Climate scientists face death threats, organized harassment

[Nidaria]

Who did it and why? Why just climate scientists and not meteorologists? Shame on whoever is responsible.

[Avenio]

Why just climate scientists and not meteorologists?

Really? You don't know why?

[Nidaria]

Why just climate scientists and not meteorologists?

Why do you think?

I am assuming that people are sending death-threats because they feel that climate scientists are not encouraging global warming enough.

[Avenio]

Why do you think?

I am assuming that people are sending death-threats because they feel that climate scientists are not encouraging global warming enough.

Oh yeah, totally.

[Nidaria]

I am assuming that people are sending death-threats because they feel that climate scientists are not encouraging global warming enough.

Oh yeah, totally.

It is just a possibility. There are endless other motives.

[Saiwania]

What climate scientists

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

The full context of my quote said that any measures taken to combat climate change would substantially increase the cost of using energy, which is vital to the economies of developed nations. The fact is, we do not have affordable renewable energy as of yet, nor the infrastructure for it. Fossil fuels are still needed for most electricity generation, so people are going to be upset about policies which negatively effect their standard of living in the short term.

They do not notice the effects of climate change, so they won't care about it until the sea level actually rises or there is a long drought.

[Avenio]

It is just a possibility. There are endless other motives.

Now you're just playing dumb. It does you no credit.

The full context of my quote said that any measures taken to combat climate change would substantially increase the cost of using energy, which is vital to the economies of developed nations. The fact is, we do not have affordable renewable energy as of yet, nor the infrastructure of it. Fossil fuels are still needed for most electricity generation.

Still doesn't explain why you're involving climate scientists in your spiel.

[Free Soviets]

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

The full context of my quote said that any measures taken to combat climate change would substantially increase the cost of using energy, which is vital to the economies of developed nations. The fact is, we do not have affordable renewable energy as of yet, nor the infrastructure of it. Fossil fuels are still needed for most electricity generation.

here are the options:
1) pay more for energy through taxes and emissions caps in order to encourage transitioning away from fossil fuels quickly
2) collapse global civilization

there are no other alternatives. and every year we don't choose option 1, the cost of avoiding 2 goes up like crazy.

(also, every reasonable proposal for 1 uses some of the collected money to make sure people below median income actually come out financially ahead on the deal)

[Saiwania]

Still doesn't explain why you're involving climate scientists in your spiel.

Are climate scientists not the root cause of politicians pushing for legislation to address climate change?

People who are negatively impacted by an increase in the price of energy aren't going to care about why carbon trading or whichever other scheme needs to be done, until climate change actually happens. They are going to direct their anger towards whichever group they perceive to be responsible for a decline in their living standards.

[Sociobiology]

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

The full context of my quote said that any measures taken to combat climate change would substantially increase the cost of using energy

increasing the number of nuclear power plants would not do this, if anything it would lower the cost.

[Avenio]

Are climate scientists not the root cause of politicians pushing for legislation to address climate change? People who are negatively impacted by an increase in the price of energy aren't going to care about why carbon trading or whichever other scheme needs to be done, until climate change actually happens. They are going to direct their anger towards whoever they believe to be responsible for a decline in their living standards.

So you admit that it's an irrational anger towards the climate scientists?

[Norsklow]

Are climate scientists not the root cause of politicians pushing for legislation to address climate change? People who are negatively impacted by an increase in the price of energy aren't going to care about why carbon trading or whichever other scheme needs to be done, until climate change actually happens. They are going to direct their anger towards whoever they believe to be responsible for a decline in their living standards.

So you admit that it's an irrational anger towards the climate scientists?

What's irrational about it?
'f*ck you Jack, I'm al-right' is rational enough.

[Sociobiology]

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&feature=BFa&list=PLA4F0994AFB057BB8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo&feature=BFa&list=PLA4F0994AFB057BB8


It was slang or in some cases completely out of context, or just things that were not actually in the emails.

[Avenio]

So you admit that it's an irrational anger towards the climate scientists?

What's irrational about it?
'f*ck you Jack, I'm al-right' is rational enough.

It's irrational in the sense that if one were to point it out to one of the angry people that the climate scientists are just pointing out important data, and that what the politicians do with the data is fundamentally out of their control, they would likely say something along the lines of "Oh. I guess that makes sense." and they'd probably be defused.

Maybe irrational wasn't the right word; 'unthinking', perhaps? 'Knee-jerk'?

