon in their emails than they would on things that could be cited as being from well before Climategate.

in what possible way? have you ever worked in a technical field? everything gets a slang name, because official ones are always awkward as hell. doesn't mean you don't use the officials when communicating officially.

Fuck, it wasn't even slang. It was a commonly-used definition of a commonly-used English word.

by **Free Soviets** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:16 pm

Xsyne wrote:
Free Soviets wrote:they can and have. there is no there there, no matter how loudly conservatives clap.

in what possible way? have you ever worked in a technical field? everything gets a slang name, because official ones are always awkward as hell. doesn't mean you don't use the officials when communicating officially.

Fuck, it wasn't even slang. It was a commonly-used definition of a commonly-used English word.

i'm thinking of the second half of what you are, i think. 'hide the decline' rather than 'trick'.

by **Saiwania** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:46 pm

What climate scientists and politicians aligned with them propose, would significantly increase the cost of using energy. Which is in high demand within developed nations. So the people who would be affected by these policies, are understandably going to become very upset with them.

by **Revolutionarily** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:00 pm

i thought it was politically correct to assume humans are to cause for the earth warming.....but if it was then i assume death threats would be very few and far between...

by **Free Soviets** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:06 pm

Revolutionarily wrote:i thought it was politically correct to assume humans are to cause for the earth warming.....but if it was then i assume death threats would be very few and far between...

how would the one imply the other?

by **Condunum** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:13 pm

Ostroeuropa wrote:If a scientist were able to disprove climate change, can you imagine how much money they'd make?
Man, SOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo much money.
Fame too.

Some have disproved climate change, actually. It's just, no one believes them, because they're usually full of shit. And dentists.

by **Ostroeuropa** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:14 pm

Condunum wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:If a scientist were able to disprove climate change, can you imagine how much money they'd make?
Man, SOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo much money.
Fame too.

Some have disproved climate change, actually. It's just, no one believes them, because they're full of shit. And usually dentists.

I mean actually disprove, not pretend to disprove.

by **Condunum** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:16 pm

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Condunum wrote:Some have disproved climate change, actually. It's just, no one believes them, because they're full of shit. And usually dentists.

I mean actually disprove, not pretend to disprove.

No, they actually disprove it. It's just that no one (educated) believes them. They don't pretend, they honestly do it.

by **Ostroeuropa** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:21 pm

Condunum wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
I mean actually disprove, not pretend to disprove.

No, they actually disprove it. It's just that no one (educated) believes them. They don't pretend, they honestly do it.

Kindly cite your sources. I will investigate.

by **Blouman Empire** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:23 pm

FoI requests? Oh my, the pain, the pain of it all

by **Condunum** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:35 pm

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Condunum wrote:No, they actually disprove it. It's just that no one (educated) believes them. They don't pretend, they honestly do it.

Kindly cite your sources. I will investigate.

I'm not saying I believe them, I'm more making a joke. If I could be bothered, I'd find one of the many "Global warming is fake" sites, and give them to you, as I'm sure there is a plethora of them.

All I was saying is that they honestly think they've disproved them. It was a thinly veiled statement of something that requires more thought than I realized to put into words.

by **Genivaria** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:42 pm

The evangelical religious right in America is at LEAST partially to blame for this. Fucking anti-science parasites.

by **Nazi Flower Power** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:46 pm

Even if you don't believe humans are the cause of global warming, I still don't see the point of making death threats. It's not as if climate scientists are going to ruin anybody's life by puttering around universities and collecting meteorological data. Just ignore them if you aren't into global warming.

by **Avenio** » Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:05 pm

Saiwania wrote:What climate scientists

Really? Does the National Academy of Sciences draft policy for government now?

by **Risottia** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:51 am

Avenio wrote:This is really quite disturbing. I knew that the political climate in a lot of places, like America, was hostile to ~~climate~~ science in general, ...

Fixed.

What say you, NSG?

It's another proof that Europe is full of pinko sissy athiest babyeating COMMIENAZI BRONY ANTICHRISTIAN M00ZLEM TERRORIST CLIMATIST UNAMERCIAN FAG ENABLORZ!

Er.

Yeah.

by **Ostroeuropa** » Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:52 am

Risottia wrote:
Avenio wrote:This is really quite disturbing. I knew that the political climate in a lot of places, like America, was hostile to ~~climate~~ science in general, ...

Fixed.

What say you, NSG?

It's another proof that Europe is full of pinko sissy athiest babyeating COMMIENAZI BRONY ANTICHRISTIAN M00ZLEM TERRORIST CLIMATIST UNAMERICAN FAG ENABLORZ!

Er.

Yeah.

...What's a fag enabler?
It sounds vaguely kinky.

Climate scientists face death threats, organized harassment

Who is online