[Vision2020] 739 Responses to "Free speech and academic freedom": Threats Against Climate Scientists Like Soviet Union

[Ted Moffett]

Pictures and captions left out of body of text pasted in below...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/free-speech-and-academic-freedom/#more-10829
Free speech and academic freedom
Filed under:

   - Communicating
Climate<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/communicating-climate/>
   - RC Forum<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/rc-forum/>
   - skeptics<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/communicating-climate/skeptics/>

— rasmus @ 12 February 2012

*Update: Some related concerns from
deepclimate.org<http://deepclimate.org/2012/02/14/heartland-insider-releases-budget-and-strategy-documents/>,
if these claims can be verified.*

In a recent interview for a Norwegian magazine (Teknisk Ukeblad,
0412<http://www.tu.no/miljo/article297022.ece>),
the IPCC chair Rajendra Kumar Pachauri told the journalist that he had
received death threats in connection with his role as a head for the IPCC.
There have also been recent reports of threats and harassment of climate
scientists for their stance on climate change (Kerry
Emanuel<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/13/us-climate-scientist-wife-email-hate>.
Katharine Hayhoe<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/canadian-climate-scientist-finds-fame-hate-mail-in-us/article2297802/>,
Australian climate
scientists<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/06/australia-climate-scientists-death-threats>,
Phil Jones<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy>,
Barton campaign<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/michael-mann-the-climate-scientist-who-the-deniers-have-in-their-sights-6290232.html>,
and Inhofe’s black
list<http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/02/25/205560/sen-inhofe-inquisition-seeking-ways-to-criminalize-and-prosecute-17-leading-climate-scientists/?mobile=nc>).


These incidents appear as an unpleasant *deja vu* from my past, smacking of
attempts to suppress the freedom of speech. They remind me of the days when
I did my national service as a border patrol at the Soviet-Norwegian border
in 1988-1989 (Norway and Russia – then Soviet – share a 196 km long common
border <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway%E2%80%93Russia_border> in the
high north), where we stood up for our freedom and democracy. Freedom of
speech was tacitly implied as one of the ingredients of an open democracy,
which in our minds was the West. There was an understanding that the other
side of the iron curtain represented an oppressive regime.

If the people who threat and harass climate scientists were to have their
way, I fear we would be heading for a world resembling the other side of
the iron curtain of 1989. The absence of oppression and harassment is a
prerequisite for sound and functioning science. Oppressive regimes are not
known for producing good science, and blind ideology have often been
unsustainable. Therefore, threats and such dishonorable campaigns represent
a concern.

Another unpleasant aspect of the direction taken by the public discource is
the character of the
rhetoric<http://mag.digitalpc.co.uk/Olive/ODE/physicsworld/LandingPage/LandingPage.aspx?href=UEhZU1dvZGUvMjAxMi8wMi8wMQ..&pageno=OQ..&entity=QXIwMDkwMA..&view=ZW50aXR5>,
which too exhibit similarities to that of the cold war. I still remember
some of the propaganda that could be heard on the radio – translated to
Norwegian. Too often these days, the debate is far from being informative
but has turned into something like a beauty contest and he-said-she-said
affair.

So it is important to keep in mind: Don’t shoot the messenger who is only
doing her/his job. It would really be a disservice to the society. Any open
and free democracy has to be based on true information and knowledge. When
big and powerful media corporations start to look like past state-run
propaganda machines, where slogans have replaced common sense and expert
knowledge, then we’re heading in the wrong direction.

In Norway, the there were calls for enhanced openness and respect (by our
prime minister) after the terrible July 22 (2011) terrorist
attacks<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks>(the
terrorist also disrespected climate science). In this sense, the
openness also means exposing all levels and all aspects of matters being
disputed. As in sciences, it is important to elucidate the situation, and
see if the arguments stand up to being critically scrutinized. This also
means that all relevant information must be included – not just those which
support one stand.

I think that the science community needs a louder voice in the society, and
there is a need for bringing some of the science-related debates closer to
true science. We need to explain the virtues of the scientific method, such
as transparency, replication of past results, testing and evaluating the
methods and conclusions. These virtues lead to the most credible answers.

For example, we need to focus on question like the following: Is the
strategy adopted objective? Does it give robust results? Or do the result
depend on the context in which the analysis was carried out? In other
words, we need to question whether the conclusions are generally valid.

Focusing on the real questions and doing science means being free, critical
and sceptical – and not a climate of
fear<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7286/full/464141a.html>
.

---------------------------------------

Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120313/e57fd762/attachment.html>