Receiving an email with a statement like “You
should resign, and if you don’t, I’ll work to see that you are fired”
or “I know where your kids go to school” would be unsettling enough. But
they “pale compared to what other climate scientists are getting,” says
Raymond Orbach, director of the Energy Institute at the University of
Texas at Austin, at whom the first threat above was aimed.
Now climate scientists—in atmospheric physics
and chemistry, geophysics, meteorology, hydrology, and oceanography,
among other disciplines—have begun to fight back. “I think the community
is finding a voice,” says Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, whose work has largely focused on identifying the human
influence on global climate, and who once answered a late-night knock to
find a dead rat on his doorstep.
Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that
climate change is happening, although details of how it will play out
are uncertain. Every few years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) issues a report prepared by hundreds of scientists and
government officials from around the world; the next is due out in 2014.
The latest, published in 2007, says that warming of the climate system
is unequivocal, that most of the observed increase in globally averaged
temperatures since the mid 20th century is due to human activities, and
that past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will
contribute to warming and sea-level rise for more than a millennium. Yet
deniers have hampered efforts to tackle climate change, and their
actions, especially in North America, the UK, and Australia, have led to
climate researchers being investigated by their governments, suffering
nervous breakdowns, and spending time and money defending their rights
and reputations.
Successful tactics
Harassment of climate scientists by
climate-change deniers goes back at least to 1995, after the IPCC
published its Second Assessment Report. Santer was the lead author of
chapter 8, which looked at the causes of climate change. “The single
sentence ‘The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence
on global climate’ changed my life,” he says. “I was the guy who was
associated with this sentence. Those who did not like that finding did
everything not only to undermine the finding but also to undermine my
scientific reputation.”
The harassment has ramped up in recent years, says Michael Mann of the Pennsylvania State University, whose book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines,
due to be published by Columbia University Press in early March,
includes a retelling of his own ongoing experiences with harassment.
“Political intimidation, character attacks, what appear to be
orchestrated phone and email campaigns, nasty and thinly veiled threats,
not just to us but to our families, are what it means in modern
American life to be a climate scientist,” says Mann. Even this magazine,
after publishing last October articles on the science of climate
change—about its being under fire and about communicating that science
to the public—received an abundance of letters with the tenor, “How
could PHYSICS TODAY print such a one-sided portrayal of climate science
when many reputable scientists disagree?”
Fossil-fuel interests, says Gavin Schmidt, a
climate researcher at NASA, “have adopted a shoot-the-messenger
approach. It’s been a very successful strategy. They have created a
chilling effect, so other [scientists] won’t say what they think and the
conversation in public stays bereft of anyone who knows what they are
talking about.” Schmidt cofounded RealClimate.org, a forum for climate
scientists to “provide a quick response to developing stories and
provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary.”
Meanwhile, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a vocal opponent to
limiting greenhouse gas emissions, is suing NASA for the release of
Schmidt’s personal emails.
No comments:
Post a Comment