[Norsklow]

What's irrational about it?
'f*ck you Jack, I'm al-right' is rational enough.

It's irrational in the sense that if one were to point it out to one of the angry people that the climate scientists are just pointing out important data, and that what the politicians do with the data is fundamentally out of their control, they would likely say something along the lines of "Oh. I guess that makes sense." and they'd probably be defused.

Maybe irrational wasn't the right word; 'unthinking', perhaps? 'Knee-jerk'?

Try 'extremely egoistic'. calculating. Machiavellian. Selfish. After me the Deluge.- All of those are utterly rational.
( the ratio being that the best way to ensure the good life goes on is to see to it that the data NEVER gets reported )

But don't fool yourself it was stupid, dumb, or anything like that.

[Avenio]

Try 'extremely egoistic'. calculating. Machiavellian. Selfish. After me the Deluge.- All of those are utterly rational.
( the ratio being that the best way to ensure the good life goes on is to see to it that the data NEVER gets reported )

But don't fool yourself it was stupid, dumb, or anything like that.

I don't think most people know enough about the process to be overtly calculating about it, though. They hear about it from their radio stations and political personalities of choice, who might fit into your description, but most, I gather, give it relatively little thought. Hence the 'unthinking' aspect.

[Norsklow]

You might be right, Avenio, but I'd rather overestimate an opponent than underrate him.

[Avenio]

You might be right, Avenio, but I'd rather overestimate an opponent than underrate him.

Even if that includes turning 150+ million ordinary people into active, malicious agents of a vast, international conspiracy who can apparently only be combatted with their complete and utter destruction as a cohort, as negotiation, rationalization and education are futile efforts?

[Norsklow]

You might be right, Avenio, but I'd rather overestimate an opponent than underrate him.

Even if that includes turning 150+ million ordinary people into active, malicious agents of a vast, international conspiracy who can apparently only be combatted with their complete and utter destruction as a cohort, as negotiation, rationalization and education are futile efforts?

Your love for constructing pseudo-moralistic categories gets the better of you, and will do you no good, Amice. But rest assured - I always plan for Victory.

negotiation, rationalization and education are futile efforts?

I have never deemed them anything but wasted efforts.
As Trotskylvania may attest, I am a Determinist in such matters.

[Salandriagado]

Remember, the consensus once was the earth was flat.

No it wasn't.

Stop making this out to be about polluters. I am more environmentally conscious than the average person, and even I doubt climate change because I don't doubt that deterring pollution would give the climate scientists a powerful incentive for dishonesty.

The scientist that provided evidence that refuted anthropogenic global warming, or even just made it less of a problem, would become a very rich man, very quickly.

[Fluffy Coyotes]

given that people actually hacked into the archives of their private email accounts in order to smear them with lies and blatant misrepresentations, this doesn't even seem like a particularly paranoid thing to do.

Of course it isn't paranoid, but that it's not about their attitudes to what was going to happen as their attitudes to what to do about it.

personally, i'd declare correspondence between scientists totally off-limits except in criminal cases and the like. no fishing trips.

You mean making such correspondence public? I do believe those hackings were essentially illegal. The question is of what to make of them now that the cat is out of the bag.

the relevant data (as opposed to private conversations) has been public for years and years. easily accessible online, too.

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

[Choronzon]

Americans are stupid and don't trust science. Its no surprise that we send death threats to people who tell us truths we don't like.

[Trotskylvania]

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

Um, it doesn't work that way. This data is all public. there are multiple, independent records, established by different groups that all corroborate with each other. You're just being paranoid.

[Free Soviets]

given that people actually hacked into the archives of their private email accounts in order to smear them with lies and blatant misrepresentations, this doesn't even seem like a particularly paranoid thing to do.

Of course it isn't paranoid, but that it's not about their attitudes to what was going to happen as their attitudes to what to do about it.

personally, i'd declare correspondence between scientists totally off-limits except in criminal cases and the like. no fishing trips.

You mean making such correspondence public? I do believe those hackings were essentially illegal. The question is of what to make of them now that the cat is out of the bag.

nah, i'm talking about the freedom of information act disclosure requirements, which is what they were worried about. 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.

the cat isn't out of the bag on this, because nothing bad was found. only wishful-thinking denialists pretend there was.

the relevant data (as opposed to private conversations) has been public for years and years. easily accessible online, too.

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.

[Fluffy Coyotes]

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."

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.