The War Against Climate Scientists

[HPLovecraft]

PopSci has an awesome article up right now by Tom Clyne. It's 7-pages long, so a lengthy read, but I highly recommend doing so when you get the chance. It details the current battle climate science and, particularly, scientists, are going through. Not just the battle to convince congressmen and the general public that global warming is actually happening, but against those that have threatened their lives, the lives of their children, and have tried to ruin and discredit them through dozens upon dozens of lawsuits.

Disclaimer: I know this thread may foster arguments, but if you're going to debate it, please take the time to read the full 7-pages first. Really.

http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...climate-change

Mann directs Penn State University’s Earth System Science Center. Several months ago, he arrived at his office with an armload of mail. [ . . . ] He watched as a small mass of white powder cascaded out of the folds and onto his fingers. [ . . . ] He rose quickly and left the office, pulling the door shut behind him. “I went down to the restroom and washed my hands,” he says. “Then I called the police.”

[ . . . ]

“Weird” is perhaps the mildest way to describe the growing number of threats and acts of intimidation that climate scientists face. A climate modeler at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory answered a late-night knock to find a dead rat on his doorstep and a yellow Hummer speeding away. An MIT hurricane researcher found his inbox flooded daily for two weeks last January with hate mail and threats directed at him and his wife. And in Australia last year, officials relocated several climatologists to a secure facility after climate-change skeptics unleashed a barrage of vandalism, noose brandishing and threats of sexual attacks on the scientists’ children.

[ . . . ]

“People have stolen my e-mails and bought billboards and newspaper ads to denounce me; they’ve staged bogus grassroots protests; they’ve threatened my family. I’ve been through eight investigations by everyone from the National Science Foundation to the British House of Commons. Every time, they find no evidence of fraud or misuse of information. Every time, they conclude that my methods are sound, my data replicable. And every time I’m exonerated, another investigation pops up.

[ . . . ]

Yes, there’s been a toll on me and my family,” Mann says. “But it’s bigger than that. Look what it’s doing to science, when others see this and see what happens if they speak up about their research. These efforts to discredit science are well-organized. It’s not just a bunch of crazy people.””

[ . . . ]

In 1998, following the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the American Petroleum Institute convened a task force to spend more than $5.9 million to discredit climate science and quash growing public support of curbing emissions. The group borrowed many of the methods and people, including Milloy, that had been used to mislead Congress and the public about the connection between smoking and cancer and heart disease. In a leaked memo titled the “Global Climate Science Communications Plan,” the task force laid out a strategy to “build a case against precipitous action on climate change based on the scientific uncertainty.” The memo details a plan to recruit, train and pay willing scientists to sow doubt about climate science among the media and the public.

[ . . . ]

. . . Myron Ebell, the director of energy and global-warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank. Ebell is in a taxi heading down K Street, Washington’s lobbyist row, talking to a reporter from the Naples Daily News in Florida. The journalist called to get his perspective on a new scientific study that warns of more frequent flooding along U.S. coastlines as higher temperatures accelerate rising sea levels. “The evidence is inconclusive,” Ebell says. “The [Antarctic] ice sheet is not shrinking but may in fact be expanding. The reality from the experts is . . . ”

Ebell does not claim to be a scientist. His background is in economics, and like Milloy, he was a member of the American Petroleum Institute task force in 1998. Yet his lack of scientific credentials has not deterred a stream of journalists from requesting his opinion of the newly released study. “Happens every time I get quoted in the New York Times,” he says. Ebell provides two things most scientists can’t: a skeptical view of climate science and clear, compelling sound bites ready for the evening news or the morning paper. For a deadline-pressured journalist covering “both sides” of a complex issue, Ebell might seem an ideal source. Yet by including unscientific opinions alongside scientific ones, that same journalist creates an illusion of equivalence that can tilt public opinion.

[ . . . ]

For the many scientists who consider themselves both political conservatives and supporters of the consensus position on anthropogenic climate change, ideology and party affiliation provide little shelter from attacks and harassment. [ . . . ] For most of his political career, Gingrich championed the virtues of science, but last year, while campaigning in the Republican presidential primaries, he dropped Hayhoe’s chapter after Rush Limbaugh discovered her contribution and ridiculed her as a “climate babe.”

[ . . . ]

“I can delete the hate mail I got calling me a ‘Nazi bitch whore climatebecile,’” Hayhoe says, “but responding to nuisance lawsuits and investigations takes up enormous amounts of time that could be better spent teaching, mentoring, researching, doing my job.”

[ . . . ]

“When I get an e-mail that mentions my child and a guillotine,” Hayhoe says, “I sometimes want to pull a blanket over my head. The intent of all this is to discourage scientists. As a woman and a mother, I have to say that sometimes it does achieve its goal. There are many times when I wonder if it’s worth it.”

