Clive Hamilton describes the hate mail campaign against climate scientists:
Australia's most distinguished climate scientists have become the target of a new form of cyber-bullying aimed at driving them out of the public debate.
In recent months, each time they enter the public debate through a newspaper article or radio interview these scientists are immediately subjected to a torrent of aggressive, abusive and, at times, threatening emails. Apart from the volume and viciousness of the emails, the campaign has two features - it is mostly anonymous and it appears to be orchestrated.
I'm not a climate scientist nor distinguished, so I don't get very much of this stuff. And if you use a fake name to abuse me and I figure out your real name, I can post the hate mail under the real name of the sender for everyone to see, like this abusive rant from Joe Cambria.
- Log in to post comments
Gad, this Cambria seems typical of the place he works:
brookesnews.com/index.html
I can't quite get a handle on what makes extreme right-wingers such angry and bitter bullies. Or is it the other way round, and we define such people as "extreme right wing"?
#2 : They are angry and bitter because they are out of power. Like some children, they don't like it when they are not in charge, and start using phrases like "poopy-head" and "ad hominem"... or something... when they cannot get their way.
It seems that calling them "denialist" is the worst insult to them, so naturally we use it all the time :) Looking through the comments on the ABC website, it is most depressing, but it should be remembered that there are a lot of muppets out there, that shout a lot to seem like they are a majority, when they are only a few misguided or even corrupt persons. Most people that we meet on the street are actually quite polite about global warming, and are concerned and interested. It is really only a very small number that are denialists.
They are angry and bitter because they sense their ignorance and are humiliated by it. Someone else is to blame.
It's nice to think it is, but it isn't really to do with political position. You and I wouldn't send such emails, but sadly plenty of people who broadly take our side would embarrass us with emails like this under cover of anonymity.
It's a pity he ended with an exclamation mark.
I had this really good joke about the Cambrian Period.
Joe Cambria is a seriously ill person. His language gives this away. He projects onto others the repulsion he feels for himself exemplified by his childish use of subjective contentless language such as "disgusting" and "dirt bag" etcetera to describe ideological opponents. It reeks.
It's telling (even delicious) that Sinclair Davidson allows him to dominate his blog. Word is that Cambria pays him for that privilege. The plot thickens.
>*They are angry and bitter because [...]*
Many of them have some justification to be angry having *been lied to... eg GFC, Iraq, level of [our] Democarcy*. But some are unfortunately vulnerable to misdirection:
>I think various interest benefit if that anger is directed towards AGW etc, if the results is to redirect anger away from some other issue; I.e if AGW is a scandle then coverage of financial reform gets less energy, as does focus on corporate consoliation, and analysis of finanical influence in democratic processes.
>How did the anger about the GFC get so quickly redircted? And where is the coverage and rigerous following of the movement for reforms to protect democracy from subordination to concetrated wealth and power?
>To cite one combined motive and method look at media consolidation.
Which is linked to the endless sources of "journalism"-gates that we see.
And one of the consequence of anger and misdirection is aggression and nasty behavior directed towards the messengers who try and deliver a very important warning. Hopeful that behaviour will not continue for much longer.
I look forward to reading Hamilton's follow piece on who is backing the bullies.
Indeed Mark. The libertarian bully boys are firmly in harness that much's clear. But who pays the piper?
You people actually believe Clive Hamilton? Talk about gullible. If there are that many abusive emails, why not publish a selection? If you believe Clive then you probably believe SA Attorney General Michael Atkinson when he claimed that he was being abused by gamers, and that they were more dangerous than bikies, when in fact he had apparently received one letter pushed under his door - over a year ago. It seems very convenient that Clive makes such claims of scientists being bullied yet the scientists I work with regard him as a joke and are quite capable of standing up for themselves. Clive The Protector of the scared scientists? Get real!
A 'hate mail' campaign against climate scientists? Shockin', shockin'! I despise that sort of thing almost as much as 'hate and smear campaigns' against sceptics conducted via the media:
"Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain"
Headline in The Guardian. I won't link to it because I know how fastidious you all you 'Deltoids' are.
*Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain*
But David They are
Mark writes:
>*yet the scientists I work with regard him as a joke...*
You dont work for a resource company do you, or perhaps with [recycled critics](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer) of controls on tobacco and acid rain?
Perhaps if your claims are true Mark, then the so called real people who's views you say you are conveying may be on the records somewhere?
David, when someone accuses a "sceptic" like Monckton of lying, deceiving and misinforming, it's usually because he has been caught lying, deceiving and misinforming.
When someone accuses a journalist like Akerman of quote-mining or mis-quoting, it's usually because he has been caught quote-mining or mis-quoting.
There is nothing deceptive (except in the fertile minds of conspiracy theorists of course) about decades of accumulated, published, and reviewed data and research.
Call it "smear" if you want to redefine the term, but mother always taught me a liar was a liar, that it was a bad thing, and that my nose would grow very long if I did it.
There are quite a few long-nosed sceptics out there.
Mark writes:
You didn't actually read the article, did you Mark?
To scientists:
"It's so obvious you are an activist going along with the climate change lie to protect your very lucrative employment contract."
"It is probably not to (sic) extreme to suggest that your actions (deceitful) were so criminal to be compared with Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. It is called treason and genocide.
"Oh, as a scientist, you have destroyed peoples trust in my profession. You are a criminal . Lest we forget."
"There will be a day of facing the music for the Pitman type frauds... Pitman you are a f**king fool!"
"F**k off mate, stop the personal attacks. Just do your science or you will end up collateral damage in the war, GET IT."
To campaigners:
"Did you want to offer your children to be brutally gang-raped and then horribly tortured before being reminded of their parents socialist beliefs and actions?
"Burn in hell. Or in the main street, when the Australian public finally lynchs you."
"F**k off!!!
"Or you will be chased down the street with burning stakes and hung from your f**king neck, until you are dead, dead, dead!
"F**k you little pieces of sh*t, show youselves in public!!!"
To journalists:
"You sad sack of s**t. It's ok to trash climate change sceptics yet, when the shoe is on the other foot, you become a vindictive, nasty piece of s**t not able to face the fact that you're wrong about climate change and you're reputation is now trash."
"Your mother was a goat f**ker!!!!!! Your father was a turd!!!!!!! You will be one of the first taken out in the revolution!!!!!!!! Your head will be on a stake!! C**t!"
Mark,
I am a senior scientist and I certainly do not regard Clive Hamilton as a joke, nor do many colleagues I have spoken with. You are way out of line on this one. Clive's efforts to counter the tsunmi of anti-environmental disinformation, and in particular on climate change, is welcome as far as I am concerned.
