Add a Comment
Save my information
Very first paragraph…….
The only evidence that I can find of scientists jeopardizing their careers is when they speak out in OPPOSITION to the so-called scientific consensus on the dangers of CO2 warming.
I don’t know who you people are and I don’t know why you live in a world so clearly the opposite of reality.
But I’m sick of it. The only climate scientists that I know of who’ve lost jobs and had their reputations destroyed weren’t advocating for climate action, but the exact opposite.
You People are despicable. On one hand you want to ignore the pushback against professionals who don’t go along with the current orthodoxy, on the other hand you want to pretend that YOU are the ones who are in danger of losing careers.
This is an excellent work. But according to the term “Karma” (that the actions of the organism, and the moral consequences that result from it). So why neglect the wave side, which is the most damaging cause of climate, especially human emission (infrasonic and electromagnetic waves resulting from our behavior and our diet), which contributes either positively or negatively to climate chemistry, and therefore, any work done by mankind will be saved as energy, and this energy is either useful or harmful, depends on the way we behave. For example of this is the bad climate of cities in some East Asian countries, whose populations eat meat of predatory and uncleanness animals. So we must first correct the course of our behaviors, through guiding communities about healthy foods and positive behaviors.
So if more than 500 scientists warned us in 2013 that unless nations take immediate actions, the Earth’s life-support systems will most likely suffer irretrievable damage by the time today’s children reach middle age, and those immediate actions clearly weren’t taken, where does that laeve us now?
Mr. Alastair L, the IPCC is NOT an advocacy organization; it is charged with gathering the latest information and organizing it into a coherent set of documents. It has been excoriated by climate science deniers who have made mountains out of minor errors. It focuses on “just the facts, ma’am”. Yes, they have often underestimated the magnitude of developing changes. I think this is appropriate because credibility requires conservative rigor. Advocacy is for other groups.
As to the “no one single event can be attributed to CC” matter, that was because nobody had developed a compelling attribution methodology until recently. The early efforts in this direction go back at least twenty years, and the idea of using climate models to statistically analyze scenarios is more than a decade old, but it wasn’t considered solid enough until just the last few years. Nowadays we’re seeing lots of these attribution studies showing up, all of them based on solid previous work. See, for example:
If they are going to join the discussion they need to do a much better job than the IPCC has. Professional reticence to say anything even remotely contentious (in a scientific sense not politically) meant that polar ice melt rates were massively under-projected for a decade. Also this “no one single event can be attributed to CC” stuff has to stop… I think the good ones should speak out, especially as their careers become more senior, but also younger scientists who will speak to their generation perhaps more effortlessly.
Thanks, Ms. Chen. I enjoyed the work you applied here and how you wove what you acquired into a cohesive fabric worth thinking more about over time. And the way it makes me look back at myself, too.
Pretty sure I read the above comments right. On a website dedicated to science and an article regarding the dilemma of advocacy a long-winded multi-comment complains of trolling and tells scientists to shut up. It would be ironic if it were written by a humorist. As uncomfortable as the name-calling may be (Nazi and “so-called ‘scientists'”, etc) it represents a rather outspoken demographic that you may find for example in your workplace. Thus, the tiresome and seemingly futile need to speak reasonably.
Regarding the comment, if “politicians are by definition .. propagandists”, then it could be accepted that legislation is secondary to propaganda. All the more reason for scientists to help lawmakers choose their propaganda wisely.
OK, Mr. McGrath, everybody is a propagandist. That includes you, of course. So why is it OK for you to engage in political advocacy but not OK for scientists to engage in political advocacy?
Once again you refer to “Marxist Climate Alarmists”. You offer not a shred of evidence to support your label, so I’m going to refer to you as a “Nazi Science Denier”. Fair enough? Or would you prefer “Fascist Science Denier”?
You claim that climate scientists have been advocating for “a massive carbon tax”. I challenge you to present a quotation from a reputable scientific organization advocating such a tax. You can find individuals, I’m sure, but I can just as easily present quotations from crazy individuals advocating all sorts of nonsense. Let’s see something from a reputable group, such as the NAS or the AAAS. Or, for that matter, from any of the several hundred reputable scientific organizations the world over that have published statements endorsing climate science. Here’s one such list:
Not a single reputable scientific organization has published a statement denying climate change science. Not one.
