physicstoday.org — Receiving an email with a statement like “You should resign, and if you don’t, I’ll work to see that you are fired” or “I know where your kids go to school” would be unsettling enough. But they “pale compared to what other climate scientists are getting,” says Raymond Orbach, director of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin, at whom the first threat above was aimed.
Feb 2, 2012 View in Crawl 4
mirandolinaFeb 2, 2012Submitter
"I think that this is a sad reflection of the times we live in, especially when people can send out things anonymously and threaten others for doing their jobs.
This article looks at the challenges being faced by climate scientists, and not on the task they faced with their jobs either!"
http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2012/02/attacks-on-climate-scientists.html
ninhFeb 4, 2012
James Delingpole would appreciate if that sentiment was shared by those unloading hate mail and death threats on him.
crimalucaFeb 4, 2012
Climate change is not religion its science... climate denial on the otherhand is neither science nor religion. Its business.
medallionsFeb 4, 2012
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
strenothFeb 4, 2012
What? That makes no sense. Is that only a partial quote?
medallionsFeb 5, 2012
Let me dumb it down for you..
It means 'scientists' don't know s**t about anything..
It means you forgot that 30 years ago climatologists were predicting a mini ice age..
It means there has been no increase in global average temperatures in 11 years..
It means comparing temperatures over the last 100 years is like taking a piece of dust from the Empire State Building and saying you know what the whole building looks like..
It means scientists in India, Russia and China haven't signed any of these papers, studies or reports claiming AGW is real..
It means prior to the internal combustion engine there were more than 8 major ice ages.. and most of earths history has it covered in ice..
It means that temperatures are have been rising on on other planets in our solar system..
It means in 15 years we will realize how much we didn't know now..
It means the people who preach humans are solely the cause of warming using the same vernacular as church dogma, are in fact a cult or religion themselves and therefore can't be taken seriously by us 'non-believers'..Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
strenothFeb 5, 2012
Your original quote still makes no sense. What I had been hoping it meant was something along the lines of good science does not take the word of self proclaimed experts, and tests to verify everything that was simply believed before.
Your ranting in your 'dumbed down' explanation makes you sound anti-science, which is foolish. If you don't like science, just stay away from medicine, vaccines, cars, and hey, for that matter, the internet. Just like people who do not believe in evolution should only get the original antibiotics like penicillin that bacteria have evolved to resist.
Now, I am not saying that the climate changers are right, nor am I saying the anti-CGs are right. There is evidence of a climatic change, but there is no proof that A) it's not simply a fluctuation and B) that if it's not a fluctuation, that it is man made.
you make very aggressive attacks, but you do not give any depth to them. it makes them easy to dismiss as angry ramblings. If you want to convince people rather than rally those who already agree with you, you need to make a convincing argument.
As I'm a fence sitter here, I don't have to make such arguments, because I'm not presenting a side or case. I get to simply poke at anything that is unclear or poorly stated by either side.
angryredplanetFeb 6, 2012
"It means 'scientists' don't know s**t about anything."
Scientists don't know everything about everything. That is massively different to not knowing anything about everything.
"It means you forgot that 30 years ago climatologists were predicting a mini ice age."
The vast majority of climate scientists have always been of the belief that the world was warming due to increased anthropogenic GHG emissions. It was popular media that ran with the global cooling story. See table 1 on page 8 of this American Meteorological Society summary of peer reviewed science during the 70's: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
It's pretty clear, you just need to look.
"It means there has been no increase in global average temperatures in 11 years.."
This means little as 11 years is not statistically significant. It has also been explained that strong La Nina ENSO activity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Ni%C3%B1a#Recent_occurrences), greater uptake of temperature by deep oceans (http://www.livescience.com/16109-deep-oceans-global-warming.html) and particularly low solar activity (http://www.space.com/14445-solar-cycle-climate-change-warming.html) are the likely reasons why temperatures have levelled out slightly over the last decade. It's worth noting that it's still the warmest decade since records began.
"It means comparing temperatures over the last 100 years is like taking a piece of dust from the Empire State Building and saying you know what the whole building looks like.."
This is a red herring and not a realistic analogy at all. Paleoclimatologists have good proxies that determine *changes in climate* very accurately.
"It means scientists in India, Russia and China haven't signed any of these papers, studies or reports claiming AGW is real.."
This is a gross generalisation and is a fabrication on your behalf. You can't demonstrate that this is true, hence, I'm not going to attempt to falsify it.
"It means prior to the internal combustion engine there were more than 8 major ice ages.. and most of earths history has it covered in ice.."
