Comments on: Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community

By: wajid amjad

wajid amjad — Fri, 06 Nov 2015 17:58:10 +0000

I think that climate change is something that should be taken more serious of. Making people aware of climate change can produce number of changes. We should work together to solve this issue, through different methods.

By: magnocrat

magnocrat — Mon, 18 May 2015 12:54:52 +0000

There is no doubt that denialism is well funded. The funding is supplied by those who stand to lose most by accepting the change in climate.
The failure of science to apply its benifits globally is just as serious. Two thirds of the world’s population have no access to safe affordable surgery.
Two wrongs don’t make a right but in highlighting one we must not brush another under the carpet.

By: Russell Seitz

Russell Seitz — Sun, 17 May 2015 02:34:25 +0000

“Thus, a public discourse that asserts that the IPCC has exaggerated the threat of climate change may cause scientists who disagree to think their views are in the minority, and they may therefore feel inhibited from speaking out in public.”

So much for The Heartland Institute. What possible chilling effect on discourse could misrepresentation of criticism of past and present global systems models , or calls for the criminalization of disbelief in the agenda of The Nation Institute possibly have?

I must ask Ham Fish what he thinks.

By: Desertphile

Desertphile — Fri, 15 May 2015 18:19:00 +0000

"Too bad there isn’t a vast conspiracy out there." We could start one. There is already a secret, sinister cabal of scientists living in and around Los Alamos who are studying.... but no, I won't say. Never mind.

By: Desertphile

Desertphile — Fri, 15 May 2015 18:10:59 +0000

A sane, healthy society would protect its scientists; there would be a federally funded program to provide legal defense against abusive and frivolous law suits. I would suggest this to a legislator, but I don’t know any.

By: Obstreperous Applesauce

Obstreperous Applesauce — Fri, 15 May 2015 17:47:54 +0000

Essentially: a sort of Battered Scientist Syndrome.

“…self indulgent contrived nefarious sophistic yammering…”
I’d go further and add in the dynamics of bullying. So if there’s no mechanism for mediation, what’s left is fighting back…

Hard.

By: zebra

zebra — Fri, 15 May 2015 16:57:31 +0000

A point I’ve tried to make many times, and it is often met with hostility.

Who is controlling or “framing” the discussion, and perhaps even influencing how resources are directed? Probably the professional sales/propaganda people for the denialists, not scientists.

Perhaps the climate scientific community needs to play less defense and look to how it can engage the public. Too bad there isn’t a vast conspiracy out there.

By: Desertphile

Desertphile — Fri, 15 May 2015 16:29:28 +0000

I sent the whole swatting article to my Kindle reader for reading later.

Given the observed fact that the tobacco industry engaged in the same behavior, perhaps resulting in many hundreds of thousands of premature deaths, I wonder if physicians and other health care professionals at the time also had their opinions swayed along the three points this study presents.