Scientists are not the enemy: death threats, smears and intimidation
What kind of mental world must someone inhabit to participate in an orchestrated intimidation campaign against professional scientists?
The Canberra Times reports that more than thirty Australian academics engaged in various forms of climate research receive a constant stream of abusive emails containing violent threats. Many have been moved to secure buildings and given other forms of special protection. Their experience is not unusual. Climate scientists and public figures associated with climate issues in many nations face what are clearly organised and vicious campaigns of intimidation.
For various reasons, some people are scared of the sciences. Perhaps some participate in bullying in order to express their frustrations at a system they find hostile, finding in these scientists an outlet for their anger and feelings of impotence. Some find in the work of these thinkers (or in the impression of this work they have received via certain mediators) claims about the unforeseen consequences of our behaviours - even apparently noble behaviours in pursuit of desirable personal and social goals - that threaten the integrity of their own life story and self-understanding.
I hope that Christian preachers and pastors are aware of the social and personal forces at work that find expression in these kinds of behaviours. Although those who threaten and abuse scientists may represent more extreme cases, the feelings of anxious guilt and bitter resentment are real for many people. There is good news for us all in a saviour who can set us free from the demons of the past and give us strength to face the future.
Posts
32 comments:
I would hope preachers and pastors would do a lot better than simply be aware of what scientists go through. Is not science a profession that seeks to discover truths in a particular domain and, no matter how unpopular the truths are, seek to disseminate those truths as widely as possible?
It was stark to me how easy it would be to replace "scientist" with "Christian" and (with a few other minor adjustments) your post would be a poignant reminder of the difficulties Christians likewise face.
Christians (all, not just the ones up the front) should not only have respect for scientists, but be able to sympathise with them both in the goal of their profession and in their struggles when presenting truths that are in direct opposition to a tightly held worldview.
did you read Richard Glover's article in the SMH today? If I was very clever, I would leave you a link here...
David,
which scientists should we have respect for, the ones that gave us the light bulb - read human drudgery throughout the night producing endless crap for consumers to purchase, having seen it on the television - another great invention, that sewer line to the living room - or taking a holiday somewhere abroad - using a plane which when it's not flying passengers is busy flying cash crops or dropping bombs on those who haven't become enlightened to the benefits of our free world enlightened technological age. Science was dismissed by the Chinese centuries ago for being life-destroying and how right they were. Truth I would remind you is a person, and he's reached through submission to His Father's will not our demand for sovereignty which is the ideology of science, howsoever it presents itself. Still these be the days of Noah and our ecologists merely sound his warning before the inevitable and determined consummation.
David - I agree (with the provisos I mention below in responding to Phillip). I was speaking with some understatement, but perhaps in order to avoid misunderstanding I should have been more direct. Preachers ought to make it clear that the anxieties, resentment and fears from which such actions spring are precisely the kinds of evil powers from which the gospel announces our liberation, and that the sciences are a noble field of human effort, worthy of our respect and attention. You may be interested in my earlier post.
Glorya - I didn't. I'll go and look for it.
Phillip - Although "science and technology" are so frequently lumped together as a pair in our language (esp. by politicians and the media), it is important to remember that they are not the same thing. I too feel quite ambivalent about certain technologies (though remember that the hammer, the wheel and the well are also technologies. It doesn't need to be plugged into a power socket to count as technology), and the (usually unforeseen) social, ecological and personal effects they have. Science, like all human endeavours, participates in the present age under the conditions of fallenness, and so will be filled by the selfish, the weak and the greedy as well as the noble and creative. Yet it remains part of good human work in the order, despite its infection with sin.
our demand for sovereignty which is the ideology of science
I do not deny that there are some who speak of the sciences as the pursuit of domineering mastery over ourselves and the created order. Such is indeed idolatrous ideology. But seeking to observe and understand the world in which we find ourselves is no sin.
Still these be the days of Noah and our ecologists merely sound his warning before the inevitable and determined consummation.
I am not sure that there is anything inevitable or determined about the outcome of our present civilisation. While the created order and humanity as a whole face the prospect of being revealed in the light of God's inescapable judgement, it is presumptive to assume that the present days are in some way a direct precursor to that. We may yet have may millennia to live and seek God's face in Christ through loving our neighbours. Our actions may bring about the downfall of life as we know it and precipitate a planet very unlike the one we have known, the end of all things arrives graciously from God unbidden and unexpected; it is not the calamitous result of our agency and failures.
For future reference, here is the article that Glorya mentioned.
While I agree with Glover that the way that the debate has taken shape has ended up putting climate change activism on the left and denial/delay on the right, there is nothing inevitable (or global) about this. For instance, here in the UK the Tories have just continued their commitment to keeping the UK at the forefront of climate targets amongst the developed world, being the first country to have legally binding targets beyond 2020. Indeed, my own primary motivation for taking radical action on climate arises from deeply conservative roots: the desire to hand on a planet to future generations that bears some kind of resemblance to the one inherited from our ancestors.
I should also make it clear that Glover's expression of violently vindictive desires towards deniers is (a) understandable, while (b) entirely counterproductive and wrong.
Speaking of climate denial, this is a useful presentation (powerpoint slides for a lecture) by Scott Mandia, a professor of physical sciences, laying out the question - Climate change: man or myth?
Although it's getting more attention now, Clive Hamilton pointed this out on the ABC back in February.
In response to both Phillip and Byron, then scientists and Christians have one more thing in common: they are flawed. All the more capability for sympathy!