So what? How does this conclusively demonstrate that anthropogenic emission of known greenhouse gases don't affect the temperatures we should be most concerned about; those of today and into the future?
"It means that temperatures are have been rising on on other planets in our solar system.."
Please provide some supportive data because I, for one, don't believe this assertion.
"It means in 15 years we will realize how much we didn't know now.."
This is true, but that doesn't mean we don't know anything now. History, with all things remaining equal, is an almost infallible indicator of the future: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1900/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/plot/gistemp/from:1900/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/trend
"It means the people who preach humans are solely the cause of warming using the same vernacular as church dogma, are in fact a cult or religion themselves and therefore can't be taken seriously by us 'non-believers'.."
No scientist has ever said humans are the sole cause of warming. What they are saying is that humans are the predominant cause of modern warming. "Non-believers" are not assessing the evidence provided by science and instead cling to arguments that do not exist.
mercedrocksFeb 4, 2012
Nows thats just a dumb statement. Climate Change (predicated on man-made carbon emissions) is a hypothesis, not fact. There's a billion reasons to explain why the Earth is warming, and even contrary positions that it is at all.
To believe differently isnt denial. Science is never "settled."
Instead of worrying about carbon how about the fact that we consume and waste so many raw materials? New phone, TV, camera every other year? The fact that we're overfishing? Drink bottled water? Cutting down trees in the Amazon?
Or how about the fact that China and India each build a NEW coal-fired power plant every week? So that means for every one we shut down they'll likely be building at least a dozen or more to take its place (and likely dirtier with less pollution controls).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
strenothFeb 4, 2012
Correct. There is some heavy evidence towards man-influenced climate change, but there is ALSO evidence that the Earth might well be warming with out modern technology anyway.
So we have two competing hypothesis, and people are getting way to wound up about it. We do not know how much we are influencing the climate, but we do know other, more immediate evironmental problems we shoudl be worrying about first. And warming may not be all bad, technically, it could return us to the climate we had before the current Ice Age. We are technically just in an interglacial period.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
geejayeFeb 5, 2012
"And warming may not be all bad" Yes - it would:
"Rapid change is the real danger. Human habits and infrastructure are suited to particular weather patterns and sea levels, as are ecosystems and animal behaviors. The rate at which the global temperature is rising today is very likely unique in the history of our species.
This kind of sudden change is even very rare in geological history, though perhaps not unprecedented. So the planet may have been through similar things before, that sounds reassuring, right? Well, once you look at the impact similar changes had on biodiversity at the time, the existence of some historical precedent or another actually becomes anything but reassuring.
Rapid climate change is the prime suspect in most of the mass extinction events, including the Great Dying some 250 million years ago, in which 90% of all life went extinct.
What we know about ecosystems and what geologic history demonstrates is that dramatic climate changes - up or down or sideways - are a tremendous shock to the biosphere and cause mass extinction events. And that, all in all, is not likely to be a good thing."
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/whats-wrong-with-warm-weather.php
ammattikiFeb 5, 2012
"And warming may not be all bad"
Tell that to the millions of people that are likely to die during droughts over the next century.
geejayeFeb 5, 2012
"is a hypothesis, not fact" According to real climatologists, we should be VERY worried, as the hypothesis is as close to 100% proven as you can get:
"Greenhouse Effect theory is over 100 years old. Even the first predictions of Anthropogenic Global Warming came in 1896. Time has only strengthened and refined those ground breaking conclusions. We now have decades of very detailed and sophisticated climate observations and super computers crunching numbers in one second it would have taken 1 million 19th century scientists years with a slide rule to match.."
"EVERY major institute that deals with climate related science is saying AGW is here and real and dangerous"
"Global warming is definitely happening and it is definitely because of human activities and it will definitely continue as long as CO2 keeps rising in the atmosphere."
We don't have time or reason to wait any longer.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/scientists-arent-even-sure.php
mercedrocksFeb 5, 2012
It will always be a hypthesis and there will never ever be a way to know for sure. Many disagree, at least 30+% or more.
Bottom line: Unless u plan in invading polluting countries there's not much u can do. How do u plan on handling China the worlds top CO2 polluter? And how do u plan on paying for it? Were already broke and owe $22 trillion. What would u get rid of? SS? Medicare? The military? Good luck getting voters to go along with it.
And more importantly, the Earth has warmed and cooled thousands upon thousands of times. Was Carbon to blame and who cares? Big deal. Its get warmer. I myself prefer the heat. Maybe it'll finally thin out some of the population - hopefully idiots like u :PComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
geejayeFeb 5, 2012
"Many disagree, at least 30+% or more" "ABSOLUTELY WRONG:
" 97 out of 100 scientists believe in man-made climate change
*As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates."
