The climate deniers are kicking puppies now.
That was my reaction when I heard that Katharine Hayhoe was being deluged with hate mail after stories surfaced that she had written a chapter on climate change for Newt Gingrich's upcoming book, a chapter quickly dropped when conservative commentators began making a big fuss about it. Similar attacks have been leveled against MIT scientist Kerry Emanuel following his speech at a forum for Republicans concerned about climate change. The "frenzy of hate" he's received include threats to his wife.
Anyone who has ever listened to Hayhoe would be as sickened as I was over the vitriolic attacks she has endured in the past week. Being both a climate scientist and an evangelical Christian, Hayhoe speaks to faith communities, explaining the science of climate change in easy-to-understand language and also offering the spiritual perspective on global warming: What would Jesus do about climate change?
"My own faith is the Christian faith and in the Christian faith we are told to love our neighbors as much as ourselves," Hayhoe recently told the Toronto Globe and Mail. "And our neighbors, especially the poorer ones, are already harmed by climate change."
She's co-authored a book with her minister husband, Andrew Farley, titled A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions.
On our conference call with Citizens Climate Lobby volunteers last November, she came across as one of the sweetest and likable persons you'd ever hope to meet (You can listen to that call here). The mother of a two-year-old who's married to a minister and works on climate science at Texas Tech University, Hayhoe never has a harsh word to say about anyone, especially those who disagree with her on the science of climate change.
Like a true Christian, she's done an inordinate amount of cheek-turning lately. News that her chapter was being dropped from Gingrich's book came not from the candidate or his staff, but from the media seeking her reaction. She, however, has been more than gracious. I immediately thought to approach her about posting the "missing chapter" on our Website, but she declined our offer, saying she did not want to demonize Newt or be mean-spirited.
Did I mention that Hayhoe put in 100 unpaid hours on that chapter?
I'm sure Gingrich wasn't aware of it. Not that it would matter. The former House Speaker has been too busy backpedaling on the climate issue in order to appease the anti-science wing of the GOP that currently calls the tune. When his presidential campaign started picking up steam in December, Mitt Romney went on the attack over Gingrich's ad with Nancy Pelosi on climate change. Before the cock had crowed three times, Gingrich vehemently disavowed the commercial ("I tell you, I don't know the woman!").
The trouble with flip-flopping on an issue, though, is that it's hard to cover all your tracks. Four years ago, Terry Maple, who co-authored A Contract With the Earth with Gingrich in 2007, approached Hayhoe to write the opening chapter of their next book. Word got out about the collaboration in December, and before you could say "Ditto," Rush Limbaugh was blasting Gingrich for working with a non-denying climate scientist, even if she was a Christian.
The disappointment of being dropped from Gingrich's book, though, is nothing compared to the onslaught of hate mail that Hayhoe has endured. Though she's too polite to repeat the words used in those messages, one gets a sense of it from this quote in the Globe and Mail:
"The attacks' virulence, the hatred and the nastiness of the text have escalated exponentially. I've gotten so many hate mails in the last few weeks I can't even count them."
It's been the same for MIT's Emanuel since a video -- "New Hampshire's GOP Climate Hawks" -- featuring him was posted on Mother Jones' Climate Desk. His remarks were subsequently distorted by right-wing bloggers, some of whom published his email address. He described the emails in a Mother Jones interview:
"What was a little bit new about it was dragging family members into it and feeling that my family might be under threat... I think most of my colleagues and I have received a fair bit of email here and there that you might classify as hate mail, but nothing like what I've got in the last few days."
Are there new depths to plumb in this "debate"? Physical violence?
I certainly hope not. I'm sure that the Republican candidates for president, even the ones who vociferously deny the existence of climate change, are appalled at the turn the discourse has taken. They should be speaking up and calling for a halt to the hate mail, to keep the conversation civil.
It could start with Gingrich stepping up to condemn the attacks on Hayhoe. As his prospects for the Republican nomination rapidly wane, I hope he'll feel less compelled to appease the vocal and volatile climate deniers. I hope he'll reinstate Hayhoe's chapter in his book with a heartfelt, "My apologies. You shouldn't have been treated this way."
If there's anything positive to come from the attacks on Hayhoe and Emanuel, it's the realization, hopefully, that the deniers have bottomed out. As anyone in a 12-step program can tell you, there's nowhere to go from here than up.