Furthermore, I received a number of nasty emails soon after my co-review of Lomborg's erroneous tome in Nature back in 2001. The most recent one I got was last year, 8 years after the fact! Given the power of the corporate lobby and their paid-for hacks to distort science, and the huge public relations and media budgets they have at their disposal, it is little wonder that their message resonates with some nutcases enough to spur them to write threatening or abusive emails to scientists.
As for David Duff's fatuous remark above, jakerman demolished it. Methinks DD should peruse some of the information on orgasnizations like the "Advancement of Sound Science Coalition" (TAASC, now defunct), which shows a clear link between tobacco funding, tobacco lobbyists, and their involvement in other issues such as downplaying climate change and its effects.
Mark @8 and @10 are not one and the same.
This Mark is read Hamilton and found him to make a reliable and insightful contribution.
[i]Recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain[/i] is only a 'hateful smear' if you believe there's something wrong with opposing controls on tobacco and acid rain.
#10:
Heh - Mark, you should read the ABC article a bit more carefully, the last paragraph reads:
Which is what you have said, so you are agreeing with Clive, which is nice :)
As for #11 David Duff: Stating the lobbyists and "scientists for hire" anti-AGW science crew are the same ones that were denying 'smoking = cancer' etc. is quite factual. So the fact that they were of the same groups in the 70's, 80's and 90's that worked for polluting businesses is conflated in your eyes as a 'hate and smear campaign.' I guess that shows that you think their activities back then equates to them engaging in hateful and besmearing actions?
The words 'pot', 'kettle' and 'black' keep resonating in my head, can't think why!
#19:
Poor DD. Given the level of nasty emails sent to climate scientists that state that AGW is real (ie: > 90% certain) vs the level of nasty emails sent to denialsts (evidence? anyone?) I agree I can't think why 'pot', 'kettle' and 'black' are resonating in your head either.
Perhaps it is a pop song that is stuck in there? I know 'I should be so lucky' does that. So does [Narwals](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykwqXuMPsoc). Curse you [PZ](http://http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/)!
Dunno if that helps, maybe another Deltoid can help you?
David Duff's endorsement of the hate campaign as a justifiable response to criticism of the like of Monckton is, I think, pretty representative of the attitude of the anti-science right in general. The rhetoric of people like Miranda Devine, Jennifer Marohasy, Andrew Bolt and others is just a cleaned-up version of the garbage cited above.
Dear crackpots,
If you really thought that climate scientists were participants in an international conspiracy among world governments, the last thing you would ever do is send threatening e-mail to one of its members. You'd be so disappeared the total mass of the universe would decrease.
Only emails? Not phone calls with death threats on your kids? The cranks in this debate are amateurs. But it does sound like they are stepping up their tactics.
#22. Umm... Maybe for denialists it depends on your point of view?
If you regard large groups of smart people working together and meeting from time to time to discuss and refine their ideas, to ultimately gain an understanding of how the world works, and then to make assessments and predictions of what the future holds given those said findings. If these people then pass that information to policy makers to then act on the science, then yes, I guess it would be a conspiracy :) Pity the science is all carried out in public, with peer review, and over 120 years of research and understanding behind it. And as for the govt operating in secret... well, apart from published legislation, public enquiries, submissions, draft reports, green papers, white papers, and parliamentary debate, then yes, I guess so... if you squint and look at it just right... :)
These "crackpots" remind me of [this scene from Eric the Viking](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8IBnfkcrsM&feature=related)
Also, if the climate scientists were part of a global government conspiracy, you'd expect it would be the *deniers* who'd have their communications tapped - not vice-versa, as actually happened.
A little off-topic, but does anyone (Tim Lambert?) know who it was that originally said "the science is settled?". My recollection was that they were on their way out of the building where the accompanying news journalist was asking them about the meeting they had attended. At the time I just took it (the news story) at face value, but now I keep wondering whether the quotee was who I assumed, ie a scientist, or someone else entirely. Any ideas, anyone?
Mr. Quiggin,
"David Duff's endorsement of the hate campaign ".
Excuse me? I know how careful you are here to remain strictly accurate at all times so could you please point to where I endorsed a hate campaign?
> And if you use a fake name to abuse me and I figure out your real name, I can post the hate mail under the real name of the sender for everyone to see,
Failing that, we can always publish the mail headers, IP addresses and all. That'll teach 'em.
@ Donald Oats
I don't know if this [page deleted from wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley/The_science_is_s…) is helpful. It argues the word-for-word quote can only be traced to 'sceptic' fabrications and strawmen.
Paul Crowley:
> ...sadly plenty of people who broadly take our side would embarrass us with emails like this under cover of anonymity.
I don't believe this. I've never seen Watts, Plimer, Monckton, et al make any complaints of death threats or for their "children to be brutally gang-raped and then horribly tortured". No doubt they've received plenty of vitriolic emails - they deserve them, but what's happening to climate scientists is on another level.
Climate change denial attracts the worst of society: the angry and resentful who need to blame someone else for what they consider societal injustice or their own failure - usually that they have to pay taxes or have their behaviour constrained by law.
Compare the online behaviour of the realists to the Deniers. Some of us may call them ignorant and half-witted, but the Deniers hysteria is often out of control. And the angrier they feel, the more it reinforces their sense of victimhood - someone is out to get *them*.
Some thoughts on the anger and hate of the denialists and other members of the rabid right:
First, it has nothing to do with being in or out of power. They were every bit as rabid during the Bush years as they are now. No, hate is one of the fundamental underlying drivers of the rabid right. Their basic world view is that the world is divided into Good Guys and Bad Guys, and all the problems of the world are attributable to Bad Guys, and and that needs to be done to make the world right is for the Good Guys to eliminate the Bad Guys. This is important: they are not driven by any overarching principles of good or evil; their world view is based on good versus bad people, not good versus bad actions. Thus, they haven't the slightest compunction about treating bad people in the most vicious manner, because, in their mind, bad people deserve to be treated cruelly. Torture and summary execution aren't a problem to the rabid right, because Bad Guys, in their minds, deserve nothing less than extermination.
What's really scary is that the primary means of differentiating Good Guys from Bad Guys is tribal loyalty. It's not a simple "You're either with us or against us" -- it's worse. It's "You're either 100% with us on every issue, or you're a Bad Guy." This is why the rabid right is so Borg-like in its party discipline. Moderate Republicans who deviate from the party line in any manner are vilified as RINOs.