I think the kind of mental world the persecutors of the scientists inhabit is one of self-interest and greed. For some who have vested interests in the coal and oil industries, it seems the rest of the world can go to hell in a handbasket as long as their profits are maintained for as long as possible, hence their generous funding/donations/sponsorship (call it what you like) of media organisations and political parties, both declared and transparent and otherwise, in order to sway the opinion of the masses the way they want. Of course, if the average person in the street feels that their financial position or standard of living may be threatened by positive measures to address climate change, then they'll also be motivated to join the deniers' brigade.
On the good or otherwise of science, like many of the good things God gives us it can be used for good or turned to evil. I am thankful for all the scientific advances that have improved human life and reduced suffering and hardship. Electricity, interstate and international air travel to both broaden the mind and enable me to be home for Christmas, penicillin, safe anaesthetic and surgical techniques, computing and the internet for free exchange of information and ideas, just to mention a very few - the list is endless. Thanks be to God for the gifts and intellects he gave all the people who helped discover and develop these things.
Such abuse is not a new phenomenon. Reuters has a very good story last year on this stuff.
Clive Hamilton has a good two part post at The Conversation (one, two). He draws the links between the media attacks and the violent and abusing emails.
Examples of abusive emails. Language warning.
Oops - only the second of the links to The Conversation is by CH. It is the more detailed of the two and draws the links to the Australian politic scene.
I think the kind of mental world the persecutors of the scientists inhabit is one of self-interest and greed. For some who have vested interests in the coal and oil industries, it seems the rest of the world can go to hell in a handbasket as long as their profits are maintained for as long as possible, hence their generous funding/donations/sponsorship (call it what you like) of media organisations and political parties, both declared and transparent and otherwise, in order to sway the opinion of the masses the way they want. Of course, if the average person in the street feels that their financial position or standard of living may be threatened by positive measures to address climate change, then they'll also be motivated to join the deniers' brigade.
On the good or otherwise of science, like many of the good things God gives us it can be used for good or turned to evil. I am thankful for all the scientific advances that have improved human life and reduced suffering and hardship. Electricity, interstate and international air travel to both broaden the mind and enable me to be home for Christmas, penicillin, safe anaesthetic and surgical techniques, computing and the internet for free exchange of information and ideas, just to mention a very few - the list is endless. Thanks be to God for the gifts and intellects he gave all the people who helped discover and develop these things.
Andrew - I am sure that greed plays a part, but I wonder sometimes whether we can assume it is more transparent than it actually is. That is, my impression is that there is a fair amount of self-deception involved. It can be hard to understand and accept something that your income, history and self-understanding rely on not being true.
It would be interesting to know how many of those sending these messages are indeed paid shills of fossil fuel interests, and how many are ideologically motivated, and how many are simply scared and angry and lashing out at the perceived source of threat to their self-understanding. At retirement, many people imagine that their contribution is then over (more or less) and they can sit back and enjoy the fruits of their labours (including the sense of satisfaction at having done some good in the world). If I had spent my whole working life in a carbon-intensive industry, then finding upon retirement that all my efforts may have exacerbated a very serious problem would be quite a shock, threatening a complete re-evaluation of what kind of contribution I had made to the world.
So what exactly did I say again? I'm hoping it was saved somewhere since I can't remember it word for word, and I still can't see it here.
Anyway, I remember it was something about the vast financial resources of the fossil fuel industry buying a lot of influence both within political parties and through the media which can be all too effective in leading popular opinion. Those who stand to benefit most from "business as usual" ff burning will do what they can to maintain the status quo - I think my point was that money, greed and slef-interest could be pretty powerful in forming the mental world inhabited by those who are harrassing the scientists.
Sorry - "self-interest" not "slef-interest". All too keen to hit send without a proper proofread.
That's odd - I reposted your comment before posting my reply (above). I could see it when I posted it, but now I can't see it either. Stranger and stranger.
Here is your comment (once again):
I think the kind of mental world the persecutors of the scientists inhabit is one of self-interest and greed. For some who have vested interests in the coal and oil industries, it seems the rest of the world can go to hell in a handbasket as long as their profits are maintained for as long as possible, hence their generous funding/donations/sponsorship (call it what you like) of media organisations and political parties, both declared and transparent and otherwise, in order to sway the opinion of the masses the way they want. Of course, if the average person in the street feels that their financial position or standard of living may be threatened by positive measures to address climate change, then they'll also be motivated to join the deniers' brigade.
On the good or otherwise of science, like many of the good things God gives us it can be used for good or turned to evil. I am thankful for all the scientific advances that have improved human life and reduced suffering and hardship. Electricity, interstate and international air travel to both broaden the mind and enable me to be home for Christmas, penicillin, safe anaesthetic and surgical techniques, computing and the internet for free exchange of information and ideas, just to mention a very few - the list is endless. Thanks be to God for the gifts and intellects he gave all the people who helped discover and develop these thi
Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
(That's what I was paraphrasing above. I couldn't find the quote before.)
The last word should be "things." The fact that it got cut off may be linked with the fact the system doesn't want to post it. I thought maybe it was too long - but is it shorter than some. Strange indeed. Anyway, love your work keep it up.
AAAS weighs in (regarding the US scene).
ABC: Scientists hit back amid fresh death threats.
ClimateSight: Why trust science?
SMH: Profile of a climate scientist - Will Steffen.
Hot Topic: James Hansen's emails.
Crikey: Hate campaign went beyond emails.
ABC: FOI emails reveal threats to climate scientists.
PopSci: The Battle over Climate Science.
Anthrax scares, death threats, intimidation and legal harassment: all par for the course in climate science.
Deltoid: Death threat denial.
CP: Only in America? More organised harassment of climate scientists in America than anywhere else (though Australia is probably second).
CP: Denier Delingpole Wishes For ‘Climate Nuremberg’, Says ‘Hanging Is Far Too Good’ For Climate Scientists!.
The Australian reposts Delingpole's piece.
Post a Comment