 |
 |
But Chris, wasn't the thrust of Black's article that such attacks were beneath honest individuals? I feel that Romm attacked Black somewhat, who feared he might get a new tranche of poison letters from unreasonable people aligned with the scientific side. You might say that Black was over sensitive for a journalist, but he was responding, and was not on the offensive. cheers, Tom ________________________________ From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Keene [[log in to unmask]] Sent: 01 October 2010 15:17 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [CCG] "warmist" crowd sometimes plays dirty also..... sigh!! I just thought it might dissuade Black from writing similar articles attacking people like Joe Romm Chris On 01/10/2010 12:08, Oliver Tickell wrote: Re Chris's suggestion that we should all email Richard Black, Chris, you fail to say why you think we should do that or what we should say. Would that be to praise him for his studious protest and objective reporting of complex environmental issues? Or to protest at the fact that he has written an article, reporting on what looks like some pretty sound research, indicating that the end of summer Arctic sea ice may not take place quite so soon as has previously been suggested? Joe Romm's article looks to me motivated by personal belief and prejudice more than science. Richard Black is doing a good job of presenting the science accurately and intelligently. And that is surely what we need. There is more than enough hysterical ranting around as it is. Oliver Tickell. ________________________________ From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sam Geall Sent: 01 October 2010 10:25 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [CCG] "warmist" crowd sometimes plays dirty also..... sigh!! I think it's a good idea to read Richard Black's previous, rather disturbing account of the kinds of email abuse climate scientists tend to receive. It is in that context he is writing. (By the way, I largely agree with Joe Romm's critique of Black's report -- but that doesn't necessarily mean an email campaign is an effective strategy.) Scientist leaves behind a climate of abuse Richard Black<http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/richard_black/> | 15:43 UK time, Tuesday, 20 July 2010 I didn't know Stephen Schneider<http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/>, the Stanford University climatologist who has just died from an apparent heart attack, well enough to pen a comprehensive account of his life and works. RealClimate has an appreciation<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/a-eulogy-to-stephen-schneider/> by his close colleague Ben Santer; and the Los Angeles Times<http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-me-stephen-schneider-20100720,0,254147.story>and Washington Post<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/19/AR2010071905108.html> have obituaries, among others. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has an In Memoriam note [46.60KB PDF]<http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/schneider/steve%20schneider.pdf> that describes Dr Schneider as... "...a major contributor to the IPCC and one of its fiercest supporters... a warrior for honesty and a dedicated campaigner for giving people the complete story. "Steve's scholarly approach, combining world-class research with deep commitment to broad communication, set a remarkable standard of excellence." As a journalist covering climate change through the Kyoto conference of 1997, the Bush administration's decision to absent itself from that arena, the seminal IPCC report<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7098902.stm> of 2007 and last December's UN summit in Copenhagen<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen>, Stephen Schneider was someone whose influence you could hardly miss, from his pioneering work on developing numerical models of climate to the interviews and conversations and speeches through which he sought to convey the implications of all that science to the public. Of course, that didn't necessarily make him a popular man. I last spoke to him about three months ago. The context was abuse: the vitriolic, sustained, personalised and sometimes apparently organised abuse that has been levelled against scientists in the climate field, including him. It materialises in blogs and newspaper articles that appear to start from the standpoint that everyone in the field is corrupt, incompetent and crooked. It streams into scientists' e-mail inboxes. Some of those receiving it see it as a deliberate, malicious and politically-motivated campaign of harassment. Australian journalist Clive Hamilton has documented the threats and abuse levelled against scientists in his country in a series of online articles commencing with "Bullying, lies and the rise of right-wing climate denial<http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826189.htm>". He cites cases of scientists being compared in emails to Pol Pot, and being told that unless they stopped what they were doing, they would "end up collateral damage in the war". From my own enquiries, such harassment does not appear routine in the UK, though it does happen. Prominent climate scientists I spoke to have encountered abusive e-mails, some registering a crescendo in the run-up to the Copenhagen conference, and others noting that it emerged whenever they published a paper or spoke in the media. It has reached its apogee, however, in North America - not least in the threatening e-mails and indeed events that have followed Stephen Schneider, Ben Santer and several of their colleagues in recent years - events that the former detailed to some extent in his book Science as a Contact Sport<http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/SAACS/saacs_book.htm>. In one of his recent e-mails to me, he