McCarthyism and Climate Change

[wtmusic]

"Is it strange that Sarah Palin, who once thought Africa was a country, now quotes verbatim from emails stolen from Britain's Climatic Research Unit or that Lord Monckton, a leading English climate denier, addresses a Tea Party rally in America?

Climate denial has outgrown the early lobbyist strategies of oil corporations and conservative think tanks. Since 1997, Republican rhetoric characteristically linked global warming to left-wing beliefs. But recently, tactics to discredit the opponents of climate change have expanded into efforts to intimidate them into silence as climate denial pitches itself to a right-wing, populist audience.

One symptom of this shift is the ongoing campaign of cyber-bullying directed at climate scientists themselves. Any climate scientist in the news now receives a torrent of aggressive and abusive emails. As Stanford's prominent climatologist Stephen Schneider says: "It's ugly death threat stuff; 'You belong in jail,' 'You should be executed.' never happened... a year ago. now it's off the charts."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/giles-slade/mccarthyism-and-climate-c_b_535460.html

[Statistical]

1. This is a genuine concern

People working on effects of climate change have often been ridiculed or minimized but in the last year it has moved beyond that.

It is terrorism.

[kristopher]

2. Tactics similar to what the nuclear industry is using.

Any scientists that challenge the industry's claims are attacked with the intent to marginalize them and minimize the import of their findings.

You do it on a routine basis. In fact you engaged in precisely that type of disinformation just a little while ago in the UAE thread regarding the Severance study.

[Statistical]

3. You got to turn everything into an anti-nuclear rant.

I am terrorist now? Wow. New low Kris.

[joshcryer]

15. Please name an instance of the modern nuclear industry using *death threats.*

[kristopher]

4. reply to post #3: You characterized it as terrorism, not me.

I said you were engaging in the behavior.

Here is the most recent evidence:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x243415#243473

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. Mr. Pot? I believe you've met Mr. Kettle?

Honestly...

[Viking12]

6. Sorry Kristopher, I'm no fan of the Nukular Apologists on this board but..

True, they're generally an abrasive lot and there is one here that often reaches the vitriolic level of the climate deniers. However, your equivalence is way off base here; certainly the link post by Statistical is not anything in the same ballpark as the conspiracy crap spread by palin, monkton, and the hate radio folks.

[kristopher]

7. There is much more involved than what those you cite (palin etal) are saying

The fundamental tactic is to destroy all legitimate sources of information so that the public has no one but the propaganda artist to turn to, which is why "intellectual elites" are such a favorite target. At the practical level it works by finding some small nitpicking thing that is either wrong (but essentially irrelevant) or can be made to appear wrong.

If that doesn't work the follow up strategy is to attempt to turn people away from the discussion by making an endless series of false claims that either must be rebutted time after time after time, or by turning it into a clash of personalities. Either way, people soon turn away while retaining nothing more than the impression that "there is a disagreement".

There is more, but the fact is that the strategy being used by the nuclear apologists here employs all of those tactics and more.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x243415

[Confusious]

8. You engage in all those things you listed.

I could also list them, but we all know what I'm talking about.

And right now, you're using the RW debate tactic "I'm not saying he's one of them, but he does all the same things"

Demonizing your opponents. You have truly sunk to an unbelievable low.

[NNadir]

10. A fundemental tactic of fundementalists is to claim that their "information" is legitimate.

Exactly and precisely all of the anti-nuke "information" is precisely of this quality:

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-index">Let Us Now Read From the Gospel According to Saint Mark (Z. Jacobson?)

The anti-nukes are a very whiny bunch. I suppose that all of the whining is mostly a red herring to distract attention from the fact that they hate the science of Seaborg, Bethe, and Fermi because they have proved preternaturally unable to pass a single math course in their entire pathetic lives.

[Kolesar]

12. Flame bait...eom

[joshcryer]

17. Like citing the Cato Institute (a teabagger favorite), while defending their definitions?

[joshcryer]

16. He's been calling pro-nuclear people right wingers for weeks now...

...it's downright disruptive.

[kristopher]

19. That isn't true, I said nuclear power is a right wing darling

And that people who support nuclear power are motivated by values that place energy security concerns above environmental concerns. There are lots of reasons to be a Dem, but you can't claim that you are motivated by environmental values when you endorse a technology that is clearly a blight on the environment.