As for your other crazy statements, I challenge you to back them up with actual sources. Provide the quotation and the URL, please. Otherwise, I think it fair to dismiss your claims as ravings.
I’m with Chris Crawford here. I think we need multiple voices to know what’s “really going on here,” however. Old ideas like Capitalism and Marxism have contained MANY of the problems we face, but perhaps SOME of the solutions. Societies have, in the past, lived in more harmony with the earth, but perhaps not so much in western recorded history, and not under such a materialistic lifestyle. It REALLY comes down to a crisis of values. If we value material acquisition more than life itself, then we will get what we desire. We cannot any longer take ANYTHING for granted, such as air, food, water and land, nor the biology they support. Time to DITCH the “economic” dollar value of everything and quit ignoring “externalities.”
Mr. Crawford, advocating for a political agenda makes one a propagandist regardless of profession. So yes, it would apply to lawyers, dentists, carpenters, and scientists. Since politicians are by definition already propagandists that would be redundant. Perhaps Mr Crawford is not aware that AMAPAC and the NRA are PACs, that is what they do – advocate political issues. The American Bar Association, however, does not endorse candidates, make political contributions, or advocate for any political position, contrary to Mr. Crawford’s belief.
Mr. Crawford apparently prefers to pretend ignorance for all those years Marxist Climate Alarmists have been advocating, and continue to advocate for a massive carbon tax. It is has well been established that these fanatics want to tax all fossil fuel production into extinction and return humanity to the stone age. Furthermore, these Climate Alarmist extremists advocate killing all those who disagree with them. Sounds an awful lot like 1930s NAZI Germany to me. Let’s not forget that NAZIs were left-wing Marxist socialists fascists, just like the current batch of Climate Alarmist fanatics.
Mr. McGrath writes “Scientists who push an agenda are not scientists.” Why should not his dictum apply to lawyers, dentists, carpenters, politicians, or any citizens? Are scientists the only profession that should not advocate for political issues? Should the American Medical Association, the National Rifle Association, and the American Bar Association be dissuaded from advocating on political issues?
Mr. McGrath here advocates a political position; does that mean that he has lost all credibility?
I think not. However, his claims regarding climate science are absurd. No, scientists do NOT blame all humanity for the climate; they blame emissions of CO2 for slowly raising temperatures and thereby slowly changing climate.
No, their only solution is NOT to “massively increase the scope and size of government and to redistribute wealth through extensive taxation”. Indeed, among the many solutions offered, NONE of the sources I have seen suggest anything remotely like that.
Mr. McGrath’s final paragraph is a risible collection of rabid fantasies. If he wishes to have a rational discussion of the subject, I would be happy to explain what’s really going on here.
We’re all shocked that the word “commie” has fallen out of use in only a generation. Green Nazis united under the flag of 12 monkeys genocide have got to be communism. Right? Their drugged out EDM or rave music hippie commune version of nirvana is just an excuse to get drugged out and lay around helpless. We must increase energy to the wheels of our machine to stop them, the they that uses terms like ISIS and Taliban to describe themselves, meth addicts and all. Trump did stop ISIS in its tracks. He will also stop the green disease that is Nazi. Their leaders will fail and their masses will disorganize, mostly due to drug use. Trump has the power to change the world, putting the very bad people in prisons he will build all over the world, then on the moon for the very worst offenders. People on earth will get to the feel the security and safety of knowing the very bad people are far away and don’t know how to escape, operate spacecraft or their weapons systems. Watching them try to escape will be prime time TV. These new economies will create industries and provide jobs for many many people. Eventually corrections will be the entire economy. That is no BS.
“The worry is that advocating for an agenda may diminish their credibility, hurt their careers, and make them sitting ducks for political attacks online.” And they would be right to worry. Scientists who push an agenda are not scientists. They have become propagandists instead, and they do lose all credibility and rightfully so.
When you have idiots who blame all humanity for the climate on this planet, and then claim to be a “scientist” they are really nothing more than a troll. You will also notice that their ONLY solution is to massively increase the scope and size of government and to redistribute wealth through extensive taxation.
Why is it that Climate Change fanatics are always Marxist fascists? If they can’t come up with a better solution than depriving people of their livelihood and liberty then these so-called “scientists” need to shut their gob. Because no sane individual would willing be part of the NAZI world these Climate Alarmists want to create. We know they are just using Climate Change as a vehicle to push their Marxist fascist agenda, which is why nobody buys into their blatant BS.