Well worth a read & backs up what the BA has written in the Opening Post here.

Post script : Linked to my name for this comment is an online piece interviewing climatologist Mike Mann also well worth reading.

From that :

Mann: Yeah, I think that many of my colleagues are afraid to speak out about this publicly, to talk about the connections between climate change and, for example, the anomalous extreme weather we have seen in recent years, and in particular this past spring and this past winter, because they know they’ll be attacked…

If they talk about the connections between these things, they know that within 24 hours, email boxes will be flooded with acerbic, nasty emails, that their department chairs’ may very well — and their deans’ — may be flooded with letters demanding that they be fired from their institutions.

Blakemore (interviewer – ed.) : Enough that it appears to be an organized kind of campaign?

Mann: I think there’s little question about that. Some of us have actually compared the notes that we get, the angry emails that we get , the phone messages that are left, and there appears to be a pattern. The message is often similar.

(Emphasis added to highlight relevance to the OP.)

Whatever people think about the science, I hope everyone can agree that sending death threats and hate mail against the experts for giving their expert opinions, for doing their jobs, is just beyond the Pale.

“i love it, an astronomer is now an expert on biology. proceeds to tell us all that evolution = mutations + time and ‘natural selection’ is somewhere in there. how can there ever be a ‘natural selection’ when discussing evolution?

when astronomers and people that call themselves scientists enter into the debate about evolution it does a dis-service to everybody. especially to those that don’t yet know what to think. when astronomers “believe” in evolution they are abdicating all they have signed up for when they became ‘scientists’. scientists don’t believe in anything, or maybe more accurately, scientists aren’t supposed to “believe” anything. this particular blogger feels heightened by constant announcements that its good to be a skeptic, then proceeds to ‘label’ skeptics of the ‘theory’ of evolution as some sort of heretics. it does give credence to these types of people actually believing in some type of religion doesn’t it?

there are a multitude of other posts from him that indicate his unflinching ‘belief’ in this theory. and thats what it is now still right? a theory. my problem isn’t with a normal person off the street that believes in evolution. there is evidence to support such a notion. i, unremarkably, don’t get caught making up words like ‘denialist’ to explain (in a very simple way i might add) someone’s thoughts on this subject. my problem is with ‘scientists’ who shoot their very own ’cause’ in the foot by proclamations on their blogs. my wish is for scientists to stick to the science. not some ‘mission’ of theres to convert the masses. the wonderful thing about science is its ever-changing. my greatest fear is that science turns into politics and then the lying begins (it may have started already) to say anything to protect their belief system. for those that think i’m republican, think again. the analogy i used earlier about shooting one’s own foot is perhaps not more prevalent in that the very scientists who chime in about evolution, are basically telling the world to cease your exploits and knowledge and return to sitting in trees and fling poo at strangers. this comment is getting wordy and i apologize. just know, there are a group of Darwinist skeptics out there that genuinely have issues with the science presented and have no political thoughts whatsoever. the very fact this seems to divide us politically makes me a skeptic right there. i hear about biologists and how they have signed onto this theory, that doesn’t surprise me, nor does this theories problems when it hits a statistical doldrum.”

Science denialism: The blather is always the same. Only the labels change.
There’s just so much…doubt.

Global Warming is not the 48 states Phil, ..

Er, when did the BA ever say global warming was the 48 states or anything other than global? The 48 (plus) US states are however part of the world and part of the world which is – like many global regions most noticeably the Arctic – experiencing unusually high and rising temperatures.

.. just get over the fact that you have backed the wrong horse,

I don’t recall the BA talking about losing a gamble at the Kentucky races or anything like that here. What the blazes does this topic have to do with horse racing?

Oh. You meant that metaphorically maybe? Implying that you don’t accept that something that all the evidence and 98% of the experts are pointing to is real? You’re saying that the well established, evidentially supported Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating (HIRGO) theory which the Bad Astronomer has noted and discussed many times here is false?

Well, Eimear Dwyer, that’s what’s called an extraordinary claim and as Carl Sagan has famously noted that calls for extraordinary evidence to support it. Which you haven’t presented and which I’d like to see you deliver here. Why do you think HIRGO is false, the metaphorical “wrong horse” exactly and what evidence can you offer everyone to convince us you are right and the vast majority of experts in the field of climatology are wrong?

