Skeptic ‘cultists’ attack martyrs Hayhoe and Emanuel

We skeptics used to be just wrong and venal. Now we’re a “cult.”

Michael Stafford writes in “The Science of Intimidation” at Town Square Delaware:

… The abuse directed at climate researchers sheds light on a tragic political truth- a cancer is consuming the soul of American conservatism. Conservatism is taking on many of the hallmarks of a cult – one in which information and doctrine are received, without question, from recognized authority figures or sources, and in which dissent cannot be tolerated. The conservative cult views the political process in apocalyptic terms, and sees its opponents as demonically evil. Sadly, climate denial is a key pillar in this cult’s ideology.

Under these circumstances, conservative scientists like Hayhoe and Emanuel are particularly dangerous. They demonstrate that there isn’t a fundamental incongruity between religious faith, or conservatism, and accepting the science behind AGW. They are heretics, calling to other conservatives from beyond the walls of the cult compound. And that’s a mortal threat to the climate deniers, and perhaps to the very existence of the cult itself.

In the end, the bullying and abuse of scientists is a sign of growing desperation. The cult must be defended, by any means. Dissenters must be intimidated into silence. With everything else against them, conservative climate deniers have only one option left – it’s time to get personal, and pound.

So who is drinking the Kool-Aid?

4 thoughts on “Skeptic ‘cultists’ attack martyrs Hayhoe and Emanuel”

  1. Seems the author of that article, Michael Stafford, nicely falls into the pattern of essentially all other AGW promoters, by failing to provide any actual evidence to back up his claims. As Anthony Watts noted at WUWT, no evidence has ever been shown that Aussie AGW scientists actually got death threats ( ). The MotherJones article on Kerry Emanuel’s alleged threats never bothers to show them, while undermining its own headline about the ‘frenzy’ and ‘flood’ of hate mail by saying “the volume peaked at four or five emails a day” ( ). Regarding Ms Hayhoe’s “hundred e-mails”, she hasn’t seen fit to show us one bit of proof of it.

    Now, I can’t say I’ve seen actual hate mail sent to AGW skeptics, but I imagine our own Steve Milloy can attest to what he’s received. And if there is any doubt that far-left zealots don’t sink to such levels, I will simply direct readers to do a Google search of the words “michele malkin you’ve got hate mail”, and — Language Warning — you will see exactly what is dished out when you click on the results for her web pages.

    Fascinating how author Michael Stafford doesn’t speak a word about such vitriol coming from AGW promoters like the followers of Joe Romm’s ThinkProgress, or of the much-public threats and anger directed at skeptics that I told about in my article last year, which I contrasted with all the hand-wringing over the Giffords shooting: “The Far-left ‘Jumps the Shark’ over Tucson Tragedy”

  2. I think calling fervent climate change deniers, especially ones who resort to vitriol and threats, “cultists” is perfectly valid. Being closed-minded and willing to ignore any scientific research that does not fit preconceived notions is indeed cult-like behavior. Where I disagree with Mr. Stafford, is that I would never call them “conservative.” They are not conservatives, they are radicals and radicals by definition are not conservative.

    Ronald Reagan was a true conservative, so when climate scientists told him that CFCs were eroding our ozone layer, he weighed the evidence on both sides of the debate and then sided with the experts. He pushed through the Montreal Protocol Treaty that phased out CFCs and today the ozone layer is healing. Reagan did not ignore evidence or bury his head in the sand, he took the most prudent action to safeguard future generations. If Reagan was alive and tried that today, not doubt denial cultists like Milloy would vilify him.

    You cannot be a true conservative without an ethic of responsible stewardship.

Comments are closed.