The denialists sit at the fringe of the rabid right. Because some education is required to appreciate the science, they tend to be more intellectual in tone and will sometimes demonstrate a few sparks of independent thought. But they are still subjected to intense pressure to conform to the party line and most keep their toes fairly close to the party line.
Liberals bemoan the fact that the Democratic party is anarchic and can't reach the levels of party discipline that the Republicans have achieved. I maintain that a certain amount of intellectual heterogeneity is a source of strength, not weakness. One-party states the world over have demonstrated again and again that discipline certainly makes it easier to get things done, but sometimes the things that get done are the wrong things. In American experience, the invasion of Iraq was such a thing. Republican political strength was so great that they were able to march straight into war without a second thought. Only in the last year or so have Americans begun to realize just how stupid a decision that was.
I hope the police are investigating those emails.
They are clearly open threats of intent.
Paul UK -
At the extremely high risk of invoking Goodwin.. one of the interesting factors of the rise to power of the Far right in 1930s Europe was that fact that far-right activists often received little more than token sentences for criminal actions (anything from beating people up to advocating and formnenting revolution), because they were seen as 'patriotic', whereas left wing activists who tried anything similar would get the full force of the law thrown against them.
Although the situation in the US is no where near that far gone, the fact that it is essentially impossible to simply state reality (Global warming is happening; State health care is cheaper) is some areas without being screamed down and threatened is not good.
Real anger by right-wingers feeling disenfranchised is is one thing; but if the hate mail campaigns were orchestrated, then it must mean that someone was egging these people on. This is scary.
The question then is, if there's a person behind all this, then who is it?
Hey Tim
I think cambria has responded suggesting you have sent out hate mail yourself calling someone "a lying sack of shit". He suggests you sent out 3 hate emails to this person also saying it borders on stalking. Is this true and can you make a statement as an update. He has all sorts of links up there that seems to support the claim .
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/02/19/open-forum-february-19-2010/#comme…
I have you covered time. So don't worry.
Re #15
Speaking of Lomborg, you may be interested in Howard Friel's upcoming book "The Lomborg Deception".
http://www.newsweek.com/id/233942?from=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_me…
Not that any of the Dane's gullible followers will actually read it, but it is efforts like this (and yours Jeff) that make a big difference. Perhaps there is scope for someone to publish something similar about Ian Plimer's nonsense.
Joe Cambria has sent me hundreds of abusive messages. He's weird and creepy and best ignored. I linked to one of his hate mails because I think it's likely he's sent similarly abusive mails to climate scientists.
I have seen such mob behaviour on many climate fora. I was recently angered enough to post to the Mr. Revkin's dotearth blog at the New York Times. I enclose a section of the comment below:
"I would like to add a comment addressed to Mr. Revkin: Sir, this forum has become a cesspool of lies and misinformation, apparently with your tacit consent. When scientists write here of their research, they are vilified and shouted down. This may sell newspapers, sir, and may generate copious advertising revenue, but does not speak well of you or of the New York Times. If you continue to allow this forum to be dominated by liars, you may soon discover that no real scientist will participate here again. Of course, this might be exactly what you and the newspaper desire, in which case, good day to you, sir, and the company you choose to keep."
sidd
"They are angry and bitter because they are out of power."
The act that way when they're in power too.
This seems to be part of the psychology of conservatism, which includes the following attributes:
* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management
You can see how having these traits amped up can lead someone to 1) be 100% confident about something they're wrong about, and 2) act like a jerk about it.
If these idiots are so sure they're right (of course, we know they're not), why do they feel the need to make threats of violence?
They just end up being angry villagers with pitchforks and torn overalls. It's kind of like Deliverance.
"Failing that, we can always publish the mail headers, IP addresses and all. That'll teach 'em."
I recall it got a dude fired when PZ posted abusive mail.
Publish that stuff!
""It's so obvious you are an activist going along with the climate change lie to protect your very lucrative employment contract."
"It is probably not to (sic) extreme to suggest that your actions (deceitful) were so criminal to be compared with Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. It is called treason and genocide.
"Oh, as a scientist, you have destroyed peoples trust in my profession. You are a criminal . Lest we forget."
"There will be a day of facing the music for the Pitman type frauds... Pitman you are a f**king fool!"
"F**k off mate, stop the personal attacks. Just do your science or you will end up collateral damage in the war, GET IT."
To campaigners:
"Did you want to offer your children to be brutally gang-raped and then horribly tortured before being reminded of their parents socialist beliefs and actions?
"Burn in hell. Or in the main street, when the Australian public finally lynchs you.""
Ooh, a lynching and a public rape and torture session! Sounds awfully medieval. Are they going to have a guillotine too? And turkey legs?
"F**k off!!!
"Or you will be chased down the street with burning stakes and hung from your f**king neck, until you are dead, dead, dead!
"F*k you little pieces of sht, show youselves in public!!!""
You forgot the pitchforks.
"To journalists:
"You sad sack of st. It's ok to trash climate change sceptics yet, when the shoe is on the other foot, you become a vindictive, nasty piece of st not able to face the fact that you're wrong about climate change and you're reputation is now trash."
"Your mother was a goat fker!!!!!! Your father was a turd!!!!!!! You will be one of the first taken out in the revolution!!!!!!!! Your head will be on a stake!! Ct!""
The villagers are getting uppity. What would this be, America's Islamic Revolution? America's Crusades? Because this would be a step backward, not a step forward.
Rixaeton has it right in #3.
The percentage of folks who are hardcore denialists is quite small - about 7% in this survey. A much larger percentage are unsure, or are soft skeptics.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/pdf/6americas.pdf
Of those 7%, a smaller fraction would be engaged in the persistent anti-science hate speech we see regularly on any blogs or articles on global warming. In only takes a few thousand cultists (or less) out of hundreds of millions of people with internet access to give the appearance of widespread denialism.
I do admire the courage of climate scientists to speak out publicly, when there truly are fanatics out there personally threatening them.
@David Duff: I took your "shockin'" to be ironic rather than literal, indicating that you saw no problem with these attacks and that sending hate mail is no different from accurately describing the funding of some "sceptics" by the tobacco and oil lobby. But if you actually meant to condemn the hate campaign, rather than to excuse it by comparison with allegedly similar attacks undertake by the other side, please say so, and I will happily retract.