Your assertion regarding the Cato Institute is likewise false and self serving. I did not "cite" the Cato Institute nor did I "defend their definitions". YOU and another nuclear fan tried to claim that the position of Amory Lovins and the position of the Cato Institute were the same - they are not. While both oppose subsidies for nuclear power, Lovins does not support nuclear power and the Cato Institute DOES support nuclear power. In your zeal you attempted to misrepresent the position of the Cato Institute to defend your indefensible initial assertions.

It was a perfect example of the attempts I referred to above by nuclear supporters to discredit the "intellectual elites" that they do not agree with.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=240421

[joshcryer]

20. You were the one who brought up Lovins.

[kristopher]

23. The thread header was "Why is the Cato Institute suddenly reading out of Amory Lovins' playbook".

[joshcryer]

25. I didn't make the thread.

[joshcryer]

21. You were clearly defending Cato's definition of "subsidies" there.

Thanks for linking the thread again.

[kristopher]

22. Relaying accurate information isn't "defending"

[joshcryer]

26. Heh, coal, gas and oil don't get subsidies.

What a progressive you are! :)

Externalized costs of coal, gas, and oil are irrelevant!

[joshcryer]

24. Yes, you've dropped the rhetoric because many of those "deleted messages" are you...

...calling people right wingers and basically being disruptive. I found out that if you alert on abusive language the moderators do their job. They're good people.

But at the height of things: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x217096#217504

Calling people here right wingers, explicitly, was not past you. You've just changed your approach since you can't get away with direct name calling.

Hey, I stopped calling you a liar for similar reasons. Now I just write "dishonest." All in the sake of heightened and civilized discourse.

[NNadir]

9. There is NOT ONE anti-nuke on this website who has a clue what EVIDENCE is.

[Kablooie]

11. It is insane! There is no reason to deny it today.

Cimate change denial has devolved into a mindless mantra with no evidence and no goal.

So much of today's idiotic "political discourse" has no purpose except to sow dissent between the right and the left.

It's just simple minded, transparent propaganda but the right lauds it as if it were the word of God.

I am constantly amazed at how gullible and foolish so many Americans are.

We are a stupid people at heart.

[Nederland]

13. It goes both ways

Global warming skeptics have been:

1) Threatened by Congressmen with jail time (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/308598/doubting_global_warming_could_be_treason.html?cat=75)
2) Threaten physically by Greenpeace activists (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/apr/06/greenpeace-gene-hashmi-climate-sceptics)
3) Suggested for Nuremberg style trials by Jim Hansen (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange).

Clearly the lack of civility extends to both sides, which is a shame because it is science itself that suffers. It is said that the difference between science and religion lies in how both treat their heretics. Well, on that basis the science of climate change left the realm of science a long time ago. The first sign was when all sense of nuance left the discussion. It is no longer possible for a scientist to make a specific criticism of a single aspect of the climate change canon without being throw whole hog into the skeptic camp. Case in point is what has happened to Roger Pielke Sr. Here is a man who believes that global warming is real and believes that it represents a dire threat to the planet--but gets tossed out of the church of true believers for his audacious assertion that deforestation is as large or larger cause of CO2 increases as fossil fuel emissions. Sad.

[wtmusic]

14. What punishment would you suggest for executives who spend billions

on misleading propaganda that's putting the future of the planet in danger?

If it's true that global warming is responsible for 150,000 deaths every year, shouldn't that be considered a crime against humanity?

[Nederland]

18. Go ahead and try

But realize first what you would have to prove:

1) You would have to prove that the company in question created enough CO2 by iteself to cause the warming.
2) You would have to prove that the CEO in question was in that position long enough to have caused the warming in question.

Think you'd be able to do that? Please, go waste your time doing something more productive--like inventing a source of power that is better and cheaper than coal.

[joshcryer]

27. The level of complicty by that one CEO isn't much worse than all the people who...

...drove cars or used electricity during his tenure. It's not like any of them have any significant power to stop anything.

[Viking12]

28. Fail

1) RFK jr. is not a congressman.
2) Vague twitters are not threats of physical violence.
3) Hansen never used the analogy to Nuremberg; RW deniers with a persecution complex did. He drew parallels to the tobacco trials.