If you emotionalise the climate debate, expect scrutiny

And if you make exaggerated claims about AGW, expect scrutiny of those as well.

I really didn’t want to spoil my breakfast by reading anything from extremist Clive Hamilton, but I had little choice, as it refers to the ANU email story.

Regular readers will know Hamilton has made many dangerous global warming statements in the past, including suggesting the “suspension of democracy” to tackle the climate “crisis”, so it’s no surprise what comes next.

I’m not going to bother quoting anything from it, you can read it yourself here, but suffice it to say, Hamilton fails to acknowledge that there were no death threats received by the ANU, criticises The Australian for its reporting (naturally, this is the Murdoch hate media after all), and sneakily conflates the ANU story with some far more serious emails received by Phil Jones at UEA in the couple of months after the Climategate scandal broke.

[But was anyone ever charged with a criminal offence over these emails? Yes, they are deeply offensive and unpleasant, but, again, do they contain specific enough threats to kill that charges could be brought? I very much doubt it.]

In society there will always be a tiny minority of disturbed individuals who will send such material to high profile public figures, especially when they are front and centre of the news. I’ve said it a thousand times before, but will say it again: no conduct of this kind is acceptable in any circumstances and ACM condemns it unreservedly. 

However, when climate scientists themselves use the media to emotionalise the debate, to garner sympathy for their cause and implicitly portray anyone who questions the consensus as capable of such actions in an attempt to tar all climate realists with the same brush, they should expect detailed scrutiny of those claims. It’s all a meaningless distraction from the real issue anyway.

In Hamilton’s view, like with the climate debate itself, we, the ignorant unwashed masses, are not permitted to question the infallible authority of the climate elite, whether it is about man’s effect on the climate or receiving death threats. When some impudent upstart dares to do so, that is immediately branded “hate speech” by the “denier media”.

Sorry to be so childish about this, but really, who started this in the first place?


  1. The Loaded Dog says:

    It’s comedic genius. This guy would give Basil Faulty a run for his money. I urge ACM followers to read Hamiltons piece. Had me in stitches. Here’s a couple of “worthy quotes”

    First of all the title. “Science under siege” Hilarious. Yes Clivey….it is…by your mob of buffoons..

    and then this – “When the denial machine goes after climate scientists it is, as one of them said, like the marines going into battle against boy scouts. ” Boy Scouts? hahaha yeah right. Boy scouts caught pissing in the scout leaders lunch box.

    and this – “Every time Andrew Bolt targets a scientist for criticism he or she receives a torrent of aggression from his legion of followers.” Onwards to climate battle ye minions of Bolt…

    There’s plenty more. If I keep quoting the funny bits I will end up copying and pasting the whole document. You really MUST have a read. The guy is a parody of himself.

    I will however, leave you with this last winner, found near the end of his most hilarious of scripts:- “For those of us brought up to have faith in the Enlightenment”

    Yes, it’s the “enlightenment” folk…need I say more?


    • Once upon a time “enlightenment” included beliefs like the Earth is flat, and the sun revolves around it.

      Sadly, I expect the likes of Hamilton will befall the same fate as most of the “enlightened” during those times, and will never live to see their folly, or will never believe in it.

  2. I read through the Phil Jones stuff – something not quite right? Rather too many hard words spelled correctly? Several people over at WUWT think the same. I’m looking forward to some textual analysis a la Gleick / Fakegate …

    Nothing much there. Pollies, public servants see this sort of thing all the time. I’ve seen a few during my 25 years in public service. Best one was a letter accusing us of being “Members of the International Communist Conspiracy”. I framed it, put it up on the wall with all the other gongs and awards, but the boss didn’t think it was funny and took it down again.
    On the other hand, the Hamilton article really gives me the creeps …

  3. Baldrick says:

    Ahh the rarified air of academia and public intellectualism. So out of touch with reality is Clive!

  4. TinyCO2 says:

    One of the things that makes me doubt climate scientists and those that support them is their amazing naivety or stupidity (I’m not sure which). They cling to the idea that they’re heroes, saving the planet from deep frying but forget that the plan isn’t all good news. They never mention it but if CAGW is genuine then we really have to cut CO2 in a way that would look like the industrial revolution in reverse, up to and including undoing all the good that industrialisation did for us.

    They try to sell cutting CO2 as a slight drop in consumption ie stop buying stuff you don’t need, change a few light bulbs and pay more for energy. Of course that isn’t a drop in the ocean. They pretend that the tax rises are to damage the oil/coal companies who somehow prevent new technologies from popping up but in reality the only way tax rises will affect CO2 is if the customer can’t afford it and uses less. They ignore the fact that higher energy prices blast through the entire economy, making everything more expensive and ultimately destroying businesses and jobs.

    Did warmists think that they would remain heroes when the public started to understand what it was going to cost them? From that awareness, it is only to be expected that resentment would arise. When you add the cavalier attitude climate scientists have to the science, is it any wonder they attract the attentions of the nutters? My projection is that they ain’t seen nuttin yet.

%d bloggers like this: