• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Misogyny in Climate Science

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Appropriate behavior between the sexes has been much in the news lately. Does orthodox climate science have a problem in its treatment of women?

Climate Scientists Harassing Women (asexually, of course)–Again–Matt Lauer, Meet Michael Mann

Posted on 01 Dec 17 by THOMASWFULLER2 15 Comments
Consensus climate scientists have long been personal and damning in their criticism of those who don’t agree with them. They’ve threatened physical violence (Ben Santer: “Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.”). They of course use the epithet ‘denier’ … Contin

Consensus climate scientists have long been personal and damning in their criticism of those who don’t agree with them. They’ve threatened physical violence (Ben Santer: “Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.”). They of course use the epithet ‘denier’ specifically to associate opponents with those who deny the Holocaust occurred.
But when they talk about male scientists they are somewhat restrained. Here’s Michael Mann on Richard Lindzen, former Alfred P. Sloan professor at MIT, and one of the most famous skeptics: “So Richard Lindzen is a scientist from MIT who has expressed contrarian views about climate change.” When astrophysicist Ken Rice, a consensus defender writes of Roger Pielke Jr., who disputes some elements of the consenssus, he writes “Okay, I do think that trying to improve the climate debate is commendable, so kudos to Roger for at least trying. ”
But when Mann speaks of Judith Curry, another climate scientist who disagrees with some consensus positions, he says ‘she is a carnival barker in the circus of climate denial.’ This is somewhat odd, as Judith Curry has 224 scientific publications credited to her–Mann is calling her a denier of a science she is helping create. She is also dismissively referred to on blogs published by climate scientists as ‘Aunt Judy’ and much worse.
The same is true for scientists like Sally Baliunas, Jennifer Marohasy, even consensus female scientists like Tamsin Edwards (called a ‘careerist’ by Josh Halpern for not being critical enough of lukewarmers). While male scientists definitely get their share of criticism–even abuse–with females, the invective seems more personal.
Now it is the turn of Dr. Susan Crockford, who has been a zoologist for 35 years. Despite that, despite her PhD from the University of Victoria in Canada, despite over 30 scientific publications, she is now classed as a ‘denier.’ . . .
 
So you are accusing Mann of misogyny on the basis that he referred to Judith Curry as "a carnival barker in the circus of climate denial"?

That may be rather a colourful insult, but it's hardly misogyny. She is not the only climate denier, male or female, who has tested Mann's patience, and he himself has been subjected to far worse, including associations with paedophilia and death threats.

Any chance of sticking to the science, Jack, rather than propagating these ridiculous attempts at character assassination?
 
So you are accusing Mann of misogyny on the basis that he referred to Judith Curry as "a carnival barker in the circus of climate denial"?

That may be rather a colourful insult, but it's hardly misogyny. She is not the only climate denier, male or female, who has tested Mann's patience, and he himself has been subjected to far worse, including associations with paedophilia and death threats.

Any chance of sticking to the science, Jack, rather than propagating these ridiculous attempts at character assassination?

From the OP link:

". . . The central point of this post–that climate scientists are dismissive, personal and insulting, and more so when the subject of their disdain are female, is clear just from their quoted remarks. . . ."
 
From the OP link:

". . . The central point of this post–that climate scientists are dismissive, personal and insulting, and more so when the subject of their disdain are female, is clear just from their quoted remarks. . . ."

What remarks?

If you want to know what actual misogyny is, then may I refer you to ***** grabber-in-chief Donald Trump.
 
Even if I were to assume this were a legitimate example, rather than a carefully cherry-picked attempt at swiftboating...

What the hell does this have to do with the legitimacy of climate science? How does some guy supposedly being a misogynist invalidate the actual, like... science?

Oh, that's right, it doesn't. This is just a diversionary political hackfest that has nothing to do with science.
 
The Climate Change deniers make Mother Nature cry. Can that be construed as misogyny?
 
Even if I were to assume this were a legitimate example, rather than a carefully cherry-picked attempt at swiftboating...