said that title was probably "too wimpy an analogy" given how far things had gone. We're not only talking here about messages accusing scientists of being communist traitors whose raison d'etre is world government - though there are enough of those - but threats to life and limb. We're talking about a threat perceived to be serious enough that a prominent climate researcher had to be escorted to last December's American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting by security guards. We're talking about a dead rat left on a doorstep around midnight, the perpetrator driving off hurling abuse in - perhaps inevitably - a huge 4x4. Some of the scientists have been most concerned bya posting on the website of the white supremacist organisation Stormfront<http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t694484/>. It shows photos of eight prominent people working in climate change, either as scientists or on the policy side - including Stephen Schneider - and labels them all as "Jews". Further down, a comment on the thread contends that the "global warming scam has always borne the stench of the same old Jewish liars, thieves, swindlers and murderers". Dr Schneider regularly engaged with scientists and politicians sceptical of climate science, through peer-reviewed publications, books, advice to a succession of US administrations, and the IPCC. But how is anyone supposed to engage with Stormfront? Here is perhaps an issue that ought to concern people sceptical of human-induced climate change. It is a broad spectrum. But how does propagation of the "Jewish liars" or "world government" arguments affect perceptions of those who challenge the mainstream picture along scientific lines? Doesn't the climate of abuse overshadow the real issues that sceptics are flagging up, and reduce the chances of "sceptical" science being taken seriously? And what is the abuse supposed to change? Does anyone really expect committed scientists to stop doing science just because they are labelled "scum" or "paid liars"? It's an approach to winning hearts and minds that must have a limited chance of success. Stephen Schneider didn't feel inclined to pull back. In a recent e-mail to me and others, he decried the attempt by Senator James Inhofe [639.15KB PDF]<http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=7db3fbd8-f1b4-4fdf-bd15-12b7df1a0b63> and others to seek legal redress against 17 climate scientists, including Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, as "a smokescreen of denial and deceit". He recounted that he was working an extra four hours every evening trying to put the record straight, as he saw it, on issues such as "ClimateGate" and alleged mistakes in IPCC assessments - "No time to stop now..." On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Chris Keene <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Should we all be emailing Richard Black? Chris -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [CCG] "warmist" crowd sometimes plays dirty also..... sigh!! Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 05:40:49 -0000 From: Thecanadianone <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/09/something_new_and_not_altogeth.html 'Warmist' attack smacks of 'sceptical' intolerance Richard Black<http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/richard_black/> | 16:42 UK time, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 It seems that something new, and not altogether welcome, may be happening in the politicking over climate change. I have written before of the orchestrated villification that comes the way of climate scientists<http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/07/i_didnt_know_stephen_schneider.html> from some people and organisations who are unconvinced of the case for human-induced climate change - "sceptics", "deniers", as you wish. Journalists, including your humble correspondent, receive our fair share too. This week, for the first time, I am seeing the same pattern from their opponents. Joe Romm<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_J._Romm>, the physicist-cum-government-advisor-cum-polemicist, posted a blog entry highly critical of the Arctic ice article I wrote last week<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11322310>. Headlined "Dreadful climate story by BBC's Richard Black"<http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/16/richard-black-bbc-bad-climate-reporting/>, it takes me to task, essentially, for not mentioning human-induced climate change explicitly. At least, that is the surface complaint; what my omission hides, he hints heavily, is an agenda aimed at downplaying the impacts of humanity's greenhouse gas emissions. He then gives my email address and invites his readers to send in complaints. Many have, perhaps swayed by judgemental terms in his post such as "spin", "inexcusable", and "mis-reporting", with several citing his interpretation as gospel truth. He is as entitled to his views as anyone else. But this is, at least in my experience, the first time that "warmers" - those who, like Dr Romm, believe climate change is taking us to hell in a handcart and who lobby for more urgent action on the issue - have resorted to the internet equivalent of taking banners onto the street in an attempt to influence reporting of the issue. It may be something that other journalists have seen before - I can only report that I have not. Always, in my experience, it has come from the side of "the debate" that Dr Romm abhors. I am wondering, therefore, whether it does presage the start of something - whether it is now going to be routine for those of us who attempt to report on climate change objectively to be on the receiving end of barrages of critical mail, stimulated by bloggers with a definable agenda, whenever we write something that does not tally with their agenda. What about scientists? If researchers publish papers on climate change that do not include cataclysmic warnings of where the world is heading, will they receive the same treatment? Anyone who shares Dr Romm's views should, I suggest, be hoping this is not the case. As I have asked before in relation to pressure from the "sceptical" camp, what makes anyone think that organised abuse is an effective lobbying tactic? Rather, it takes us further down the spiral of confrontation, where no-one listens to anyone with an opposing point of view, where every word has to be weighed for ideological purity rather than accuracy, and where free and effective discourse becomes impossible. __._,_.