There has been another sighting of the regular complaint that climate scientists are being subject to hurty comments on Twitter. The Guardian reports a “huge” rise in abuse since Elon Musk took over the platform last year. “It’s mostly just people saying you are talking rubbish,” admits Professor Richard Betts from the Met Office, although the Guardian headlines its story with a “vicious abuse” charge. This would appear to be the same Guardian that apologised in 2019 for saying David Cameron felt only “privileged pain” upon the death of his handicapped young son. The same newspaper that recently published George Monbiot’s belief that “taking out” pipelines, refineries, abattoirs, coal plants and SUVs is “morally justified“, and the same publication that has taken to printing racist cartoons aimed at its political opponents that would not have looked out of place in a Third Reich newspaper.
The Guardian reports that some of the U.K.’s top scientists are struggling to deal with this rise in abuse from “climate deniers”. They are fighting to make themselves heard over what is described as a “barrage of hostile comments”. Twitter employees who ensured ‘trusted’ content was prioritised have been sacked, while Right-wing culture warriors such as Jordan Peterson have been reinstated. The newspaper cites a recent survey from Global Witness which suggested prominent scientists were the most likely to face abuse.
One of those prominent scientists is UCL Geography Professor Mark Maslin, who received an ‘abusive’ tweet that referred to “a fairy tale about the big bad weather”. Another correspondent replied: “Great stories about BS science Mark. But I am tired of sci-fi.” Dr. Helen Muri, a Norwegian researcher, was sent a graph of Greenland ice core temperatures over the last 10,000 years suggesting current temperatures were at an all-time low. The writer asked in polite terms, “Any luck finding the climate crisis yet?”
Of course there is abuse across social media, some of it not very pleasant. Nobody condones threats of violence, or indeed support for violent acts, and it should be removed from public discourse. But anyone who takes an inquiring view on the current mainstream narrative on issues such as climate change and Covid gets enormous amounts of abuse on a daily basis. Slightly less concern seems to be in evidence for all the hurty feelings this may be causing us (not that it is something that really fusses us).
What is happening of course is that the horrors of the collectivist Net Zero project are becoming increasingly apparent, as a widespread attack on almost all human activity is launched under the suggestion that the climate is breaking down. Until recently the ‘settled’ science promoting this view had a safe, largely uncontested space to prosper. But scepticism about the unproven hypothesis that humans operate the climate thermostat by burning fossil fuels is growing, with two recent polls showing that over 40% of people surveyed worldwide believe climate change is mainly due to natural causes. Far from coughing up the huge sums required to hit Net Zero, 4 in 10 Americans are not even prepared to pay more than two dimes a week to combat climate change.
Professor Maslin has noted an “uptick in stupid comments” when he says something “very logical” such as “if we all eat a lot less meat, we’ll live a lot longer and be healthier”. As regular readers will recall, Maslin believes that climate change politics helps build “a new political (and socio economic) system”. It is hardly surprising that the banning of meat eating, along with all the other notable Net Zero suggestions such as no flying, shipping, barely enough energy to heat homes and cook food and restrictions on all common building materials, is starting to foster wide debate – even sometimes robust debate. Maslin, along with many of his fellow climate extremists, seem oblivious to this gathering trend. This is perhaps not surprising. In 2018, he was one of a number of eco-activists who signed a letter to the Guardian saying they would no longer “lend their credibility” by debating climate change scepticism.
The loss of Twitter as a ‘safe’ space for climate alarmists has been a bitter blow. It is not seemingly enough to exert considerable control over most other public platforms including social and mainstream media. Global Witness is of the view that if climate scientists are unable to do their work because of “stress and fear caused by harassment”, the critical evidence that undergirds climate action and solutions is put at risk. For his part, Maslin seems particularly disappointed, since he discloses that he held regular meetings with the platform’s Head of Sustainability to ensure ‘trusted’ information was pushed to the top. But the sustainability chief was sacked and Twitter “became the Wild West”, he laments.
It is reasonable for social media users to tell delicate activists like Maslin that there is really nothing to worry about from our climate. It’s just free speech, and it applies – in fact it is vital – in science and geography, as elsewhere. But it’s not just about science anymore. It is becoming apparent that Net Zero is being used as an attack on almost all human activity. Everything humans do to survive, from keeping warm to growing food, is being cast as an attack on Mother Earth.
In his Guardian article backing eco-saboteurs “who have acted with courage”, George Monbiot argues that if we take out the obvious targets, “we are still committed to extinction”. He finds that the case for a campaign of violent attacks on the industrial economy is “compelling”. In his view, the struggle is not just with fossil capital and the governments that support it. “We are fighting against all capital and, perhaps, most of the people it employs”, he explains.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
A thick skin is an important scientific trait as someone pointing out that you haven’t provided enough proof or are wrong, if you haven’t figured it out for yourself, is much more common than a pat on the back.
