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

[Paul Rumelhart]

I don't condone sending death threats to anyone, especially over something like climate change science.  I also don't condone the harassment of climate scientists because of their views on the subject, whatever they may be.

Just thought I'd throw that out there, since I seem to be the token "climate denier" on this list, though I don't think of myself as such.

Paul



________________________________
 From: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
To: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:24 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] 739 Responses to "Free speech and academic freedom": Threats Against Climate Scientists Like Soviet Union
 

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
	* RC Forum
	* skeptics
— rasmus @ 12 February 2012 
Update: Some related concerns from deepclimate.org, if these claims can be verified.
In a recent interview for a Norwegian magazine (Teknisk Ukeblad, 0412), 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. Katharine Hayhoe, Australian climate scientists, Phil Jones, Barton campaign, and Inhofe’s black list). 
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 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, 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 (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.
---------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120313/22383fa4/attachment.html>