Follow Steve Valk on Twitter: www.twitter.com/citizensclimate
the greatest threat to our dear planet earth..
and all the precious creatures great and small that live upon it!
or not...
hey FUMES..
when are you going to stop denying science..
such as for example your repeated, patently absurd denial that downward infrared radiation exists?
you'll never understand even basic climate science..
until you stop denying basic science!
"There’s not enough knives. If this, if the IPCC had been done by Japanese scientists, there’s not enough knives on planet Earth for hara-kiri that should have occurred. I mean, these guys have so dishonored themselves, so dishonored scientists."
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/36153/
directly from Beck's web site.
And here's the accompanying audio:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/02/11/81714/beck-climate-knives/
Meanwhile, Republican Rupert Murdoch, the $7.4 billionaire owner of Fox News through its parent corp. News Corp. said quite the opposite in 2007:
“Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction. We must transform the way we use energy...”
http://www.newscorp.com/energy/full_speech.html
Walking the talk, in 2011 he went much further, saying:
"I am proud to announce that News Corporation has reached its first major sustainability milestone: we have become carbon neutral across all of our global operations and we are the first company of our kind to do so."
So, who to follow? Beck? Or the guy who hired the guy (hard-core Republican Roger Ailes) who hired Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc., all those global warming denier talking heads.
“But achieving net zero carbon emissions was never our only goal. Less than four years ago, I invited all of our employees, business partners and audiences to join us in this exciting initiative - and your response has been extraordinary. Today, I'm pleased to share some of our successes across the Company, as well as our long-term commitment to environmental sustainability.”
“Together, despite some of the toughest markets our industry has ever seen, we have saved millions of dollars by improving the energy efficiency of our day-to-day operations. Our efficiency projects pay for themselves in less than two years, on average, and span from simple solutions like lighting retrofits and automatic PC shut-down to systemic changes like installing telepresence and videoconferencing technology to reduce the need for air travel. The Company's global data center consolidation strategy alone will save approximately $20M per year and reduce data center emissions by almost 15% when completed.”
“Our support of clean energy - through on-site projects, renewable energy certificates, and carbon credits - spans the globe, from Los Angeles to India. Our UK businesses now procure 100% of their electricity from renewable sources."
"Dow Jones is close to completing a 4.1MW solar power system on its campus in New Jersey, which will be the largest solar installation of its kind in the United States; at peak, it will provide 50% of the site's electricity needs.”
“We have provided leadership in our industry, across our supply chain, and among the global business community. Fox Entertainment developed robust carbon footprinting standards and tools for film, television, sports, and event production, as well as a sustainable vendor guide. The standards we set helped lead to a new industry-wide consortium and the online, open-source Green Production Guide. Our initiative has even prompted major suppliers, like paper manufacturer Norske Skog, to set their own ambitious environmental targets. We have collaborated with business partners who were already leading the way, including our DVD supply chain initiative with Wal-mart, which pioneered an eco-case that reduced emissions from raw materials alone by 13% and has become the industry standard. Most recently, we became founding members of the UK-India Business Leaders Climate Group.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/01/rupert-murdoch-news-corp-carbon-neutral_n_829640.html?ir=Green
Are you suggesting that MIT's Dr. Kerry Emanuel - a Republican, by the way - is lying about the threats of violence against him and his family? If so, on what basis?
Also: why in your mind does it matter if the threats of violence and other harrassment against climate scientists and their families is "organized" as opposed to unorganized, and what do you mean by "organized" in this context?
The difference between an organized campaign and a few random kooks acting alone is enormous - think about and if you still need help, I will explain it to you.
In which case what were you trying to imply by putting the "hate" in "'hate' mail" in quotes?
Taking Dr. Emanuel at his word it's quite clear that he has received hate mail - violent threats against him and his family even.
MrBigp "The difference between an organized campaign ..."
Again, please define what you mean by "organized" in this context - thank you.
Many people who call themselves "Christians" don't seem to even try to follow him.
To lie and to kill are two of the "biggies"
With every word they speak they violate the commandment of giving false witness.
With every vote in Congress they kill their own constituents.
As is climate science denier "skepticism".
Prominent MIT researcher Kerry Emanuel has been receiving an unprecedented “frenzy of hate” after a video featuring an interview with him was published...