Of course, it doesn’t need to be impervious to actual abuse, unless you are a climate “denier”.
In real science, if your argument better explains the real evidence, you are persuasive. If one is playing Inquisition or Lysenko, you use your influence with the authorities to shut up the opposition, often permanently.
I always kind of figured that most of the alarmist “scientists” are whiny wusses. Now there it appears there’s some confirmation.
And it seems that very few of them are actually “scientists”. Gore, Obama, and Attenborough are typical – unscientific alarmists! Isn’t it interesting that these whiny idiots object to having some small part of their public propaganda stage removed. After my having little time for Musk, he is climbing vertically up in my estimation! Despite the unsupportable Tesla nonsense, he seems to be returning to the positive with his Twitter changes.
Attenborough did study zoology and geology for his Nat Sci degree from Cambridge. He is a genuine academic, but like so many of them his opinions outside his field of study are political rather than scientific.
Fear sells and catastrophe gets grants.
And the grants are used to buy a larger megaphone for the propaganda.
To someone who doesn’t want hurt feelings, I recommend turn off your phone and hide in a closet, or
…..try growing up and accepting that no one really cares if your feelings are hurt. People just want a good debate about what is and isn’t true.
there is a difference between debate and mindless name calling as the example above from Geoff Wood in the article. That is just stupid and arrogant.
The left has always defined hate speech as being anything they don’t want to hear.
Geographer Maslin has several cures available.
2. Show your raw data
3. Avoid cherry picking of data
4. Discard personal beliefs, in favour of what hard science is showing
5. Cease abuse of those who differ with your science
6. Explain why so many predictions of doom have failed by their due dates
7. Attach realistic uncertainty bounds to measurements and calculations
8. Admit that all serious past climate variation can be attributed to natural causes.
9. Publish figures showing that trace gases like methane and nitrous oxide have the quantum physics capacity to affect air temperature
10. Show a plausible rebuttal of the W & H claim that minor GHG are close to maxed out in their ability to warm air
11. Publish a non-model estimate of climate sensitivity to CO2
12. Create and join in a purge of the numerous horribly bad pro-crisis climate papers and make a list of the remainder with best science
13. Stop your censorship and teach others of its evil
14. Explain how geography has a valid place in global warming research
15. Write “Thank you for this list, Geoff.”
One should not overlook:
a) Why involve false climate claims regarding dietary habits? e.g., eating red meat.
b) Detail why climate activists are NOT wearing natural materials instead of fossil fueled synthetic clothing? NB commercially produced natural fabrics are fossil fuel produced.
c) All modern medical supplies and medicines are fossil fuel produced.
d) According to climate alarmists, the world must submit to despotic government. Why!?
e) Climate alarmists like Marxists and Alinsky believers prefer to demean or accuse people with contrary opinions rather than respecting their knowledge. When will climate alarmist believers consider debate honestly?
f) Many climate alarmist papers and science have been debunked thoroughly, mostly by their climate fatal predictions utterly failing. Why haven’t these papers been withdrawn/ Why do climate activists like yourself (Maslin) insist on still using these failed papers?
From an article on The Free Press;
“After Trump’s election in 2016 and then the death of George Floyd in 2020, Christine Sefein, who taught graduate students at Antioch, said she noticed her students becoming increasingly delicate. One couldn’t hand a paper in on time after being misgendered, requiring two weeks of bedrest. ”
So, supposedly someone used the wrong gender term and the person claimed bed rest for two weeks?
Sorry but just die already? Please?
It’s literal cancer.
A deadly mind virus, that!
requiring two weeks of bedrest
I am at least somewhat consoled by the fact that anti-survival traits like this will naturally remove these tendencies from the gene pool over time.
”The Guardian reports that some of the U.K.’s top scientists are struggling to deal with this rise in abuse from “climate deniers”. They are fighting to make themselves heard over what is described as a “barrage of hostile comments”.”
That reads like a lovely spring bird song.
They are beginning to see what the fable about the boy that cried wolf is truly about.
Constantly having predictions not only miss their dates but also not even occuring at all is bound to generate more and more scepticism. REQUIRING people to spend their hard earned money to solve a non-existent problem really causes people to rebel.
“They are beginning to see what the fable about the boy that cried wolf is truly about.”
I think you are on to something.
The predictions of climate doom have been around long enough and loud enough that when no climate doom comes, people are starting to notice and queston the claims.