What the hell does this have to do with the legitimacy of climate science? How does some guy supposedly being a misogynist invalidate the actual, like... science?

Oh, that's right, it doesn't. This is just a diversionary political hackfest that has nothing to do with science.

The Climate Change deniers make Mother Nature cry. Can that be construed as misogyny?

From the link:

". . . It is another attempt to delegitimize a respected and credentialed scientist, based not on what she writes, but on what others write about her.
The Consensus team is not shy about labeling, defaming and insulting those in opposition. But here we see once again that it is easier for them to do this with female opponents. . . . "
 
From the link:

". . . It is another attempt to delegitimize a respected and credentialed scientist, based not on what she writes, but on what others write about her.
The Consensus team is not shy about labeling, defaming and insulting those in opposition. But here we see once again that it is easier for them to do this with female opponents. . . . "

Ok. Welcome to being a woman. Again, even if I'm assuming this isn't just some made-up swiftboat BS, what does this matter?

This is happening in all industries at all times. If her work had any actual merit, there would have been some climate change denier men who also picked it up and got it through the ranks, along with throngs of women and non-sexist men of any position who did the same.

So unless you're going to try to tell me that all climate change deniers are women, and all supporters are men, and also that all men are sexist, which is so absurd that I don't think even you would dare to argue it, what the hell does this matter towards the legitimacy of climate change?

It doesn't.
 
Ok. Welcome to being a woman. Again, even if I'm assuming this isn't just some made-up swiftboat BS, what does this matter?

This is happening in all industries at all times. If her work had any actual merit, there would have been some climate change denier men who also picked it up and got it through the ranks, along with throngs of women and non-sexist men of any position who did the same.

So unless you're going to try to tell me that all climate change deniers are women, and all supporters are men, and also that all men are sexist, which is so absurd that I don't think even you would dare to argue it, what the hell does this matter towards the legitimacy of climate change?

It doesn't.

AGW fails on scientific grounds, IMHO. The point here is to highlight the rancid ad hominem tactics of the defenders of AGW orthodoxy.
 
AGW fails on scientific grounds, IMHO. The point here is to highlight the rancid ad hominem tactics of the defenders of AGW orthodoxy.

And yet you can't prove that, so you've simply resorted to a distraction, as if this one guy is somehow personally in control of all climate change research. :lol:
 
The fact that so much effort went into something so stupid goes to show there are people whose sole purpose is to manufacture and spread climate change denial propaganda. This would not be organically created and disseminated by people who are not paid trolls.
 
The fact that so much effort went into something so stupid goes to show there are people whose sole purpose is to manufacture and spread climate change denial propaganda. This would not be organically created and disseminated by people who are not paid trolls.

You underestimate the motivation created by doing the right thing.
 
You underestimate the motivation created by doing the right thing.

"Doing the right thing" in your case meaning lining your own pockets by spreading misinformation about AGW and attempting to smear the reputations of the scientists involved.
 
"Doing the right thing" in your case meaning lining your own pockets by spreading misinformation about AGW and attempting to smear the reputations of the scientists involved.

Your resort to ad hominem signals doubt and weakness. Quoting their own words can't be called smearing their reputations.
 
Your resort to ad hominem signals doubt and weakness. Quoting their own words can't be called smearing their reputations.

What a hypocrite you are! The entire premise of this thread is an ad hominem attack on climate scientists. By your own logic, you are therefore signalling your own doubt and weakness loudly and clearly. :lol:
 
What a hypocrite you are! The entire premise of this thread is an ad hominem attack on climate scientists. By your own logic, you are therefore signalling your own doubt and weakness loudly and clearly. :lol:

No. There is no ad hominem in quoting their own words.
 
No. There is no ad hominem in quoting their own words.

Nonsense. An ad hominem argument is one that attacks the character of the person making an argument rather than the substance of their argument. That is exactly what you are doing here.
 
