The battle over climate science?

Question

This article was published recently in Popular Science

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-06/battle-over-climate-change

A few snippets:

""Milloy and other aggressive deniers practice a form of asymmetric warfare that is decentralized and largely immune to reasoned response. They launch what Aaron Huertas, a press secretary at the Union of Concerned Scientists, calls “information missiles,” anti-climate-change memes that get passed around on listservs, amplified in the blogosphere, and picked up by radio talk-show hosts or politicians. “Even if they don’t have much money, they are operating in a structure that allows them to punch above their weight,” Huertas says.""

""“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.”""

""Muller’s conclusion was most likely not what the Koch brothers had in mind. Last October, his team announced that the global mean temperature on land had increased by 1.6 degrees since 1950, a result that matched the numbers accepted by the mainstream climate-science community. “The skeptics raised valid points, and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago,” Muller told me. “Now we have confidence that the temperature rises previously reported had been done without bias. Global warming is real.”""

So, there is a concerted commercial effort to marginalize the science which has led to the threat of physical harm against climate scientists and their families.  Further, despite them playing all of their cards, legitimate skeptical arguments have failed to coalesce into a defensible argument.

I will admit, upfront, that this article is particularly biased towards the AGW proponents side but it is an excellent argument for sanity in an otherwise dogmatic and politically driven debate unrelated to the science.

What are your thoughts?

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

I can't open the link for some reason, it redirects me to the aussie version of the site and I get a 404. S I can't comment on the article. However it stands to reason that the denialist motivation is not to form coherent arguments, rather the spread doubt and misinform people. That is why the heartland institute is involved in climate science denial, they were among those who used this technique to deny the science which showed that tobacco smoking is harmful. The idea was not to produce a counter argument which would prove cigarettes were not harmful, it was merely to undermine the work which showed that it was so people would keep smoking for as long as possible. I think this has worked extremely well with examples of here of people who regularly deny climate science now denying that such scientists receive threatening emails. So what of it maxbushian and co? are you now also denying the existence of internet trolls?

Rio · Answer

It shows a strong sense of emotional appeal (not science|). Just how many have actually been harmed? Now that would make a case for climate scientists.

If your desire is to stiffle free speach and opinions. Get into politics or law enforcement.

As far as anyone really knows they could be doing it to eachother.

Ottawa Mike · Answer

"So, there is a concerted commercial effort to marginalize the science which has led to the threat of physical harm against climate scientists and their families."

That is a completely unsubstantiated statement.    On the flip side, climate skeptics have also been threatened although I'm not going give wild *** speculations as to what caused that.  Probably just extremism which is unacceptable for either side of this issue.

On top of that, it's pretty clear there is a "concerted commercial effort" to support the science.  Man made global warming is good business for many.  It's not hard to substantiate that.

I'm all for sanity in this debate.  I ask a simple question here and I can almost feel people punching at me through their keyboards.  Perhaps you think that's okay because of my questioning nature and "wrong thinking"?

Ian · Answer

So, there is a concerted commercial effort to marginalize the science which has led to the threat of physical harm against climate scientists and their families.

Really? Can you give me an example of such an email?

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/05/death-threat-fictions

I know a lot of people CLAIM to get threatening emails to gain sympathy. I'm not saying that none exist, but I think a lot of people claiming "threatening" emails are just getting "rude" emails. And I'm pretty sure it happens on both sides.

"legitimate skeptical arguments have failed to coalesce into a defensible argument"

Like Global temperatures not rising as fast as predicted?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.html

Pretty sure most skeptics are on the same page on that one.

Hey Dook · Answer

Thanks for the link, David.

Imhofe is indeed the belly of the beast, or the beast, or the annoying jester at the beast Chrichton's feast.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/inhofe-and-crichton-together-at-last/
I put little faith in Muller. He has his own agenda, and he depends vastly more on the science than other scientists depend on him.
Mann is an interesting outlier.
But, a useful and timely article all the same.

My thoughts: Climate change science deniers deserve to be treated with the tolerance and attention that Holocaust deniers receive. Instead, we are treating them the way Weimar Germany treated anti-semites, back-stab mythmakers and Nazis: with bewilderment, bemusement, belittlement, pandering and bandwagonning. Hitler was not a feebleminded buffoon like Imhofe, and we are a long way -though maybe not as far as most people think- from Weimar Germany. And there is no prospect on the horizon of scientists being rounded up and sent to concentration camps. But Holocaust denial is lying about a historical episode that occurred over 65 years ago. Denial of climate change science is lying about the future of humanity for many centuries to come.

The battle over climate science?

Related Questions

Trending Questions