Of course, the Church of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) doesn’t like any of their claims being questioned, and they get all bent out of shape over it. It’s the mark of an insecure person.
Has it ever occurred to Guardian hacks that people are hostile simply because they don’t like being lied to constantly?
George Monbiot’s belief that “taking out” pipelines, refineries, abattoirs, coal plants and SUVs is “morally justified”
What has happened to “Do unto others as ….”
Baby bathwater buh bye
You won’t maintain Christian philosophy more than a few generations into a post-Christian society
they would no longer “lend their credibility” by debating climate change scepticism.
Cute. Their choice. They can debate and win, and accept flowers and compliments and grants. Or they can debate and lose, thereby losing their credibility in front of God and everyone. Or they can refuse debate (the most popular path, since #1 is hard and #2 is frequent), claim victory and leave the derogation of their would-be opponents to the professional verbal assassins of our learned ‘news’ agencies.
So far the world has staggered along under these dubious choices. But now that Big Politicians are demanding the end of the Industrial Age and of human omnivores, an awful lot of those voters who work for a living are moving to the NAY side of Net Zero concept, whenever allowed such a choice.
“they would no longer “lend their credibility” by debating climate change scepticism”.
I also found this funny. By definition, climate alarmists don’t have any scientific credibility.
My favorite response to make on twitter to these whiney crybabies is to ask this question:
Q – What do you call a climatologist once it’s accepted that CO2 at current atmospheric levels has no effect on climate?
A – unemployed
Dessler just went on a twitter rant that was ratio’d hard. These people have no idea how their behavior makes it hard for anyone but the most useful of idiots to agree with their stance.
When an appeal to logos (reason) for good reason fails, then an appeal to ethos (authority) also fails, as a last resort try pathos.
For last resort try Athos and Porthos
(They don’t like it up ’em”)
ScientistsActivists Pushing Net Zero Complain of Hurt Feelings on Twitter.
Ain’t this amazing:”The Guardian reports a “huge” rise in abuse si…..
Pray tell, what are:
Skyrocket taxes and regulationsOut of control inflation and food pricesCOP conferencespouring money & arms into Ukrainethe ‘D’ wordCongestion and ULEZ charges/zonesBribes, ‘nudges’ and coercions for EVs, heatpumps, pushbikes etcCCTV cameras in rest-rooms and everywhere…if not variations on ‘abuse’ and intimidation = Abuse of Power in particular
Governments are supposed to help , support & encourage their electorate to be happy, healthy and productive in all aspects of their lives yet now they (in the West) now all do The Exact Opposite.
what went wrong
haha: A Chemical wasn’t involved was it
Here’s just one that I came upon recently…attached.
(Can anyone imagine any higher price that could be paid so as to ‘Look good’)
quick edit to highlight The Wrongness…
Basically, a large UK carmaker has said they’re going to dump the UK in favour of Europe = Because of Tariffs and Money.
Errrr excuse me, isn’t Climate supposed to be The Greatest Threat Ever To All Of Humankind – yet here you lot are squabbling over pennies and ha-pennnies.
this is utter madness going on here
The UK is lobbying the EU over a Brexit trade deal deadline that carmakers have warned pose a threat to UK industry.
Oh, thank you, now I no longer have to censor myself when I get frightened by those grotesquely inflamed lips.The poor things really are too retarded to see what they look like!
This muddled thinking is why the dis-United Kingdom is in its sorry condition—the belief in the Nanny State.
As Ronald Reagan said:
Governments are supposed to protect their citizens from criminals and foreign invaders. They need to collect some taxes to deal with that. Beyond that, as Thomas Jefferson said:
Thomas had it right.
I always thought the purpose of government was to protect private property and keep us from killin’ each other when having fun :<)
Some people like football, some people like golf.
Some people paint to relax, others knit, still others watch TV or read a book.
There are almost as many roads to “happiness” as there are people on the planet.
The notion that government can “help” people be happy is as ludicrous as the belief that governments actually care about individuals.
Yeah yeah, ‘twas SUGAR what done it, Peta. And by sugar we understand alcohol, starch, protein, and even the odd polysaccharide such as sucrose.
Now the phrase “what went wrong” implies strongly that there was an antecedent period when things were not wrong, does it not? And if, during that period, “sugar” had long been consumed, it would falsify your hypothesis would it not?
Now pray tell when was it that things were good and nobody drank demon rum or enjoyed bread and circuses? QED
UCL Geography Professor Mark Maslin is a go to guy for BBC radio, where he peddles climate alarmism unchallenged. If only Twitter could be like the BBC, eh Mark?