Emails contained “veiled threats against my wife,” and other “tangible threats,” Emanuel... director of MIT’s Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate program, said... “They were vile, these emails. They were the kind of emails nobody would like to receive.”
“What was a little bit new about it was dragging family members into it and feeling that my family might be under threat, so naturally I didn’t feel very good about that at all,” Emanuel said...
The video... documented a climate change conference run by a group of Republican voters upset by their party’s anti-science rhetoric...
In one clip, Emanuel says, “It makes me feel to some extent disgusted with politics and to some extent ashamed to be an American.”...
Climate Depot [blog] posted Emanuel’s email address.
Emanuel notes that in the full video, he went on to explain that the Republican candidates “have either been misled, in which case it’s not great to be part of the political system where candidates for the president of the United States could be so misled on such an important issue, or they were dishonest, which [is] equally bad in my view: How could we live in a country where candidates are being dishonest about an issue of such importance?”
http://tinyurl.com/74larxf
Dear Orkneygal,
Isn't NIPCC global warming "skeptic" Dr. Robert M "Bob" Carter committing de facto global warming fraud by misrepresenting increasing global temperature trend lines as flat?*
Isn't that like a climate science scam, a global warming hoax, a blatant and indefensible lie?
If you disagree please provide a scientifically-valid explanation for Bob Carter's gross misrepresentation of scientific data.
Bob Carter is a lead author of the "skeptical" Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change's (NIPCC's) latest "skeptical" -- and not peer-reviewed, of course -- report on global warming.
Please finally answer these questions instead of continuing to run away from them, Orkneygal - thank you.
------------------
* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
"The Australian professor deserves thanks and praise for repudiating the heretic-hunting climate orthodoxy"
http://tinyurl.com/23mjpvv
Dear Orkneygal,
You continue to run away from addressing Bob Carter's de facto global warming fraud.*
Moreover your repeated excuse for running away from addressing Bob Carter's de facto fraud is that you have "no interest" in Bob Carter's work, his prominent role as a global warming "skeptic" notwithstanding.
Bob Carter is a leader of and/or major contributor to several of the most prominent organizations that are "skeptical" of man-made global warming, including:
* The Heartland Institute
* The Science & Public Policy Institute (SPPI)
* The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
* The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
* The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
Given that you have "no interest" in Bob Carter's work, how is it that you somehow think that the political propaganda praising Bob Carter that you keep linking to in an effort to obfuscate your running away from his de facto fraud is itself not also grossly misleading?
Do tell, Orkneygal - you keep running away from that question too.
----------------------------
* http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business
The threats to climate scientists are doubly terroristic because the industry that backstops the climate deniers is well known for crushing anyone who gets in its way.
What a curious point of view.
Personal threats. Threats of violence.Threats of violence against family members.
Vicious attacks from Dems.......
Proving you repubs are wrong.....pointing out your lies...Showing that we're more intelligent than you.
ROFLMFAO!!!
Ya think that might change the climate?
Eve n without all that,
rooftop solar is cheaper than nukes, wind and waste are half that, and efficiency is half that again.
What the He ll are we waiting for?
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/11/387108/solar-power-much-cheaper-than-most-realize-study/
http://solarcellcentral.com/companies_page.html first solar 2.5$ per Wp installed.
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/10/solar-power-graphs-to-make-you-smile/
energy source amounts: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/08/23/solar-power-intro-3-key-solar-power-points-top-solar-power-news/
http://www.sunelec.com/ 75 cents per Wp. 50 cents for laminates.
cheapest new solar panels 1-2$/Wp http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm
Then see what subsidies you can get, there are lots of them: http://www.dsireusa.org/
http://solar.gwu.edu/Research/EnergyPolicy_Zweibel2010.pdf Great article about price of solar now 3$/W installed. last 100 years, 1-2 cents pwer KWH after the first 20 years and the loan is paid off.
Nukes get huge subsidies equal to some 500M$ per year per reactor. http://www.globalsubsidies.org/en/subsidy-watch/commentary/gambling-nuclear-power-how-public-money-fuels-industry "Constellation's own presentations indicate that they think the federal nuclear production tax credit and construction loan guarantees alone will be worth US$ 575 million per reactor per year to them. "
Benn done before.... build an ark.
Just adding a little perspective.
Really I meant no offense please no hate mail.