The latest climate scientist to come under fire from the climate denial extreme is Katharine Hayhoe, Atmospheric Scientist at Texas Tech University.
After coming into the public eye as the author of proposed chapter on climate change for GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s forthcoming book, Hayhoe had her name and email contact published by the ever-cuddly Marc “climate scientists should be flogged” Morano, grand Wazir of the Sharia school of Climate denial.
The climate deniers are kicking puppies now.
That was my reaction when I heard that Katharine Hayhoe was being deluged with hate mail after stories surfaced that she had written a chapter on climate change for Newt Gingrich’s upcoming book, a chapter quickly dropped when conservative commentators began making a big fuss about it. Similar attacks have been leveled against MIT scientist Kerry Emanuel following his speech at a forum for Republicans concerned about climate change. The “frenzy of hate” he’s received include threats to his wife.
Anyone who has ever listened to Hayhoe would be as sickened as I was over the vitriolic attacks she has endured in the past week. Being both a climate scientist and an evangelical Christian, Hayhoe speaks to faith communities, explaining the science of climate change in easy-to-understand language and also offering the spiritual perspective on global warming: What would Jesus do about climate change?
I had the privilege to interview Dr. Hayhoe this past weekend at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business, where the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise was conducting a workshop and Town Hall meeting entitled “Cures for Climate Confusion”. (web video of the public Town Hall meeting here)
I wish to thank the organizers, Andy Hoffman of the Erb Institute, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, for graciously, and inexplicably, welcoming me when I arrived somewhat, uhm, unexpectedly, to the gathering.
More on Medieval enthusiast Marc Morano below:
Having seen Ms Hayhoe repeat the same concepts on many channels, I can happily report that the “intimidation” did not work!
courage.
google it.
Maurizio, your remark could happily be interpreted as saying: ‘maybe some real action is needed’.
I’m sure Morano and co can push a couple of Anders Behring Breiviks some more.
NevenA – only a very twisted mind would find any support in what I write for any kind of intimidation.
Anyway I doubt we will ever see any evidence of intimidation against Ms Hayhoe, in the past or in the future. Unless “there are some nasty people using keyboards on the ‘net” is categorized as “intimidation”.
In an interview from Skeptical Science,
“I mean I got an email the other day so obscene I had to file a police report. They mentioned my child. It had all kinds of sexual perversions in it – it just makes your skin crawl”
Ah Christopher, that’s just some “nasty people using keyboards on the net”. If it’s true, of course! It probably isn’t, because all warmists are notorious liars (especially the ones with science degrees) and all the skeptics are gentlemen (such as this one).
Even the “intimidation” needs to be FUDded. Good job, Maurizio!
NevenA – I thought you had trivialized the issue enough. I was wrong.
Thank you for admitting you were wrong.
NevenA – you’re despicable truly. There’s a child involved, yet you think nothing of mentioning a guy who’s killed many children. It’s shocking to meet people like you, who literally nourish their convictions by feeding them off the dead. Go zombie somewhere else.
There’s a child involved
Is there really? “I doubt we will ever see any evidence”.
And even if it’s true: “I can happily report that the “intimidation” did not work!”
Well…I hope we will never see evidence because if there is any now, it’s with the police, and if we will ever see that it’ll be because somebody has done something quite bad. And I doubt that’ll happen.
So once again I doubt the evidence will ever be made public. I myself appear in a “hit list” as skeptical of chemtrails…
Yes there are nasty people on the internet …
Now we’re getting somewhere.
Maurizio, imagine someone nasty sees that hit list and decides to send you a mail threatening your wife and children in a very, very nasty way. Such that you go to the police to file a report.
Now imagine this doesn’t deter you from speaking up about chemtrails.
Now imagine some chemtrail-fanatic sarcastically saying: “I can happily report that the “intimidation” did not work!”
These are the things that make nasty people on the Internet nasty. Openly doubting or downplaying the intimidation of Dr Hayhoe is nothing other than nasty. Why is it so important to you that you have to do that in your first comment?
Well, I’m not a fanatic, I don’t intimidate, I don’t send nasty emails, I don’t publish hit lists, I expect some nasty reaction in writing because it’s the price of freedom on the internet, and I don’t mind if people don’t believe evidence I don’t present to them…
…especially since too many have already presented themselves as victims of something whose gravity has later been put in doubt.
Those victim of “intimidation” who turn up on HuffPo aren’t the real concern…they have a lot of support already…it’s the ones alone and forgotten the real scandal.
That’s a very nice mini Gish Gallop. Thank you.
What I think happened is this: you wrote a comment without really thinking it through. As most of your comments here, it came across as very sarcastic, openly doubting or downplaying the intimidation of Dr Hayhoe. In a worst case it could even be interpreted as ‘obviously the intimidation must become heavier for her to stop repeating the same concepts’ (as I pointed out).
Why you so impulsively (or compulsively) have to write that comment and show your true face, I don’t know. I often suspect skeptics of lacking empathy. You know, white, middle-aged males who think they are fantastic because they coincidentally (being born in the right place at the right time) have it good, and everyone should just be like them or at least acknowledge their superiority and obey.
Or perhaps it is just utter hate of climate scientists resulting from undeterrably believing in a worldwide conspiracy, involving tens of thousands of bright minds around the world. That they deserve to be threatened (and quite a few ‘skeptics’ would argue for worse things).
I don’t know. There are a lot of different motives for everyone.
But either way, your first comment was very nasty. I know you will never admit it. I don’t even mind you thinking it. You just shouldn’t write it down. Because if it’s true that people receive threats to their and their family’s well-being (which can be very stressful and hurtful, I guess when putting myself in their shoes, ie empathy), then you are nothing less than an absolute a**hole for being so sarcastic with that first comment.
You don’t get a nasty reaction. You get me telling you that you’re being silly, which isn’t quite the same thing.
Neither, and this bit is important, are you a public figure – somebody openly doing your day job as a scientist at a public institution. It’s not like the public at large readily have access to personal details like your work address and can find out where you live, where you go to church etc and then send menacing emails threatening to come and do harm to you or your family.
This kind of intimidation is really not the same thing as a bit of boisterous Internet banter on youtube. And it’s kinda weasely to suggest it is.
NevenA – a Gish Gallop in writing??? Blame your eyes, not me. And thanks for sharing all your prejudices. In the meanwhile if anybody wanted to intimidate Ms Hayhoe, they have not succeeded. That’s the fact.
Then if you wish to build fantasies on top of that, be my guest.
“I know you will never admit it.”
Thanks Jason. The atmosphere here is quite nice if we don’t consider comparisons to mass murderers 🙂
NevenA will interpret that as an exhortation to insult me. Poor fellow (him, not me).