Me again but this is gorgeous:
Ostensibly a money-saving measure but we know how it is these days, everybody lies about everything. And why not, only following the lead of their own Governments
BBC Headline:“One million cancel broadband as living costs rise
Is it really the cost they’re complaining about of the amount of unwanted shit, spam, advertising, garbage, junk and abuse that’s being delivered – with almost no way of stopping it, apart from cutting the wire. And there they are doing just that.
There are some really brave people left out there, bless them all.
Does anyone think ‘Climate’ will faze those people
“But it’s not just about science anymore” .
It never was about science.
It is about a form of insanity, psychosis, with self-harm in a vain effort to change a perceived adversary, to be loved.
Resorting to catastrophic economic self-harm with Russia to the point of covering up a pipeline sabotage psychotic episode should have made this clear, especially in Germany.
Now even worse economic self-harm in a psychotic lurch at China, should be perfectly clear to any sane observer.
One sane cool observer, Sen. Kennedy, nailed it :
There Dep. Sec. US Dept. Energy David Turk actually said it : Net Zero can only happen if the US (13% emissions) spends $50 TRILLION at least to change the rest of the world, meaning China.
Psychotic self harm began with King Charles’ Great Reset decades ago, and has spread from aristocratic attics downstairs to the ‘help’.
Talk about Bats in the Belfry!
Bonbon how about you stop talking in code? Who are you accusing of blowing up Nordstrom’s? KJP wants to know.
We need more details. 🙂
Bloomingdales and Macy’s are next!
Not good for business!
Self harm knows no limits!
bonbon is still PO’d that the Soviet Union collapsed.
If I was a TwatGramPost account holder, I wouldalready have been on the horn to this guy, just a little bit of fun before he manages to block me…
Even in print, I can hear the menacing, whining innocence of the bully securely ensconced behind guards and guns.
Professor Maslin has noted an “uptick in stupid comments” when he says something “very logical” such as “if we all eat a lot less meat, we’ll live a lot longer and be healthier.” What!?
The “highly learned” professor might want to look into the latest data coming out about carnivore and keto diets before he beclowns himself making unsubstantiated claims! Oh, wait, he’s a climate believer! Never mind!
Not only does the latest research show that eating large amounts of healthy, high fat meats can reverse metabolic syndrome, obesity and pre-diabetes; it has been known for decades that the essential amino acids necessary for full human brain function are most readily available and prevalent in red meat! If Herr Professor Maslin could read a graph, he would easily find the more than ten-fold increase in US diabetes rates since the “low fat diet” was recommended by the FDA!
But if he could actually read a graph, then he would know that we aren’t even in the warmest interglacial of the current Pleistocene Ice Age! Maybe he can get Congress to pass a law! That should fix it!
“The “highly learned” professor might want to look into the latest data coming out about carnivore and keto diets before he beclowns himself making unsubstantiated claims! Oh, wait, he’s a climate believer! Never mind!”
That made me laugh. 🙂
Monbiot is increasingly becoming unhinged. The loony bin is beaconing.
A good measure of the amount of censorship previously going on.
It may yet be recognised as Elon Musk’s greatest contribution to human kind. The first small step to restore free speech.
If I may offer them a simple solution, I’d say mute and/or block anyone on their twitter feed they don’t like. Or even better, stay away from Twitter.
From the article: “Global Witness is of the view that if climate scientists are unable to do their work because of “stress and fear caused by harassment”, the critical evidence that undergirds climate action and solutions is put at risk.”
There is no such “critical evidence” available to put at risk.
There is no evidence CO2 is anything other than a benign gas, essential to life.
If saying that is harassment, then consider yourself harassed.
Btw, I laughed all through the reading of this article.
I don’t do Twitter. Back when it first started, you were limited to 140 characters in your post, and that amount wouldn’t even get me warmed up, so I never joined up. But, I might have to reconsider. It looks like it might be fun, now. 🙂
poor babies – couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch
What real death threats look like:
A minor received an insane number of rape and death threats. That’s what the clean and proper moderated twitter space looked like. None of the clowns ever cared.
These infatuated self deferential buffoons are so hyper privileged they don’t realize that living in fear because a barbarian sect is after you can be real. I’m sick.
The year 2020 was the year of the big revelation. All our human rights, women’s right and LGBTQI French right publicly funded organization are shams. They care for nothing. They are as empty as the Ligue des Droits de l’Homme – Human Rights League – that backed up and validated Stalin’s sham trials.
Human rights something something isn’t a Potemkin village, it’s a Potemkin country. Everything is fake, as France’s pretense of being a radiating sun of human values – more like a radiation Chernobyl.