Nonsense. An ad hominem argument is one that attacks the character of the person making an argument rather than the substance of their argument. That is exactly what you are doing here.

Please review the OP link. You will find your claim is without foundation -- and not, sadly, for the first time.
 
The Climate Change deniers make Mother Nature cry. Can that be construed as misogyny?

When you can't get the arguments right, that's when Mother nature cries.

Those of us here are not deniers. We accept the science over what the pundits say about the science.

To come into the game using incorrect terminology, calling thinking people "deniers..." That is your bad. Not ours.
 
Appropriate behavior between the sexes has been much in the news lately. Does orthodox climate science have a problem in its treatment of women?

Climate Scientists Harassing Women (asexually, of course)–Again–Matt Lauer, Meet Michael Mann

Posted on 01 Dec 17 by THOMASWFULLER2 15 Comments
Consensus climate scientists have long been personal and damning in their criticism of those who don’t agree with them. They’ve threatened physical violence (Ben Santer: “Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.”). They of course use the epithet ‘denier’ … Contin

Consensus climate scientists have long been personal and damning in their criticism of those who don’t agree with them. They’ve threatened physical violence (Ben Santer: “Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.”). They of course use the epithet ‘denier’ specifically to associate opponents with those who deny the Holocaust occurred.
But when they talk about male scientists they are somewhat restrained. Here’s Michael Mann on Richard Lindzen, former Alfred P. Sloan professor at MIT, and one of the most famous skeptics: “So Richard Lindzen is a scientist from MIT who has expressed contrarian views about climate change.” When astrophysicist Ken Rice, a consensus defender writes of Roger Pielke Jr., who disputes some elements of the consenssus, he writes “Okay, I do think that trying to improve the climate debate is commendable, so kudos to Roger for at least trying. ”
But when Mann speaks of Judith Curry, another climate scientist who disagrees with some consensus positions, he says ‘she is a carnival barker in the circus of climate denial.’ This is somewhat odd, as Judith Curry has 224 scientific publications credited to her–Mann is calling her a denier of a science she is helping create. She is also dismissively referred to on blogs published by climate scientists as ‘Aunt Judy’ and much worse.
The same is true for scientists like Sally Baliunas, Jennifer Marohasy, even consensus female scientists like Tamsin Edwards (called a ‘careerist’ by Josh Halpern for not being critical enough of lukewarmers). While male scientists definitely get their share of criticism–even abuse–with females, the invective seems more personal.
Now it is the turn of Dr. Susan Crockford, who has been a zoologist for 35 years. Despite that, despite her PhD from the University of Victoria in Canada, despite over 30 scientific publications, she is now classed as a ‘denier.’ . . .

Kate Marvel, Katharine Hayhoe, Naomi Oreskes, and countless other female scientists would disagree with the utterly ridiculous premise of your thread.
 
When you can't get the arguments right, that's when Mother nature cries.

Those of us here are not deniers. We accept the science over what the pundits say about the science.

To come into the game using incorrect terminology, calling thinking people "deniers..." That is your bad. Not ours.

And to justify your position, you have to take the utterly bizarre and illogical position that the NAS are ‘pundits’ and don’t know the science as well as you, the guy who has no qualifications in anything but spouts anonymous opinions on it all day(hey...that sounds very ‘pundit like’, doesn’t it?)
 
When you can't get the arguments right, that's when Mother nature cries.

Those of us here are not deniers. We accept the science over what the pundits say about the science.

To come into the game using incorrect terminology, calling thinking people "deniers..." That is your bad. Not ours.

Those who think man-made Climate Change is fiction are without a doubt deniers. They're anti-science and in the minority. A minority that will grow smaller and smaller once all of the excuses have been exhausted.
 
Those who think man-made Climate Change is fiction are without a doubt deniers. They're anti-science and in the minority. A minority that will grow smaller and smaller once all of the excuses have been exhausted.

The Chairman of the Raccah Institute for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study would disagree.

Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic | ScienceBits
 
Back
Top Bottom