Over the weekend Dr. Roger Pielke Junior let it be known on his Twitter feed that he’s had it up to his “keester” with certain climate activists, especially the ones that are harassing a former associate of his, simply because that person IS a former associate.
It’s pretty ugly and it underscores how climate zealotry has gotten out of control. I myself have been at the receiving end of some of this to the point where I have had to increase security at my home and at my business.
I’ve also had to increase my personal security due to the fact that on occasion, due to the fact that I’m a well known local person and recognizable due to my exposure on radio and television, I am occasionally accosted in public over my stance on climate. But my issues pale in comparison to what Dr. Pielke writes of.
http://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/483249583699787776
http://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/483249938235543553
And this is what I consider to be the quote of the week:
http://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/483252448480751617
When I think of “obsessed and malicious” in the context of “climate scientists”, this image immediately sprang to mind. This was from AGU 2013, where a session about “climate scientists under attack” was mainly just a big whiny gripe about FOIA requests.
The irony of this photo is that one of the people on that panel has been launching lawsuits against climate skeptics, yet I don’t know of a single climate skeptic that has launched a lawsuit against any climate scientist, other than a countersuit to force the issue into court, rather than let it be drug out for years as some sort of slow motion financial punishment.
The other irony was that sitting in the front row listening to how these folks tell their stories of how they have been so “horribly abused” by climate skeptics questioning their science, the “climate antichrist” (me) sat there quietly and listened, not disrupting, being careful not to appear threatening in any way. I asked no questions, and left the meeting quietly.
In addition to the regular attacks that we get daily of climate skeptics just being stupid, paid for shills, etc. we occasionally get wild claims that climate skeptics should be put on trial, imprisoned, or even killed. There is also an undercurrent of climate ugliness that pervades in social media. I’m not talking about the obvious rants such as climate skeptics are shills for “big oil”, I’m talking about when unscrupulous people bring your family into it.
There’s just no excuse for this sort of stuff:
I have blurred out the name which happens to be the name of “Goddard’s” son. I’m not going to add to the damage by allowing the name here.
Thankfully, upon being challenged on this ugliness, Mr. Venema apologized and retracted his Tweet; he says it was a re-tweet, but even if it was, re-tweeting something so obviously ugly and stupid puts his motivation into question.
The whole episode is odd, because on one hand Mr. Venema is preaching for tolerance and restraint, and more civil scientific discourse, and then we have an “off the rails” moment like this coming from him.
We all have our moments where our judgment lapses, but this suggests to me that the inner id of some climate activist folks is saying that they know better than we do how to live our lives and raise our children, which is often more the characteristics of a religion, than a science.
Maybe this inner conflict is why some climate activists play dress up Nazis, though, it isn’t always so ugly, sometimes they dress up as superheroes.
Many years ago on the Guardian Unlimited talkboard, I injudiciously released enough personal information that a certain Inks was able to work out my identity and location, post it on the GU talkboard, and observe that someone ought to “sort me out”.
A complaint to the Guardian led to the expected result, of course – nothing whatsoever.
So it is my considered opinion that anyone who reveals their ID on the Internet is injudicious at best.
Also, I consider that introducing the identity of someone’s child specifically by name into an acrimonious discussion is utterly beyond the pale, and entirely inexcusable under any circumstances whatsoever, and could be construed as a threat of the vilest kind.
No wonder the Warmists are losing the battle for hearts and minds – not to mention the science – when they feel they have to resort to such tactics.
Mmmm. I think you-all ought to lay off Dr. Venema. He is not the problem the others are. He may even prove part of the solution. I’d rather engage him in terms of the science. Discussing the surface station paper with him has been an interesting and productive experience. He has never insulted or talked down to me, or told me to “read a book”. He has made me think outside the box — to my advantage. I think, in his case especially, we ought to engage rather than condemn.
Besides, it was refreshing for me (though perhaps a little frustrating for him) to discuss homogenization vis a vis USHCN. He is willing to discuss it, which is more than you can say for some, lord knows. And that’s what I want — to be able to discuss these things with folks I disagree with who are actually in on the stats.
This blog has a reputation for being more tolerant than most others on the subject of AGW (on either side). I enjoin you to further that reputation.
I hear a lot about all this being a war. I am a military historian. This is not a war. This is an argument.
evanmjones,
Thanks.
Thanks.
I cannot (or will not) speak for the others. But, in all the important ways, Victor is alright.
Given the type and number of threats, and the evident fear instilled to maintain omerta about all things skeptical, it is not unreasonable to talk about a climate mafia. They perpetrate fraud, act with common purpose and gain huge amounts of money by trumping up public fears. That deserves investigation under the RICO statute and perhaps others as it involves transport of illicit gain across State lines.
It was in poor taste, but I simply do not see any threat, here. He regrets having done so, which is (a lot) more than you can say for certain others. This is an extremely volatile debate, and aberrations can and will occur. I think you-all are picking on the wrong guy.
This is one reason why I stay away from Twitter. Aside from being a likely time sink, the restriction to a small number of characters encourages ‘one-liners’, whether attempts at clever jokes or fortune-cookie observations. In the heat of controversy, these can quickly turn to insults and vulgarity. If you are going to do verbal battle, do it armed with reason, logic, and complete sentences. With Twitter, you are just sniping at each other.
/Mr Lynn (never really anonymous, if anyone cared to look)
Jimmy Haigh. says:
June 30, 2014 at 7:49 am
“Was it James Delingpole who said: “For you ze warm is over!”? It was brilliant whoever it was. No – it was one of his commenters – sorry – I can’t remember who.”
Jimmy, it was a commenter called phantomsby.
Thanks to those who have spoken towards moderation. And to those who might have posted harshly, but had second thoughts and didn’t.
Most of the half dozen listed above are probably beyond any reasonable hope (until and unless they choose to be otherwise). But anyone who puts out his hand — even if he has made occasional posts that are not unlike some of the posts I’ve seen in this very thread — does not deserve to have it struck down.
Besides, VV is someone I can actually correspond with about what is going on with homogenization. And I think he is actually interested in the surface stations project for its own sake. And unlike certain NOAA personnel who shall remain nameless, he does not wish it would simply go away. (Or doesn’t allow himself to, which is commendable, and just as good.)
But he wants to know we are not drawing obviously (or not so obviously) incorrect conclusions or if we have left anything important out. And what the limits of our findings are. And what exactly we actually have found. And so he should. And I need to know what form the criticism will take, and I cannot tell you how important that is. For that to occur, there must be a bridge for civil communication.