[ . . . ]

Despite those programs, Bast says Heartland does not reject all of mainstream climate science. “Virtually everybody agrees,” he tells me, that “there has been warming in the second half of the 20th century [and] that there is probably a human role in that warming, that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and that the increase in atmospheric concentrations can be attributed to human activity.” The organization, he says, argues primarily for “cost-effective solutions” to climate change. As our meeting is wrapping up, Bast says genuinely, “Don’t call us deniers. Skeptics is fine. Moderates, realists. But not deniers.”

But a few weeks later, Heartland would launch a new advertising campaign. . . . a large billboard that compared believers in global warming with Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. The text on the billboard read, “I still believe in global warming. Do you?” The advertisement was meant to be the first in a series. Others would liken climate-science advocates to mass murderers, including Charles Manson and Osama bin Laden. Bast did not respond for comment following the launch of the campaign, but Heartland issued a press release: “The people who believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.”

I don't want to quote too much; there's just too much to quote! I tried to include a healthy bit for those that may not be able to read it right now. But, seriously, read it when you get the chance. It will shock you -- and should shock you. It's nice to see there may be signs of the general public finally coming round to reality after harassing, name-calling, and belittling the scientists, and those that believed the scientists, that did the research necessary to show that global warming is real.

[photon]

Yeah there's already a thread about the science itself, this is more about the meta-discussion.

Reading that is really disappointing.

I mean I disagree with young earth creationists, flat earthers, and people who reject Einstein's relativity, but I also understand that a good portion of such people arrived at their beliefs through different paths and that they hold and defend those beliefs for reasons that, while not scientific, are usually understandable (for various cognitive reasons that all people are subject to).

But it boggles that people could be so broken as to take such measures against other people who have arrived at their conclusions honestly and for good reasons.

I think it shows that the issue isn't the actual subject matter, but rather partisanship run amok. It's us vs. them, if you don't fit into the group you are the enemy, any difference can't possibly be an honest conclusion and must be evil.

It's so.. base...

[troutman]

The Price of Defame


http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...e_forward.html

Michael Mann is a climate scientist who was flung into the spotlight when he and his colleagues published a graph several years ago showing the explosive growth of global warming over the past century or so. The original work has been updated and extended many times, by many different scientists, and each time the pattern of results has been supported and strengthened. Additional data going back 11,000 years show that we are experiencing an unprecedentedly rapid rise in temperatures.

This, of course, has made Mann a big target of climate change deniers. While most of them attack the graph—failing in their attempts, I’ll note—some have taken a more personal tack. Two groups, the far-right National Review Online and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, have made this personal indeed. In a frankly disgusting article by Mark Steyn, the NRO accused Mann of academic fraud. It even compares him to the ex-Penn State University coach Jerry Sandusky, a convicted serial child molester. Steyn got this comparison from an article by Rand Simberg in the CEI’s blog, who called Mann “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science … [who] molested and tortured data.”

Nice, huh? So Mann sued for defamation.

Unsurprisingly, both the NRO and CEI were unhappy with this and tried to block the lawsuit using SLAPP laws—rules used to stop lawsuits that try to censor criticism. However, a District of Columbia Superior Court judge has ruled that SLAPP doesn’t apply. Mann’s lawsuit can move forward.

This is great news.

[blankall]

This is what happens when an issue that should be scientific becomes political. Idiots on both sides.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by blankall

This is what happens when an issue that should be scientific becomes political. Idiots on both sides.

Pretty much. Also doesn't help that what was once the 'Global Warming' panic after a few hotter than normal years globally has turned into 'Climate Change' after the a few years of record low temperatures all around the world. The average person has become a skeptic and the fact that this is such a hot political topic further induces skepticism as you have two sides of the political debate with a lot to gain and lose depending on how the pendulum swings. The big losers are of course the common people that are left shaking their heads not knowing who to believe.

[HartAttack]

It's all about money. I agree with ^^^^ on all fronts, and the truth is that big corporations, governments, and the like have a whole lot of money to gain or lose depending what version of the "truth" is known to the public.

Just ask Americans who won the war of 1812... Same deal (kinda).

[blankall]

Originally Posted by HartAttack

It's all about money. I agree with ^^^^ on all fronts, and the truth is that big corporations, governments, and the like have a whole lot of money to gain or lose depending what version of the "truth" is known to the public.

Just ask Americans who won the war of 1812... Same deal (kinda).

It's not just corporations who are exploiting the issue for money or political clout.

[PsYcNeT]

Yeah some are using it to win arguments on the internet.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by blankall

This is what happens when an issue that should be scientific becomes political. Idiots on both sides.

What the hell does this even mean?

[Flash Walken]

I came in here, not having read the article, to mock the 'both sides' argument before it even began.

Sad state of affairs when it is the third post in the thread.

Having read the article, it's even more depressing.

“It’s that false balance thing,” Mann says. “You’re a reporter and you understand there’s an overwhelming consensus that evidence supports a particular hypothesis—let’s say, the Earth is an oblate spheroid. But you’ve got to get a comment from a holdout at the Flat Earth Society. People see the story and think there’s a serious scientific debate about the shape of the Earth.”