"Liberals bemoan the fact that the Democratic party is anarchic and can't reach the levels of party discipline that the Republicans have achieved. I maintain that a certain amount of intellectual heterogeneity is a source of strength, not weakness"
I agree with you. A few months back, I read a book called "The Republican Noise Machine". The author knew his subject well, because he is a journalist, who used to be a writer for one of the Wash DC newspapers, churning out right wing talking points. One of the points in his book, is that all the right wing talking points come from a handful of corporate connected wealthy people who disseminate those points through the conservative "think tanks" and the mostly conservative mainstream media, talk show hosts etc. The Koch family comes to mind, with their Americans for Prosperity, which is their own little private "grassroots" organization.
On the other hand, liberals have no such central source of talking points. Liberal issues by their very nature are usually grassroots and based on the interests of the populace in general.
Labor, the environment, healthcare, minimum wages etc. Oh sure there is networking and shared liberal websites like dailykos and CAP, but no top down making up of talking points on all issues.
Tim,
Hate mail is, of course odious, but for Clive Hamilton to say the following in his article is just ridiculous -
"Some MPs were spooked into voting for Tony Abbott"
Dave Andrews writes:
>*for Clive Hamilton to say the following in his article is just ridiculous -*
>>*"Some MPs were spooked into voting for Tony Abbott"*
Dave Andrews is a great judge of the ridiculous.
The denialist bombardment campaign was completely bamboozling to some MPs. After a coordinated campaign of angry denialist emails, Liberal MPs voted in a leadership ballot, and what was the rational used to support some of the vote?
>*A friend of mine was waiting outside the Liberal Party meeting room when Tony Abbott was elected. As politicians trooped out, one quipped something like this: ''It was the right decision. Even Tim Flannery is a climate sceptic now.'*
([Tim Flannery](http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/climate-sceptics-and-the-liberal…))
They are angry and bitter because they are out of power.
I don't think that's it. We just got through 8 years with them in charge in the USA, for years having control of all 3 divions of the federal government, and they were just as angry and bitter then.
#47 jakerman is on the ball (as usual)
It appears to me that MPs are too easily swayed by a variation of [Pharyngulation](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pharyngulate), whereby a relatively small number of people swamp an unsuspecting MP with truckloads of emails, making the "public opinion" seem very different to reality. Of course in the context of decision making the proper understanding of the weighting that these emails should be the same as an online poll - as it is something that is easily manipulated, it is not credible as a statistically significant source of weight of opinion.
Some MPs are not that technically savvy (having worked in ministerial offices I have seen first hand how 19th century they are :)
The US equivalent is, as sailrick says in #45, the Republican Noise Machine. Astroturfing is a newish term (to me anyway) from our US cousins, but an apt one. An artificial grass-roots campaign is a sad thing to see, where people try to "win" by deceit instead of the quality of their arguments, based on facts.
I was hoping that we would see the last of the denialism when the governments of the US and Australia voted in the adults for a change. Denialists have nothing of interest to say in the matter; the science is robust, the economics of the solutions are understood. Anyone that claims otherwise without basis, or worse by making threats, make themselves irrelevant to the discussion and just plain deserve to be ignored. Presentation of credible, verifiable and even just plain interesting contrary views should always be welcome; I would be one of the first to celebrate if there was no AGW, and then get on with my normal life.
I much prefer living my life with the knowledge of what is real, and make decisions based on that. It is a far better, more ethical way to go, rather than cloud my judgement with falsehoods and self-deceptions, which is what the right-wing, denialist crowd seem to want to do.
David, believe it.
While your faith in "our side" is lovely and all that, I've personally witnessed it - plenty of "back to the trees" types are full of vitriol.
It doesn't matter a jot to the science, but makes a lot of difference to the politics.
I know of many, many abusive emails sent out by Joe Cambria, who is very touchy about his real name being linked to his online activity (I wonder why?)
Clive Hamilton's follow up on "**Who is orchestrating the cyber-bullying?** is now online
The words 'pot', 'kettle' and 'black' keep resonating in my head, can't think why!
Maybe it's an echo?
Joe Cambria blogs at Catallaxy from which vantage point he abuses a wide range of political personages including MPs, media workers, scientists, academics and other bloggers and swarms a range of other blogs with abusive messages particularly against environmentalists and women that are often derogatively sexually explicit.
He is a most peculiar character and easily the most toxic presence in the Australian blogosphere. He is well-known across a range of blogs and easily identifiable by his sneering gutter-level abuse regardless of his chosen moniker du jour.
Erasmussimo wrote (amongst a lot of other perceptive stuff):
At the risk of boring people through repetition, I've been pointing people to Altemeyer because I think his work illuminates some of these dynamics.
And possibly repeating myself again, Dave Niewert at Orcinus (well worth spending some time) often talks about different roles in stovepiping and amplifying eliminationism and other nasty memes into popular culture. IIRC he talks about radical views being normalised, not just through Overton window maneuvers, but also by being discussed as if they were reasonable ideas to consider by "transmitters" who generally have significant audiences (typically with a significant number authoritarian followers). He is based in the USA so he tends to report on cultural transmitters such as Glenn Beck, O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter rather than our home-grown variety.
He also has done a lot of reporting on hate crimes, hate crime laws and the like...and makes similar points to someone above. Hate crimes are intended to send a message to an entire subset of the population; token punishments indicate that the behaviour is a minor transgression, thus failing to discourage more of the same; for that very reason hate crime laws are intended to send a message that the behaviour is not going to be tolerated.
His co-blogger Sara Robinson wrote a couple of excellent series there ("Cracks In The Wall" and "Tunnels and Bridges") on how authoritarian followers (sometimes) break out of their mould, and what environmental factors can be put in place to make that a little more likely.
So...John Archer is a wannabe Joe Cambria? ;-) Doesn't sound like he's in the same league to me.
Mr. Quiggin,
I am happy to reply to your courteous comment in similar mode - phew, what a relief!
On a subject as interesting and possibly as important as global climate I would prefer a calm and reasoned exchange of views. If I admit my paucity of knowledge in scientific matters, I do claim considerable expertise in human nature even if it is based mostly on having lived fairly long. Therefore, I know that controversy is the very stuff of disagreements and, let's all admit it, the cut and thrust can be rather enjoyable. For example, Daniel Andrews, #53 up above, provided a very witty riposte which made me chuckle this morning even though it was aimed at me! But, of course, in this as in every other field of human activity, from climate science to 'footie', one has to put up with the lunatic fringe and I deplore their interference from whichever side they attack. But let me emphasise my final sentence as boldly as I can:
Both sides of this dispute have their own lunatic fringe and it behoves us all to give them a smack whenever and from where-ever they appear.
>*Both sides of this dispute have their own lunatic fringe and it behoves us all to give them a smack whenever and from where-ever they appear.*
David give us some counter examples to compare and contrast. From my experience you are claiming a false equivolence.
