Cyber bullying rises as climate data are questioned

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2010/03/cyber-bullying-rises-as-climate-data-are

Cyber bullying rises as climate data are questioned

1 March 2010

'That is chilling the work of science in the agencies.'

By Douglas Fischer
Daily Climate editor

The e-mails come thick and fast every time NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt appears in the press.

Rude and crass e-mails. E-mails calling him a fraud, a cheat, a scumbag and much worse.

To Schmidt and other researchers purging their inboxes daily of such correspondence, the barrage is simply part of the job of being a climate scientist. But others see the messages as threats and intimidation – cyber-bullying meant to shut down debate and cow scientists into limiting their participation in the public discourse.

"I get a lot of hate mail," said Schmidt, a climate modeler at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies who also runs http://www.realclimate.org/">RealClimate.org, a website devoted to debunking myths and errors about climate change. "I get a lot of praise mail, but pretty much every time I have a quote in a mainstream publication I'll get a string of emails from various people accusing me of various misdemeanors and fantasizing about my life in prison."

...

[Birthmark]

1. The denialists are desperate

They've taken their best shot and science still survives. All they have left is threats and fantasy.

[Hissyspit]

2. Wow, at least three unrec'd.

The denialist trolls hard at work tonight.

[NecklyTyler]

3. It is easy to tell when children have lost an argument

They resort to no stop screaming

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. and name calling...

(Remind you of any discussions on this board?)

[guardian]

5. You mean like

all the people calling other people

* denier
* nazi
* fascist
* moron
* idiot
* and an endless list of other insults

just because then don't believe in AGW. Oh wait. That's different. It's okay for AGW proponents to sling endless insults. But not okay if they are directed at you.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. Yes, those would be a few examples...

I may be wrong, but I don't believe I've used any of them.

[tinrobot]

7. "Believe in AGW?"

Science is not about "belief"

[petronius]

8. Aren't you the guy who is so fond of "doomer" and koolaid references?

Your indignation rings a bit hollow in that case...

At this point, AGW is not something you believe in or not, it's an empirically observed process in the Earth's climate. People who say they "don't believe" and most people who call themselves skeptics are either dishonest or willfully ignorant. (And that's not slinging insults either - it's stating facts.)

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[guardian]

10. You bet I am.

When others stop saying "denier" and "flat-earther" and "moron" and "morally bankrupt" and "intellectually bankrupt" and accusing me of being on the payroll of Exxon the Heritage Foundation then I'll stop. I'll even settle for not being accused of being "dishonest" or "willfully ignorant".

Apparently you also believe in clairvoyance as you seem confident is assigning the motives and thoughts of others.

[petronius]

15. You know how when you go to the doctor and say "It hurts when I do this"

the doctor will sometimes say "Then don't do that"? The same advice applies if you don't like being described as "dishonest" or "willfully ignorant".

At this point, there are no other explanations for flat-out 'disbelief' in a human impact on global climate...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. That is different.

Those insults are valid.

[guardian]

12. Nothing but love

You are too full o' th' milk of human kindness.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Well, when you purposefully adopt patently false ideas...

because you wanted to believe them because some rightwing pundit told you to...

you're going to have to expect some amount of criticism.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Riiiight.

Because crazy ass right wingers who think that the world is 6,000 years old have bigger brains than scientists.

[tinrobot]

19. Brains are so small? Oh, that's a cogent argument.

Do also use classic debate tactics like calling your opponent "a stupidhead" and countering clever retorts with with "I know you are, but what am I?"

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tinrobot]

21. Doomers... heh...

I guess that word is one step above "stupidhead"

I'm so impressed.

[The Croquist]

22. Not at all

As a skeptic I've been treated with nothing but respect here.:sarcasm:

[The Croquist]

23. Not at all

As a skeptic I've been treated with nothing but respect here.:sarcasm:

I will say however that I have also been involved in challenging discussions where facts are discussed not ideology. Too many people on both sides of the issue resort to personal attacks. I like to think that I try to avoid them myself but I'm sure not everyone agrees.

[daggahead]

24. But, but, but ...

I had to shovel snow this winter. That means there is no global warming!

[The Croquist]

25. I had to shovel snow this winter. That means there is no global warming!

No. That is called weather. Sometimes it is warmer and sometimes it is cooler. The difference is in the trend and you have to look at trends but also the reliability of the data and facts.

Trends:

It has been warmer from 1998 - 2009 then in "recorded history".
Temperatures increased from 1979 through 1998.
Temperatures peaked in 1998 and have been slightly cooler since.
Arctic sea ice has dropped since satellite data started being compiled since 1979.
Antarctic sea ice has increased since satellite data started being compiled since 1979.
Sea level has been increasing at a rate of about 12 inches a century for about 30 years.
Sea level has increased by an average of about 24 inches a century for about 20,000 years.

Reliability:

The surface data of the earth's temperature gathered by thermometers is questionable at best.
The surface data of the earth's temperature gathered by proxy measurements is worse. Much worse.

Fact:

I haven't insulted anybody.

Request:

Try not to insult those that disagree with you.

[daggahead]

26. Was my sarcasm not apparent?

Sorry ... I thought the pics of the goober would have given my sarcasm away.

Yeah, I know that weather and climate are different pieces of the overall picture.

:fistbump:

[The Croquist]

27. Yes your sarcasm was apparent and maybe I'm a bit touchy

The link is regarding cyber bullying by deniers and skeptics but many of the posts including one of mine (two really because I double posted) talks about how we are insulted for disagreeing with the DU consensus. I took your post as an example of somebody insulting us for exactly that. Was that not your intention?

[daggahead]

28. I meant no offense ...

Sorry if I did ... :pals:

[OKIsItJustMe]

29. FWIW:

"http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm">Sarcasm" (by definition) is intended to offend as opposed to "http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony">irony" which can actually be an educational strategy (i.e. Socratic irony.)

[The Croquist]

30. That's cool EOM.

That's cool EOM.