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

What the hell does this even mean?

False equivalence.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by troutman

False equivalence.

Straw man as well.

Just a brutal self serving rhetorical tactic.

Guess what, it was scientific, every government in the world agreed with the science back in 1990. Everybody committed to doing something about it.

That's when it turns into a public policy issue, and by definition turns political.

Just a frankly infantile understanding of your political system and this issue.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Pretty much. Also doesn't help that what was once the 'Global Warming' panic after a few hotter than normal years globally has turned into 'Climate Change' after the a few years of record low temperatures all around the world. The average person has become a skeptic and the fact that this is such a hot political topic further induces skepticism as you have two sides of the political debate with a lot to gain and lose depending on how the pendulum swings. The big losers are of course the common people that are left shaking their heads not knowing who to believe.

That's because people are getting their science information from media who at best are so ignorant that they can't properly represent things and at worst are ideologically involved so present things in line with ideology rather than what it actually is.

Until media improves in this (which I will say looks like never), it's far better to actually look at the science, do that and the message is quite clear and consistent.

(And record lows don't mean warming isn't still happening, warming is an average, just like a hockey team can have a winning season while still having a losing streak or setting a record for the worst loss in a game).

[photon]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Just a frankly infantile understanding of your political system and this issue.

Please keep this out of the thread, your post without this last sentence makes your point. Discuss the topic, not the poster.

[Tinordi]

Judging by the forecast of a warming climate for the future of human civilization and our grandchildren I hold baseless, ideologically driven denial or obfuscation as quoted above on this issue as tantamount to the worst -isms such as racism and sexism. Those opinions deserve equal amounts of derision and scorn.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by photon

That's because people are getting their science information from media who at best are so ignorant that they can't properly represent things and at worst are ideologically involved so present things in line with ideology rather than what it actually is.

Until media improves in this (which I will say looks like never), it's far better to actually look at the science, do that and the message is quite clear and consistent.

(And record lows don't mean warming isn't still happening, warming is an average, just like a hockey team can have a winning season while still having a losing streak or setting a record for the worst loss in a game).

I was going to say the same thing. The science is still the same from when it was "global warming". Nothing has changed in that regard. The switch from "warming" to "change" was strictly media driven because people were having trouble understanding it and separating the issues in a pretty complex subject. Global warming refers to the planetary average, and climate change talks about the localized changes in climate.... two different aspects of the same issue.

No one ever claimed that every year would be warmer from the next, and that every location on the planet would experience temperature increases. For example, as climate changes, so do air and ocean currents, and precipitation. Those changes are bound to affect the localized climates in some areas of the world and the could experience a cooling effect even when the overall average is going up..

Like you said, it's based on a trend, and just like the value of a stock, the year to year changes aren't as important as the big picture.

Having said that, there are numerous factors that can affect climate change and not all are human induced. I think there is a legitimate debate on how much of a role humans play, but not on whether or not we play a role. The science is solid on that.

[ken0042]

Tindori- you are doing exaclty what blankall is talking about. Far too often I see the discussion about climate change being charged. So instead of coming in and saying "we have evidence that says X- which contradicts your point of Y"- the debate becomes a contest to see who can make the most noise.

What ends up happening is that all that is heard is the scorn, and not the science.

I have seen data to back up the claim that climate change is being driven by humans, and I have also seen data to back up the claim that it is occuring due to forces of nature. What I would like to see is an intelligent conversation discussing the merits and shortcomings of each sides; and letting the data speak for itself.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Judging by the forecast of a warming climate for the future of human civilization and our grandchildren I hold baseless, ideologically driven denial or obfuscation as quoted above on this issue as tantamount to the worst -isms such as racism and sexism. Those opinions deserve equal amounts of derision and scorn.

Oh please, all he implied was there are people on both sides who use the issue for personal gain. You could win an Oscar with your dramatic portrayals.

[mykalberta]

Sorry its hard to parse through data around this issue so I figure I would ask it here.

From climate science data pov I read the following a few years ago from a UN scientist.

If 0 carbon was emitted starting say tomorrow that the earth would still be in a state of global warming and it would do nothing to cool the earth temperature (ie go down from current levels).

I took that to mean that doing so would simply decrease the speed of the warming of the earths atmosphere but wouldnt solve the general problem and would still be in a state of global warming due to the existing holes in the ozone layer.

Is that conclusion generally regarded as true among gws?

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

From climate science data pov I read the following a few years ago from a UN scientist.

If 0 carbon was emitted starting say tomorrow that the earth would still be in a state of global warming and it would do nothing to cool the earth temperature (ie go down from current levels).

I took that to mean that doing so would simply decrease the speed of the warming of the earths atmosphere but wouldnt solve the general problem and would still be in a state of global warming due to the existing holes in the ozone layer.

Is that conclusion generally regarded as true among gws's?

The theory behind global warming, or climate change as it's called now, has nothing to do with the hole in the ozone layer. Besides, the ozone layer hole was the global weather disaster fad of the 90s... we've since moved on.