Tim:
Cambria has now challenged you to produce these 100's of abusive emails saying he will bet $20,000 to your $5,000 they don't exist. He also says that you skirted your own abusive hate mail issue to this "Jason" by not owning up.
As your (as yet un-contracted) talent agent you should take him up on this bet and escrow the money with a trusting party.
You can also clear up the matter of your own hate mail issues if you did send it or not.
Can I take a cut of say 10% of your winnings post-GST?
(By the way, I'm negotiating a debating tour of the continent and the US for big bucks. I presume you're free over the ed holidays?)
*[By messages I mean both emails and comments posted here and directed at me. I didn't bother saving them and even if I had, Cambria's offer is not genuine. Some time I agreed to a $5,000 bet with him on temperatures in 2006, but he weaseled out of it. You'd be more likely to get money out of a Nigerian 411 scammer. -- Tim]*
Regarding the anarcho-primitivist 'back to the trees' types, I think it is our duty to occasionally give them a verbal punch to the gut.
Jakerman,
"From my experience you are claiming a false equivolence."
But not from mine, although I must confess I do not possess a library list of them because, by and large, you can spot the signs in the first sentence or two and I simply move on.
Also, let me add, that when I became interested in this topic about 5 years ago I approached it in a slightly sceptical mode because I have lived through so many 'end of the world' scares in my lifetime and they all proved to be grossly exaggerated. Similarly, the subject only came to my attention when I saw politicians eager to climb aboard and I'm sorry but expereince tells me that anything those rapscallions are keen on is unlikely to be true but will definitely be expensive. But that apart, like anyone else of moderate good sense, I was keen to see if this particular phenomenon had a more serious base than others I had come across. So, I started reading the blogs, both pro and anti. I have to say to you, and please accept that I am being absolutely honest, the general tone of the sceptics was infinitely more appealing than that of the 'warmers'. To provide but two examples, Steve McIntyre always made efforts to tone down any of his supporters who overstepped the mark by using gratuitous insults. RealClimate, by contrast, simply banned and censored anyone, including experts in the field, who disagreed with them. Also, the actions of Jones and Mann 'et all' in using every pretext in the book, and some not in the book, to hide their raw data was a disgrace by any scientific standard, so disgraceful that even George Monbiot condemned it. Of course, none of that 'proves' a case either way, Monbiot, for example sticks to his 'warmist' beliefs - and quite right too if that's where his evidence leads him. I can only tell you that as a man who was about as neutral as you could get on the subject, bearing in mind the late Mr. Kruschev's words to the effect that there are no neutral men, I was very put off by the tone and practice of the 'warmers' whilst recognising that certainly in the comments sections there were a fair number of sceptic fruit 'n' nut cases, too.
Too late now, but what a pity the science can't be open and free-flowing and let the ball fall where it may.
Beyond the attacks on scientists, we also have the phenomena of folks like Watts and McIntyre "outing" people who post on their blogs, or in some cases their own blogs, anonymously.
This is a bit OT, but I'm posting this here, anyway. I just posted this to dot earth, Andy Revkin's NY Times blog. It is still in moderation:
My name, profession, and a past contractual connection with Greenpeace have been posted there. In addition, someone has started posting using my real name as their handle (my real name is "Don Baccus" for those who can't figure out how to type "dhogaza" into a google search box).
It's getting very slimy over there.
Hmmmn! Sorry, 'Dhoggie', but you fail to convince me. Of course, it depends what you mean by "personal information". If it's real name and connected organisation then surely it's 'caveat blogger', or in plain English, if you don't want your name published then don't blog. If it's personal address, office address, telephone number and that sort of thing, then I agree that is too far. By and large, and with certain but very few exceptions, I do not like the use of 'nom de keyboards'. If you own the words, put your name to them!
David Duff, shouldn't it be the evidence that sways you - not how smooth a talker the messenger is?
I would not expect David Duff to respect another person's privacy ...
>Steve McIntyre always made efforts to tone down any of his supporters who overstepped the mark by using gratuitous insults.
HAhahahahahahaha!
It boggles me why people make death threats over this.
It's well known that cranks hate anonymity. Without anonymity, they can dig up information they can use for ad-hominems and genetic fallacies. Another thing they do is contact your employer and complain.
Andy Revkin apologized for that stuff slipping through. The post(s?) made using my real name as a handle have been edited to reveal the true author (if it were my blog, they'd have their account revoked, but I'll accept that).
The other, linking me to Greenpeace International, has been removed.
Bitching helps, apparently.
In my case, I'm self-employed, They can call me and complain all they want, at my usual hourly rate, of course! :)
Duff writes:
>>>*Both sides of this dispute have their own lunatic fringe and it behoves us all to give them a smack whenever and from where-ever they appear.*
To which I ask:
>>David give us some counter examples to compare and contrast. From my experience you are claiming a false equivalence.
To Duff responds:
>*But not from mine [experience], although I must confess I do not possess a library list of them because, by and large, you can spot the signs in the first sentence or two and I simply move on.*
I'm not asking for for a library list, I ask for some simple examples of what you think is equivalence on the other side, eg. death threats.
How about it David? What is equivalent from the science based side. I put it to you that this is not a normal distribution, it is very skewed with one side having many more loons and conspiracists, and the other many more scientists and empiricists.
dhogaza,
Why couldn't you have posted under your real name from the start and been transparent about your Greenpeace connections? Is there something embarrassing about the latter - I doubt it since it was pretty easy to infer from following your posts on a number of blogs.
>*Steve McIntyre always made efforts to tone down any of his supporters who overstepped the mark by using gratuitous insults. RealClimate, by contrast, simply banned and censored anyone, including experts in the field, who disagreed with them.*
Cos this isn't a normal distribution, most of the crazies are anti-science.
P.S. How would you know who others do and don't filter out and whether or not Steve McIntyre filtered out many of those who disagree with him?
>*Why couldn't you have posted under your real name from the start and been transparent about your Greenpeace connections? Is there something embarrassing about the latter - I doubt it since it was pretty easy to infer from following your posts on a number of blogs.*
Dave Andrews, what is the topic of this thread again? Oh That's right, it about the crazies hacking, abusing, bombarding and threatening people who use their real names.
Now here, is a very tiny and certainly not an extreme example of what I have been trying to hint at. I wrote a perfectly courteous comment to 'Dhoggie', disagreeing with him on a point which is a matter of individual opinion and he comes back with this:
"I would not expect David Duff to respect another person's privacy ..."