___ Reply to sender<mailto:rmayhew@ns.sympatico.ca?subject=%22warmist%22%20crowd%20sometimes%20plays%20dirty%20also.....%20sigh%21%21> | Reply to group<mailto:ClimateConcern@yahoogroups.com?subject=%22warmist%22%20crowd%20sometimes%20plays%20dirty%20also.....%20sigh%21%21> | Reply via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateConcern/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxbGIwMTFlBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwNTUxMjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1OTQ4OTI2BG1zZ0lkAzE4ODEzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTI4NTkxMTY2Mw--?act=reply&messageNum=18813> | Start a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateConcern/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYmhvMDc3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwNTUxMjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1OTQ4OTI2BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTI4NTkxMTY2Mw--> Messages in this topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateConcern/message/18813;_ylc=X3oDMTM2dWVvanRrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwNTUxMjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1OTQ4OTI2BG1zZ0lkAzE4ODEzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTI4NTkxMTY2MwR0cGNJZAMxODgxMw--> (1) Recent Activity: * New Members<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateConcern/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNGJoa2FyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwNTUxMjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1OTQ4OTI2BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyODU5MTE2NjM-?o=6> 2 Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateConcern;_ylc=X3oDMTJlamU0ZjNrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwNTUxMjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1OTQ4OTI2BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTI4NTkxMTY2Mw--> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This is the Global e-Forum on Climate Change and Global Warming. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This email group was founded and is managed by Conserve Africa Foundation, London, UK http://www.conserveafrica.org.uk/ PLEASE MAKE A DONATION: http://www.conserveafrica.org.uk/donate.php---------------------------------------------------------------------- Post message: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subscribe: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Unsubscribe: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> --------------------------------------------------------------------- Group Moderators and Managers: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- .Ross Mayhew: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>, Canada .Ernest Rukangira, [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>, London, UK -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Please post only messages related to climate change and global warming and related business. Please d0 not send your unsubscription request to the whole group. If you use this list for spamming or sending mails about other subjects we will ban and remove you from the list. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- MARKETPLACE Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=15oe3ipup/M=493064.13983314.14041046.13298430/D=groups/S=1705948926:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1285918863/L=7a9d2fbe-cd1e-11df-950b-174bbcc09304/B=19YWIUoGYqc-/J=1285911663437446/K=rOfp5wV1TrdAyzCIUqVivQ/A=6060255/R=0/SIG=1194m4keh/*http://us.toolbar.yahoo.com/?.cpdl=grpj> ________________________________ Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=15oi502rv/M=493064.13814537.14041040.10835568/D=groups/S=1705948926:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1285918863/L=7a9d2fbe-cd1e-11df-950b-174bbcc09304/B=2NYWIUoGYqc-/J=1285911663437446/K=rOfp5wV1TrdAyzCIUqVivQ/A=6078812/R=0/SIG=114ae4ln1/*http://dogandcatanswers.yahoo.com/> ________________________________ Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=15o179eon/M=493064.14012770.13963757.13298430/D=groups/S=1705948926:MKP1/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1285918863/L=7a9d2fbe-cd1e-11df-950b-174bbcc09304/B=2dYWIUoGYqc-/J=1285911663437446/K=rOfp5wV1TrdAyzCIUqVivQ/A=6015306/R=0/SIG=11vlkvigg/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/hobbiesandactivitieszone/> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbXI1bnZzBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwNTUxMjMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1OTQ4OTI2BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjg1OTExNjYz> Switch to: Text-Only<mailto:[log in to unmask]:%20Traditional>, Daily Digest<mailto:[log in to unmask]:%20Digest> • Unsubscribe<mailto:[log in to unmask]> • Terms of Use<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . __,_._,___ -- Sam Geall Deputy Editor chinadialogue.net<http://chinadialogue.net> Room 3-717, Lifangting Plaza, 1 Shanyuan St., Haidian District, Beijing China, 100080 Beijing mobile: (+86)15101605764 London mobile: (+44) (0)7894469502 skype: samgeall No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3169 - Release Date: 09/30/10 19:34:00