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.

Comments

  1. #1 Lotharsson
    February 25, 2010

    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.

  2. #2 jakerman
    February 25, 2010

    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?

  3. #3 jakerman
    February 25, 2010

    David Duff [meet Betula](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_lomborg_deception.php#comment-2300407).

    [Betula thinks I'm nuts](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_lomborg_deception.php#comment-2301980), Betula also likes word salads, straw-men, and goes to great lengths to avoid clarity.

  4. #4 David Duff
    February 25, 2010

    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!

  5. #5 P. Lewis
    February 25, 2010

    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]

  6. #6 David Duff
    February 25, 2010

    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!

  7. #7 Bud
    February 25, 2010

    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.

  8. #8 Chris O'Neill
    February 25, 2010

    David Duff:

    I was suggesting that the ‘warmers’ were more vituperative than the sceptics

    Thus the hate mail campaign by “sceptics” against climate scientists is justified.

  9. #9 jakerman
    February 25, 2010

    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.php#comment-2302022).

  10. #10 David Duff
    February 25, 2010

    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 …

  11. #11 Amused
    February 25, 2010

    Mr. O’Neill, I would gently urge you to …. blah blah blah

    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.

  12. #12 Joseph
    February 25, 2010

    As far as “idiot savants” go, he’s well to the left of the spectrum.

    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?

  13. #13 Amused
    February 25, 2010

    Joseph I thought that comment was witty but then I’m intellectually disabled myself (that genius Duff will likely support my opinion in this).

  14. #14 Chris O'Neill
    February 25, 2010

    David Duff:

    I was suggesting that the ‘warmers’ were more vituperative than the sceptics

    Thus the hate mail campaign by “sceptics” against climate scientists is justified.

    The single premise you offer does not justify the conclusion you reach.

    So your suggestion has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread. Thanks for making it clear you’re a troll.

  15. #15 P. Lewis
    February 25, 2010

    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.

  16. #16 jakerman
    February 25, 2010

    Duff either rejects or ignores our [earlier exchanges regarding equivalence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_hate_mail_campaign_against.php#comment-2302022).

    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.php#comment-2301823).

    From these quotes these men are raising the posibility of legal action again people for wrong doing. Krugemen gives his opinion that:

    >*I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — 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.

  17. #17 michaelw
    February 26, 2010

    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.

  18. #18 stepanovich
    February 27, 2010

    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.

  19. #19 Climate Journal
    February 27, 2010

    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/

  20. #20 Lotharsson
    February 28, 2010

    …there’s a huge amount of money in the climate issue…

    Indeed. For example the fossil fuel companies…er, wait, that’s what you meant, right?

    This money is being sucked out of the taxpayers. It’s no surprise that people are angry!

    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!

Current ye@r *