Now I would suggest, no, I would absolutely guarantee, that I would not ever knowingly disrespect another person's privacy. 'Dhoggie' has absolutely no evidence to support his uncalled for and bilious remark which immediately poisons the atmosphere.
See what I mean? Hmmn, take that as a 'no', shall I?
Duff writes:
>>>*Both sides of this dispute have their own lunatic fringe and it behoves us all to give them a smack whenever and from where-ever they appear.*
To which I asked:
>>David give us some counter examples to compare and contrast. From my experience you are claiming a false equivalence.
To which Duff responds:
>>*But not from mine [experience], although I must confess I do not possess a library list of them because, by and large, you can spot the signs in the first sentence or two and I simply move on.*
To which I emphasized:
>I'm not asking for for a library list, I ask for some simple examples of what you think is equivalence on the other side, eg. death threats.
>How about it David? What is equivalent from the science based side. I put it to you that this is not a normal distribution, it is very skewed with one side having many more loons and conspiracists, and the other many more scientists and empiricists.
To which Duff replies:
>*Now here, is a very tiny and certainly not an extreme example of what I have been trying to hint at. I wrote a perfectly courteous comment to 'Dhoggie', disagreeing with him on a point which is a matter of individual opinion and he comes back with this:* "I would not expect David Duff to respect another person's privacy ..." [...] *See what I mean?*
David thank you, that is consistent with my point. Would you agree?
Sorry, 'Jakers', I wasn't actually talking to you in my last comment. I'll try and get round to you tomorrow, it's pst my cocoa time already!
I was hoping someone would say something about why people make death threats about this, but I'll say it anyway:
Why do people make death threats about the veracity of global warming? This is like people threatening to kill each other because of religious differences. It's stupid.
Duff writes:
>*Now here, is a very tiny and certainly not an extreme example of what I have been trying to hint at.*
then;
>*Sorry, 'Jakers', I wasn't actually talking to you in my last comment. I'll try and get round to you tomorrow*
David, should be easy to clear up and verify, who were you talking to?
Kathrine,
I suggest it could be mental ideological disorder?
Katharine - they must believe being wrong *but* issuing death threats in the process is less embarrassing than simply being wrong.
Make of that what you will.
They don't realize that they look dumber issuing death threats than sacking up or ovarying up and saying they were fucking wrong.
The average emotional age of America is about 2.
[David Duff says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_hate_mail_campaign_against…):
Duff, whatever your noble morals, you are one person out of hundreds of millions connected to the internet. Your point is an especially spurious strawman.
I myself vehemently protect my identity after the use of my full name caused so much spam and vitriolic email to be directed to my institution account that it was rendered useless and had to be discontinued.
I am sure that there were many people who respected my right to privacy and to freedom to pursue my own business using my own professional resources, but they're not the ones about whom I have had to be concerned. It's the amoral numpties who think that it's clever to harrass a target, or to instigate a spam attack against them resulting in a denial-of-service type of circumstance, that I am guarding against.
As I have said several times previous in this context, and as [JasonW](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_hate_mail_campaign_against…) notes above, it should be the scientific credibility of my arguments that count, and not my identity.
I am on record for my opinions where it counts: I have often written to Federal politicians on matters I hold to be significant, and I happily put my names to petitions I believe represent good causes, but as far as the anarchy of the Interweb goes, I am not going to point a big red target on my chest for the benefit of the ideologically rabid, conservative fundies who wouldn't know a real fact from their own poop, even though they roll in the latter every day, and who have no respect for the personal freedoms of others no matter how hard they insist upon the right to their own.
The exchange between David Duff and jakerman is fascinating.
Sceptic Duff implies that there are abusive ranting loonies on both sides and, upon being asked for an example, quotes science-friendly dhogaza:
Gotta hand it to dhogaza - that was a vicious and scary rant, and yes, dhogaza clearly has terrible anger management issues. I would not want to come across him in a dark alley when he displays such violent thoughts as those.
Compare this to the meek and mild sceptic Joe Cambria conversing to science-friendly Tim:
Yes, yes indeed. Upon reflection I can see the equivalence of both sides there.
Tim
There is a turd here using my moniker to bag Joe Cambria. Joe and I have a running argument going about almost everything, but I prefer to give him shit to his face.
It's way out of line for this git to use my alias to bag another commenter, can you have him erased?
[I changed the attribution to something else. -- Tim]
'Jakers', at last, sorry for the delay but 'she who must be obeyed' had orders for me today.
Look, I am not going to be a judge and jury in the never-ending task of deciding who is being the biggest 'Mr. Nasty No Brains' on the block. To do that I would have to read and count each and every insult and threat from every mouth-breather on the internet. All I am saying is that over the last 5 years I have read (and some I have enjoyed) ruderies and insults from both sides. I'll go further and 'fess up that I, too, have lobbed one or two but in mitigation I would insist that I only did so after provocation ("Please, please, your Honour, I beg you, don't send me to Australia!)
Again, I will repeat that on the whole my impression is that the 'warmers' are more vituperative than the sceptics, but that is a personal opinion and you are free to disagree with it.
Yet another "very tiny and certainly not an extreme example" of the incipient discourtesy and dishonesty I frequently find on 'warmer' blogs comes from Mike, immediately above at #82, in which he makes a point based on a quote from me without adding the limiting factor I put in deliberately which reads: "very tiny and certainly not an extreme example". He then compares part what I instanced to the rantings of a 'monster raving loonie' and then makes a snide, and as it happens false, comparison. All quite unnecessary. Did he feel pleased with himself after all that effort?
And incidentally, not a word from 'Dhoggie' for the implied smear in his original comment. Cat got your tongue, 'Dhoggie'?
Stoopid question: is "Joe Cambria" real? Looks a bit like GMB (I've not read enough "Cambria" to compare anything subtle).
83 Duff,
Your opinion here has been shown to be extremely unreliable. Just post some examples to support your "impression". Can't be too hard, can it?
That's what you said, David, and that's why I said what I said.
You're OK with people outing my name and, more importantly, part of my client list just because I choose to post on a blog.
Dot Earth agreed that it violated their terms of service and deleted it. It's their opinion that counts, and I agree with them.
A denialist posted this link in some comments:
"...Thereâs a matrix-moment coming for Clive Hamilton. Skeptics are now the grassroots activists against big-money and big-lies, fighting for the poor, and for the environment. Heâs doing his damnedest to suppress community participation, promote intolerance, and effectively fight for banker profits, corrupt scientists, and plundering bureaucrats..."
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-global-gullibles-shift-to-high-gea…
Typical rightwinger transference.