.. but I suppose only a true scientist can do that.

Are *you* a true scientist, Eimear Dwyer? Are you *any* sort of scientist?

Have you not seen occassions too on this very blog over time where the BA has cheerfully admitted he got things wrong when he has? Pretty sure I have.

my wish is for scientists to stick to the science. not some ‘mission’ of theres to convert the masses

Science suffers from a pretty bad public relations. It needs people that can communicate the science to the general public in a way that can excite and motivate. After all we are only as good as the next generation coming through so the more young people that become interested in science and make a career of it the better off we all will be. I think that scientists are too quiet and too polite most of the time, look at where we are in relation to the evolution vs creationism debarkle. I don’t think scientists and the science community in that case responded strongly enough to nip the nonsense in the bud before it blew out of control.

my wish is for scientists to stick to the science. not some ‘mission’ of theres to convert the masses.

It would indeed be nice if both sides of the AGW issue played by the same rules. In case you hadn’t noticed, the AGW deniers have long ago abandoned doing any actual science themselves. Instead, they just resort to taking pot shots at the established science, much like creationists do when faced with the mountains of evidence supporting evolution.

Some of the prominent climatologists are good at outreach, like James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt. Why shouldn’t they speak out? They can see that humanity is shooting itself in the foot with the biggest amount of collective ‘stoopid’ ever, in our relentless pursuit to dig every ounce of fossil fuel out of the ground and burn it. And the reason: to support our unsustainable modern lifestyle.

Either we make the move to renewables, or we suffer the inevitable consequences of inaction. And the consequences will be severe; you can already see it starting to happen. That was what Phil was trying to convey in this post.

@88. I Like Cheese :

Could a solar flare save humanity? I watched a video of Michio Kaku explaining how the next solar maximum is coming up, and that there is a chance that the Earth is belted by a massive solar flare or CME which could potentially wipe out all of our satellites and our power grids, pushing civilization back 100 years. Now, that would obviously destroy the economy, but could it also stifle industry, effectively stopping most of our carbon emissions and giving carbon sinks an opportunity to catch up? Obviously MK, as a futurist, was wary of such an event, but could it in theory give the Earth a chance to breathe?

Theoretically, maybe, but remember that the amount of extra GreenHouse Gases already added to our atmosphere and the climatic feedbacks that are already happening means we’ll still be heating up and experiencing some climate change now whatever happens.

(Well almost whatever happens – I guess a KT “dino-killer” style asteroid / comet impact or a nuclear Holocaust or another real End of World scenario taking place would change things but not be a desireable solution! )

Also at what cost in lives and suffering? Such an event would be a global disaster and if it affects enough of an area and enough people to even put a temporary glitch in the rate of HIRGO then a lot of lives and property would be lost and generations set back and traumatised.

Oh & finally – we can’t count on this happening. Such a solar flare *could* just possibly happen but the solar observations so far suggest it is probably highly unlikely as these super-flares are exceptional events. The 1859 Carrington solar flare* was certainly one that – if it happened today – could have such devastating results but that was so rare it is still the largest, strongest solar known.

(Link in my name in this comment to an online article on that superflare via the 80beats blog : What People in 1859 Thought of the Great Solar Storm (Hint: They Were Very Confused by Sarah Zhang posted there on the 9th of May, 2012 1:41 PM.)

It is also possible that a prolonged Maunder minimum type situation with a reduced amount of solar input into the Earth’s thermal balance could help slightly but that would not still not enough to cancel out HIRGO. Apparently, just seven years of human Greenhouse Gas Emissions are enough to override the Little Ice Age / solar reduction effect.

(See the relevant Greenman3610 climate crock youtube video and Skeptical Science website article(s) on the Solar theory idea for sources on that point.)

——————————-

* If you’re interested in that 1859 Carrington solar flare event then I’d highly recommend reading ‘The Sun Kings -The Unexpected Tragedy of Richard Carrington & the Tale of How Modern Astronomy Began’ by Stuart Clark which is a superb non-fiction book on that topic – and much more besides.