“Most climate researchers expect to work quietly in a lab, not deal with an angry and threatening public.“
Why yes, Clive, that is true but perpetrating fraud, lying to the public for personal advancement and constantly threatening the public with imaginary/fabricated boogeymen tends to get them angry and the more effervescent lash out.
If you fancy a walk on the wild side try rebutting some of the plethora of looney health and chemical scares and scams, let alone the ridiculous dioxycarbophobia of the era. I don’t need an FoI to know that believers can be really nasty and I have a well-worn delete key to show for it.
That’s not science under siege though, Clive. It’s the natural, if unfortunate, result of thrusting yourself into any field of emotionally-held belief.
When the denial machine goes after climate scientists it is, as one of them said, like the marines going into battle against boy scouts. The brutality of the attacks has once again been confirmed by the release of some of the emails sent to Phil Jones, the University of East Anglia climate scientist at the centre of the “Climategate” storm.
The emails make for sickening reading and anyone receiving them would be foolish not to treat the threats as potentially serious.
Australian climate scientists have for some years been receiving the same kind of abuse and threats. Every time Andrew Bolt targets a scientist for criticism he or she receives a torrent of aggression from his legion of followers.
Again not right Clive – Aussie climateers could not show that they were threatened – only that they got nasty communications and apparently only very rarely.
And what denial machine?