David Duff, again thank you for [your examples](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_hate_mail_campaign_against…).
To sum up; based on David Duff's [assertion of equivalence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_hate_mail_campaign_against…) on both sides of the 'debate', I requested some counter examples from Duff, to compare and contrast with the distressing and threatening examples discussed here.
David Duff has not produced equivolent examples but instead provided what are, by his own sensible admission, *"very tiny and certainly not [...] extreme example[s]"*. To butress his argument he remind us his personal opinion is an:
>*[impression](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias) [...] that the 'warmers' are more vituperative than the sceptics...*
David, I'm not surprised you have a different experience to scientists who have been attacked and threatend by so called "skeptics". Which is why I was interested compare the example you could provide.
David you lack evidence to support any assertion of equivolence on both sides. Your lack of supporting evidence in the face to the evidence presented by Clive Hamilton is consistant with my assertion that:
>you are claiming a false equivalence;
And I again put it to you boths sides are not divided along:
>*a normal distribution, [the distribution] is very skewed with one side having many more loons and conspiracists, and the other many more scientists and empiricists.*
>*Skeptics are now the grassroots activists against big-money and big-lies, fighting for the poor, and for the environment. Heâs doing his damnedest to suppress community participation, promote intolerance, and effectively fight for banker profits, corrupt scientists, and plundering bureaucrats..."*
So why are they disproportionately voting for the worse of all evils in the very limited democratic opportunities avaliable to them?
If so called AGW skeptics really what to be the *"grassroots activists against big-money and big-lies, fighting for the poor, and for the environment*"; then great!
All they have to do is judge everyone of the issues of the day according to how it maximises benefit towards these goals. Then throw their weight into acheivement of these goals.
They could start with the first one: *activists against big-money*. If they were serious they would look at this problem is a system/structural way not in an ad-hoc way. I lookforward to reading how they make this a priority.
Then I look forward to their development of a truth seeking process to decern the big lies.
Hmmm, some related food for thought here and here. Not exactly death threats, but perhaps useful insight to build upon.
Very interesting articles Lotharsson. And thanks also for your prior link to RC's comment on the [Guardian disappoints](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/the-guardian-disa…).
Interesting to also contrast those protecting their conservative individualist values by rejecting the science, with those trying to make their narative fit the humanitarian communinitarin values in [Holly's post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_hate_mail_campaign_against…).
Here is the cop out:
>*"The goal can't be to create a kind of psychological house of mirrors so that people end up seeing exactly what you want," he argues. "The goal has to be to create an environment that allows them to be open-minded."*
>*And Kahan says you can't do that just by publishing more scientific data.*
And ends there- you so bailed on us Kahan!
;)
I'm trying resist the image of diversity training, where a kindly spoken moderator gets us to play a few ice-breaking games before we each introduce ourselves to the circle.
Oh no, please, Dhoggie', say it ain't so, I'm distraught, I'm ashamed, how will I ever dare to appear at Deltoid again, I apologise, I grovel.
Did I really write the possessive "it's" thus? I shall give myself a hundred lines instantly!
Even so, 'Dhoggie', nothing I wrote justified your assumption, and accusation, that I, personally, would 'out' anyone, I simply pointed out the undeniable fact that, as you found out the hard way, other people almost certainly would. Anyway, I have given you my assurance that I never would so I would appreciate you acknowledging that.
'Jakers', as you appear to possess a pedantic streak, may I remind you that nowhere did I suggest an "equivalence", just the opposite, I told you that in my experience the 'warmers' were more vituperative than the sceptics!
You keep insisting that I produce some 'evidence', as though one or two examples would prove my case which I already pointed out it would not. However, as you insist, how about Mark Lynas, Paul Krugman and James Hansen calling for 'deniers' (a despicable epithet in itself) to be put in jail? You might answer by saying that is nowhere near as bad as some eye-ball swivelling loon sending a death threat. However, in considering the likelihood (both tiny) of either threat coming to fruition, I would suggest that the words and influence of people in the top scientific and political echelons with a former vice president of the United States as a supportergives their threat greater weight. I mean, just suppose for a moment that the Chairmen of Exxon, BP and Shell came out with a suggestion that all 'warmers' be transported to Australia - surely a fate worse than death - imagine how you lot would leap about!
oh alright then, what about Mark Lynas, Paul Krugman and James Hansen calling for "deniers" (a despicable word for anyone to use) to be put in jail?
Ooops, sorry for that last sentence which I forgot to delete. Well, it's 10.30 in the morning and I'm not used to getting up this early!
David Duff: you seem to be perpetuating others' lies or perhaps you subscribe to the Leake school, when you say:
What did they actually say?
Mark Lynas said:
Paul Krugman said:
James Hansen said:
There's far more likelihood of a death threat being carried out than people going to jail. The jail idea is designed to bring issues into public debate, and politically one can see Buckley's chance of it ever coming to fruition.
On the other hand, risk assessments carried out by the US government recently identified domestic terrorism and intimidation as a significant concern, particularly from the far-right of the political spectrum. A few days ago a disgruntled programmer crashed a light plane into an IRS (tax office) building killing himself and a couple of employees. The level of animus shown in the death threats to climate scientists made public thus far is on the same order of magnitude, and similar to the guy who recently killed one of the few remaining abortion providers in the US, and similar to some of the militia movement. Frequently that animus against climate scientists seems to stems from a similar political and sub-cultural perspective as those other examples appear to spring from - including people like Beck and O'Reilly and several other Fox News personalities in the US embracing nakedly eliminationist language and concepts. Dave Neiwert at Orcinus is the go-to guy in this area of study.
You are positing a false equivalence here - both in terms of likelihood of occurrence, and severity and legitimacy of outcome.
Might you change that view in light of Inhofe's latest pronouncement? ;-)
Oops! Forgot the link. Chase the Rabett and Climate Science Watch.
P. Lewis - sure ;-)
Inhofe is a grandstanding useful idiot, or at least he plays one on TV - and he's at the centre of the political arm of the denialist movement in the US. But his call for investigations are not going to find anything serious enough to send anyone to jail - and he should be careful what he wishes for. If they start holding hearings they might proceed in directions he did not wish for.
Duff writes:
>*I remind you that nowhere did I suggest an "equivalence", just the opposite, I told you that in my experience the 'warmers' were more vituperative than the sceptics!*
Earlier Duff :
>*The words 'pot', 'kettle' and 'black' keep resonating in my head, can't think why!*
Also Duff:
>*Both sides of this dispute have their own lunatic fringe and it behoves us all to give them a smack whenever and from where-ever they appear.*
To which I asked:
>David give us some counter examples to compare and contrast. From my experience you are claiming a false equivalence.