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1
"Was Carbon to blame and who cares" - so - do you have a climatology degree - or are you disputing the 97% of the scientists who think otherwise?
"not much u can do" Wrong - there are a lot of plans on the table that people could vote for. It is just that the Koch Brothers have people like you convinced to be their puppet. They win financially, our climate gets destroyed. I hope you are getting paid well.
"Big deal. Its get warmer. " Yup - big deal, we all die...
ammattikiFeb 5, 2012
You are correct that it is a hypothesis. But it is a hypothesis with a lot of evidence.
To say that we should do nothing on the chance that the hypothesis is wrong is silly.
Also to say that we should not do anything because two third world countries are building plants is also stupid. we need to worry about our own emissions, and provide the technology for them to have alternatives.
mercedrocksFeb 5, 2012
No, because having any effect is IMPOSSIBLE! Most of the world lives on less than $1 a day in terrible poverty in places like Africa, the Middle East, India, China.
How do u plan on reducing their carbon footprint? By force? By paying for it? China's the largest emitter. Do u plan on invading China?
Meanwhile we have REAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS like deforestation, overfishing, overpopulation, etc.
Screw CO2. How about fighting for some population controls. Do u think anybodys going to give two s**ts about carbon when there's 15 billion people in the world (2100)? What good is reduced carbon when u have no fish, drinkable water, or trees?
Now thats a battle "deniers" and "truthers" could both get behind.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jaketyson85Feb 5, 2012
we about to hit a major cooling trend homeboy. better check yo facts and start listening to ALEX JONES and DAVID ICK. new world order is using haarp and chemtrails to acclimate our environment to alien spec so that the reptilians can breath our atmostphere without assistance and can unveil themselfs as the worlds true leaders and walk amonst us.
quadeFeb 4, 2012
Popular beliefs do not weigh into whether something is factual or not. Denying man-made climate change does not make it any less real.
strenothFeb 4, 2012
Nor does insisting that it's true make it real. We do NOT have enough facts to be sure that current warming trends are entirely or even mostly human caused.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
akronFeb 4, 2012
Welcome to the Middle Ages of America.
lalongecarabineFeb 4, 2012
Right or wrong never be cowed by the ignorant, or those with an agenda.
dougnic55Feb 5, 2012
deniers are demonstrably full of crap and bought and paid for by the likes of the koch brothers...why should we cower to the likes of them..
vitriolandangstFeb 4, 2012
It's not like you get the Big Bucks like the doctors who told us that Cigarettes were safe if you become a Climatologist.
monvalleyFeb 5, 2012
Let"s see, global warming scientists say we will all die unless we give them as much money as they want, and you are ok with that, but;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
battmannFeb 7, 2012
I did wonder this back in the late 80's living in new hampshire, some winters we weren't getting any snow til after xmas!
mercedrocksFeb 4, 2012
??? Lame.
There's actually way more pressure on skeptics.
Science is never "settled" and always be leery of those who claim it is.
ninhFeb 4, 2012
Since they are not cowed by empiric facts that doesn't surprise me.
irvman21Feb 4, 2012
Climate change is a religion, nothing else.
dirtyfriesFeb 4, 2012
Err...no. Climate science has piles of evidence, studies, etc.
Religion has...well...nothing.
irvman21Feb 4, 2012
All religious people claim that what they believe in has piles of evidence based on the study of educated individuals over a number of years. Just like you will find climatologists who claim to have evidence to support their views and convince their followers, you will also find biblical scholars will claim to have evidence to support their views and convince their followers. They even use the same language as all religions, referring to those who choose not to follow as "deniers" and literally suggesting that deniers need to be forcibly tattooed so that everyone knows who they are
(http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2011/06/richard-glover-forcibly-tattoo-climate-change-realists.html)
That you believe their evidence simply makes you a follower of their religion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
halikarFeb 4, 2012
That's akin to saying that facts can't be facts if I choose to disbelieve them. You can wish for the sky to be green or mauve all you wish, that will not change the fact that it is blue.
Nine out of the ten hottest years ever recorded have been in the last decade. Something is changing the climate. Whether it's caused by humans, solar cycles, or what have you is immaterial other than to figure out how or even if we can do something about it. Playing the religion card as you are is insisting the sky cannot be blue and it isn't helping.
johnnickFeb 4, 2012
You keep using that word, "evidence." I do not think it means what you think it means.
