Quite right too: every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned.
To be fair, our George has put his foot in his mouth on many an ocassion. But this quote does appear to be an attempt at tongue in cheek humour, as Louise suggests. The issue is not the nuance of intent, the issue is the violent language being used. I rather lazily picked it up from Bishophill and the discussion there.
It seems innocuous enough in context. Mea culpa. So is anyone who thinks Monbiot was actually calling for airline executives to be drowned. How many of them are currently suggesting totalitarian solutions to environmental problems? Anything you see on the skeptic side is simply a reaction to this, which is to be entirely expected when our freedoms are under threat. For a moment there I thought you said that people were sending razor blades by e-mail. Glad I got that wrong…. Once he says it, it sticks in your mind even if he takes it back, in a way, later.
The judge will tell them to ignore it, but the cow is already out of the barn.
Adolf Hitler in popular culture
I totally repudiate violence or threats of violence Louise. But one of the problems I have with the claims you make is that nobody that I know of has been convicted of such crimes and crimes they would be. So we have no idea who has committed such — and thus have any idea what their expertise and opinion on climate science is. It could even be agent provocateurs seeking to discredit genuine, peace-loving sceptics with a real concern for the science and for truth.
I repeat that I repudiate abuse and threats on all sides. I would point to the personal example of Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts as those that I have seen, on many occasions, eschewing such approaches. Of course. A series of apologies from leading climate players — starting with Mike Hulme, who seems to have got the black ball rolling with a comparison with holocaust deniers in — would go a long way. But if Trenberth receives some critical email now he thoroughly deserves it.
Not abusive, not threatening, but critical.
- Additional information?
- The Big Galoot.
- Article Metrics?
The address is clearly given at the bottom of p1 as:. Email: trenbert ucar. Indeed I would suggest that he may be doing Trenberth a favour by allowing the public an opportunity to show him just what a big hole he has dug for himself and his cause. And maybe to give him a last minute change of heart. But as a key man in Climategate, I suggest that he has only limited self-awareness and will nonetheless cahrge straight on in haste..
My apologies for characterizing it as such. Death threats and razor blades are truly awful examples of the extremes some ignorant people will go to in society. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if their identities are ever discovered. However, to suggest that they are somehow not responsible for their own actions by virtue of opinions expressed by others is, in my opinion, misguided.
The London police are currently searching for a young person who threw a molotov cocktail during a demonstration against tertiary education budget cuts, sponsored by various legitimate political organisations. Are they, rather than the bomb-thrower, responsible for that petrol bomb? I completely agree that such extreme instances of antisocial behaviour are completely repugnant and intolerable…. I have to conclude all this talk about razor blades being sent through the mail is BS.
No one has cited an actual example. As far as I know no actual razor blades have been sent, although I could be wrong. I see nothing wrong in calling these people deniers as that is an accurate description. The only people that I call deniers are those who deny that climate science has anything to tell us — these folk do exist although there are very few on this blog. Calling you an alarmist seems completely accurate does it not? Far more so than the description of denier, which can be completely inaccurate for most who think the policy positions of alarmists are wholely unjustified.
Rob Starkey — I do not believe that calling me an alaarmist is justified. I do not call for the immediate cessation of all fossil fuel burning for example — as a true alarmist would. Similarly, I do not call all who are skeptical that climate change is largely a result of man burning fossil fuels a denier. The fact that you create your personal definitions and defend the use of prejudicial terms vs. A scientific disagreement over the magnitude of anthropogenic contribution to climate does not justify such abusive ad hominem tactics.
David L. Hagen — I have personal reasons why I do not need to be reminded of the horrors of the holocaust. I believe that I have a right to use whatever civil language I believe accurately reflects my views and the use of the word denier as and when I feel fit is part of that right unless Dr Curry decides that it is not one that she wishes to see on this blog.
But you ARE.
Oh, please. And you are a psychologist by trade? For shame. Physician, heal thyself. Willis Eschenbach — I have not called anyone on this blog a denier. I have stated that I believe that deniers exist and I have defined what I believe constitues a denier. I fail to see how you can accuse me of being impolite. To persist in using that word, when it has been highlighted by many to cause grave offense is not only callus but perhaps, shows an ulterior motive.
People have told you they find the term offensive. Even if they use the term themselves, to refer to themselves, they can still consider it rude if YOU use the term. Louise, Who are you to judge who is a skeptic vs who is a denier.
Rogue Traders | Warhammer 40k | FANDOM powered by Wikia
To judge based on a comment or two is pure ignorance. I am a ScD scientist with a considerable knowledge on the subject of climate change and have been called denier.
Anyone that takes it upon themselves to judge others is totally out of order. Just comment on comments and leave it at that.
Read PDF Mémoires Du Sergent Bourgogne (French Edition)
Also, a person may claim themselves to be warmist, alarmist, skeptic or denier etc, etc, ad nausea. Louise: thank you for taking part in this discussion. There have been several examples of people who have come into the field of climate change and done incredibly stupid things by applying statistics in ways that are inappropriate for the data, [Trenberth] says. An abject example of how not to win friends and influence people. Do you think he has aided or hindered his intentions of persuading the public as to the rightness of his cause? Most media seem to now give equal credence to those scientists working in climate change and people like Monckton.
I think this needs redressing. I would not expect a crystal healer to be commenting on the spread of swine flu in the UK and stating that their crystals are as useful as getting the flu jab yet people like Monckton are regularly trotted out as if they actually know something.