And to which Duff responded:
>*Jakerman [writes], "From my experience you are claiming a false equivolence." [Duff:] But not from mine, although I must confess I do not possess a library list of them because, by and large, you can spot the signs in the first sentence or two and I simply move on.*
David Duff, do you think I am being unfair? I know you are out numbered on this site so you should get some benefit of the doubt. But would you like to make a clarification somewhere?
Perhaps you meant to say that what ever impression you may have given in the rough and tumble of blogging, you now want to go on the record as one who does not believe there is equivalence between the two sides sides?
While you are thinking David you can perhaps give me your opinion on a hypothesis. I think one of the traits of denial is resistance (and in extreme cases pathological inability) to accept error, correct the record and thus to some degree retarding improvement and development in the area of concern. What do you think of my hypothesis?
David Duff [meet Betula](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_lomborg_deception.php#comme…).
[Betula thinks I'm nuts](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_lomborg_deception.php#comme…), Betula also likes word salads, straw-men, and goes to great lengths to avoid clarity.
P. Lewis,
Please accept my grateful thanks for all those useful quotes @ #97 above. You have made my case better than I can.
'Jakers', did you read those mouth-foamers?
And by the way, I deliberately and explicitly pointed out to you that I was not claiming equivalence, just the opposite, I was suggesting that the 'warmers' were more vituperative than the sceptics. Now, tell me, what is it about the word more that you are having difficulty in understanding? Now, courtesy of Mr. Lewis you have some examples to be pedantic about!
Comprehension is obviously not this duff troll's strong point.
As far as "idiot savants" go, he's well to the left of the spectrum. [kill]
By the way, 'Jakers', 'Betula' and I have already met, in fact, we were very nearly engaged but then he informed me that he was actually a chap not a chapess. See, 'Dhoggie', what anonymity can lead to!
Only if you try to pull anonymous posters you've never had any prior contact with on the basis of a single shared delusion.
I still say go for it. You should try anything once, and it could be beautiful.
David Duff:
Thus the hate mail campaign by "sceptics" against climate scientists is justified.
David Duff writes:
>*I deliberately and explicitly pointed out to you that I was not claiming equivalence, just the opposite, I was suggesting that the 'warmers' were more vituperative than the sceptics.*
David, thank you, that is good data [for my hypothesis](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_hate_mail_campaign_against…).
Mr. O'Neill, I would gently urge you to undertake a preliminary course in syllogistic logic. The single premise you offer does not justify the conclusion you reach. Not even close!
'Bud', yes, I know, but as I have explained to the magistrate on mumerous occasions, I am an old man and easily confused!
Gentlemen, I look about me and all I see are the remains of a well and truly flogged horse. Any minute now, our esteemed host will set loose several more hares (such a busy fellow) which will then push this thread in the direction it deserves to go, so I suggest we leave it here, or at least I intend to leave it here.
Until the next time ...
Duff there are far worse idiots than you around here but few greater ones.
O'Neill's comment about you is correct, obviously. You with others are encouraging violent hate mail campaigns against scientists presumably because you fear them.
I dislike being the PC police as much as the next guy, but this is bothering me. Is it really necessary to use disability as an insult?
Joseph I thought that comment was witty but then I'm intellectually disabled myself (that genius Duff will likely support my opinion in this).
David Duff:
So your suggestion has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread. Thanks for making it clear you're a troll.
Joseph, I thought by using the scare quotes and "the left of spectrum" I was making clear that I wasn't referring to savant syndrome sufferers but separating the terms idiot (an uneducated or ignorant person) and savant (a learned person) and making clear that IMHO Duff is an idiot. Sorry if you took offence, but I don't see it as using disability, just using words.
Duff either rejects or ignores our [earlier exchanges regarding equivalence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_hate_mail_campaign_against…).
Duff's claim now is far more focused, Now Duff says:
>*I was not claiming equivalence, just the opposite, I was suggesting that the 'warmers' were more vituperative than the sceptics.*
By skepticis, I assume he means so called skecptics or "skeptics" for short. The difference being a matter of process. "Skeptics" are after-all the focus of Hamilton's article.
By vituperative; Duff could mean: *Criticism or invective which is sustained and considered to be overly harsh*.
To make his case that *that the 'warmers' were more vituperative than the sceptics*, Duff writes:
>*[...] how about Mark Lynas, Paul Krugman and James Hansen calling for 'deniers' (a despicable epithet in itself) to be put in jail?*
Thanks to P. Lewis for gathering the [quotes of the aforementioned](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_hate_mail_campaign_against…).
From these quotes these men are raising the posibility of legal action again people for wrong doing. Krugemen gives his opinion that:
>*I couldnât help thinking that I was watching a form of treason â treason against the planet.*
So with overwhelming evidence supporting AGW and the likelihood of devastation to the lives of hundreds of millions, while some powerful people choose "*willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations [...] in grave danger"*, one wonders why promoting the idea of potential legal action is '*overly harsh*'.
David Duff, are you not a Law and Order type? You think they should keep mum on the potential of this path of the justice process, perhaps until after its too late?
Perhaps if you knew whaty these guys know, you'd agree that telegraphing the legal risks to recalcetrants is entirely appropriate.
I've read Clive's articles, and it was fun to watch the denialist arrive like a swarm of angry African killer bees from Bolt's blog.
Interestingly a common theme amongst these people is to describe how hard they've worked to get where they are and how much they hate the bludgers who are now lording it over them from Government. Never mind the fact that there are hard workers on both sides of the debate.
Anyhow Joe Cambria's post seems a lot like that. It's no surprise to see that his book review descends into an ideological rant against the "reformers", though its surprising that he supports such an anti-working people position.
I'm just surprised he didn't have a go at you for all your book larning.
derek, are you projecting your own behaviour on other people? I hear this "both sides are equivalent" thing quite a lot, so perhaps what you accuse others of doing is really just a reflection of yourself.
It's not just about the climate argument... there's a huge amount of money in the climate issue... much of it handed out my governments and global bodies to scientists, companies and others who support their "global warming" scare. This money is being sucked out of the taxpayers. It's no surprise that people are angry! http://www.climatejournal.org/
Indeed. For example the fossil fuel companies...er, wait, that's what you meant, right?
Because sucking tens of BILLIONS of dollars out of (say) US taxpayers to subsidise oil companies (and financial institutions) who are making record profits is just fine with taxpayers, but engaging in science with taxpayer money is completely over the line!