The essence of religion is faith - i.e., believe in something that is essentially unobservable and unprovable.
The essence of science, on the other hand, is to look at observed phenomena and propose a hypothesis that is consistent with known physical processes to explain that phenomena. Then you do experiments to determine whether your hypothesis actually successfully explains the phenomenon.
Any type of religious faith lacks one of the fundamental requirements for a scientific hypothesis - falsifiability. When you propose a scientific hypothesis, you also identify a condition or experimental result that would demonstrate that your hypothesis is false.
There is no way to prove conclusively that an invisible, undetectable deity does not exist. Thus, the claim that such a deity exists is not falsifiable and, therefore, not science.
The anti-climate change belief structure, on the other hand, is much closer to a religion. Despite evidence to the contrary provided by those who are actually experts in the field, those who desperately want to believe that climate change isn't happening or that humans aren't contributing to it search for the slightest crack of uncertainty or inconsistency and shout, "See? Your climate change hypothesis isn't unassailably 100% complete and accurate, therefore it must all be a conspiracy to try to destroy the American way of life and you the climate change researcher are a traitor to all that is good in the world."
Scientists on the other hand, build up their framework of understanding based on evidence, experiments and a requirement that hypotheses must be consistent with observed conditions and other successful hypotheses and theories.
geejayeFeb 4, 2012
lrvman21 - the article link was good - thanks! You DO know that the "tattooing" was tongue-in-cheek, don't you? He even backs off that statement in the article. However, I do like his second idea:
"So how about they (the deniers) are forced to buy property on low-lying islands, the sort of property that will become worthless with a few more centimeters of ocean rise, so they are bankrupted by their own bloody-mindedness?'
For you, a special deal on that low-lying island property, irvman21!
vitriolandangstFeb 4, 2012
I've ALWAYS wanted the Deniers to get some sort of Tattoo -- so that in the future, people will take that into consideration the next time they offer ADVICE.
I'm pretty sure they will still be the "fans of Supply-side Economics" as well.
Lot's of overlap in the HISTORICALLY STUPID BELIEFS.
strenothFeb 4, 2012
now to be fair, lots of deniers are deniers of the man-made part. Not that the climate is changing. Because the changing of climate is a natural aspect of climate, it never stays the same. Humans just expect it to.
geejayeFeb 4, 2012
"it never stays the same". You got that right - it just gets warmer:
The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880.The finding sustains a trend that has seen the 21st century experience nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record.
See a quick graphic here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoOrtvYTKeE&feature=player_embedded
ammattikiFeb 5, 2012
We should put up a public monument with all of the names of politicians who have worked against climate policies, this way history can judge them.
sbuckley00Feb 4, 2012
'biblical scholars will claim to have evidence to support their views and convince their followers' <=== the difference here is that they claim to have evidence. The facts is that the evidence they present is not actual evidence but assumed conclusions made up by people with low intellect.
partrowFeb 4, 2012
@Irvman:
Except a business.
miklkitFeb 4, 2012
Just the facts, maam.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
geejayeFeb 4, 2012
Great link - thanks!
I also like this link: http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki . It has your link, other sources, and good research areas, like: "by myth, "by media outlet", "by author", etc.
invaderprotosFeb 4, 2012
@irvman21
Methinks you need to look up "religion" in a dictionary. You seem to have redefined it to mean anything close to "science", when it scarcely is. Here's one for "faith", upon which any religion relies:
"(b) Firm belief in something for which there is no proof."
-http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
Or defined in the context with which you use "religion":
"Faith is a non-rational belief in some proposition. A non-rational belief is one that is contrary to the sum of the evidence for that belief. A belief is contrary to the sum of the evidence if there is overwhelming evidence against the belief, e.g., that the earth is flat, hollow, or is the center of the universe."
-http://www.skepdic.com/faith.html
Note the use of that sentence, "A belief is contrary to the sum of the evidence...". The existence of the fact that is an increased average global temperature has nothing to do with faith, or religion, or belief. Lest we forget, that's the reason the process of science was developed in the first place, to enable a (to quote Steven Novella) "systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results", independent of human emotionalism and biases. Climate change isn't happening because scientists *believe* it is, it's happening because that's what the data show. Big difference. Deniers can *believe* it isn't happening, since all claims of theirs disagree with the global scientific consensus, rely on misinterpretation, fallacies of logic, or the audacity to argue that merely because politics has become involved, it somehow changes the pure facts themselves.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111454
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/02/a-case-study-of-the-tactics-of-climate-change-denial-in-which-i-am-the-target/
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2096055,00.html