this guardian The article title is 'We have emotions too': Climate scientists respond to attacks on objectivity It's a remarkable exercise in self-pity, in which climate scientists vent about the allegedly unfair criticism they face. This was in response to the backlash the Guardian received after it published a silly survey last May
These self-appointed climate saviors insist that their predictions should be accepted without question, and when they are not, they complain about how cruel and unfair the world is to them. It’s not the science that’s under attack – it’s the fragile egos that are screaming when the rest of us refuse to accept their apocalyptic narratives.
The researchers said they were ridiculed by some scientists after taking part in a major Guardian survey of experts in May, in which they and many others expressed extreme concern about future rising temperatures and the world's failure to take enough action. fear. They say they are being told they are not qualified to participate in a broader discussion about the climate crisis, that they are spreading doom and injustice.
However, researchers say embracing one's emotions is necessary for doing good science and can inspire efforts to find better ways to combat the climate crisis and the rapidly increasing damage being done to the world. They also say those who view their concerns as doom and alarm often speak from a position of privilege in Western countries with little direct experience of the impacts of the climate crisis.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/25/we-have-emotions-too-climate-scientists-respond-to-attacks-on-objectivity
The real “crisis”: hurt feelings
this guardian The article is filled with complaints from climate scientists about being criticized, a situation that clearly causes them great distress. They lamented the public disbelief as if it were some kind of attack on their personal well-being. In one particularly dramatic segment, one scientist complained about being called a “liar” on social media. Well, welcome to the world of public debate, where seemingly dubious claims are scrutinized, questioned, and yes, sometimes rudely dismissed. but guardian There seems to be a determination to portray these professionals not as strong researchers capable of handling criticism, but rather as delicate flowers withering under the harsh gaze of public skepticism.
Rather than address substantive criticisms—such as failing climate models, inconsistent predictions, or the fact that climate policies often do more harm than good—these scientists turn to emotional appeals. They believe harsh rhetoric from citizens is as much of a threat as climate change itself. They even believe that “cyber abuse” by skeptics is exacerbating “climate anxiety”. So, let’s get this straight: Models can handle complex calculations of global warming trends, but scientists can’t handle mean tweets?
The “toxicity” of skepticism
one theme dominates The Guardian The article was about scientists describing public scrutiny as “toxic.” This is a clever rhetorical strategy designed to make the criticism seem not only misguided, but also morally wrong. By characterizing dissidents as aggressors who “harm” scientists, the article attempts to flip the script: suddenly, the question is no longer whether climate models hold up to scrutiny; It’s about whether critics have hurt scientists’ feelings.
If anything, this kind of rhetoric betrays scientists' lack of confidence in their own predictions. People who are confident in their data don’t crumble when questioned. They engage, clarify and persuade. But here, climate scientists want sympathy, not hard evidence to silence critics. This is an extremely unserious approach to a field that supposedly determines the fate of our planet.
Criticism by Ben Pile daily skeptic He made this point when he observed the current trend among climate scientists to label skeptics not only wrong but dangerous. By shifting the focus to the so-called “toxicity” of criticism, scientists avoid real questions – such as why their models often exceed reality, or why predictions of impending disasters always sound like mismanaged train timetables Also delayed.
I believe this is what the Carrington series is about guardian article and his investigation. It shows that people with no scientific expertise to speak of are still often called “scientists” and experts. It shows that even those with scientific expertise are happy to radically depart from consensus positions and objective data about meteorological events and their impact on society. This shows they have no qualms about using their emotional distress as leverage to coerce others. Carrington believed that showing us scientists' emotional distress would convince us to share their anxieties. But what it shows is how foolish it is to defer to the authority of climate science. It's an unstable mess. Science must be dispassionate, dispassionate, rational, detached, and selfless, otherwise it is just a silly soap opera.
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/05/13/many-of-the-climate-experts-surveyed-by-the-guardian-in-recent-propaganda-blitz-turn-out-to-be-emotionally- Unstable hysteria/
victim as shield
a whole loose the temper (See Murder of Crows and Schools of Whales), climate complainers scurrying to their ideological sanctuaries, natural climate changeshouting for help. You see, when the public's suspicion becomes too much for their fragile nerves to handle, this temper goes straight to “Dad,” hoping for a pat on the back and a warm bottle of approval. Where else to compare natureA publication that would go to great lengths to support their emotional narrative? These scientists clearly need a safe space where their feelings can be soothed rather than questioned. Forget about rigorous defense of their models and theories – no, no, this time it’s about defending their fragile mind From the big, bad skeptics on Twitter.
this nature This article isn't just an attempt to garner sympathy from the masses; it's a full-blown tantrum disguised as academic commentary. The authors are not interested in hard science or debate—they want therapy. With a straight face, they dismiss popular criticism as akin to abuse and reduce scientific discourse to a matter of emotional recovery. So rather than perfecting their model, these tantrum-throwing complainers want the rest of us to accept hurt feelings as a legitimate basis for climate policy.
this nature The article highlights this victim narrative, describing how scientists endure not only the existential threat of climate change but also popular hostility. The author emphatically equates climate research with frontline war reporting, as if issuing dire predictions on X is the same as dodging bullets. This is a clear attempt to evoke sympathy and avoid criticism. If scientists can present themselves as victims of a cruel public, their arguments become airtight.
this guardian The article further amplifies this theme, painting scientists as misunderstood martyrs who bear the emotional burden of foreseeing a bleak future. It is as if being skeptical of predictions that are not well substantiated makes one a tormentor for noble truth seekers. The narrative is clear: “Don’t question us, or you’re part of the problem.” But when scientific discourse morphs into moral posturing, it loses credibility and begins to resemble a political movement—one manipulated by emotion. rather than an evidence-driven movement.
social media tears
Of course, no article about the plight of scientists would be complete without the numerous reports of social media victims. this guardian The article featured complaints of online “abuse”, with scientists recounting the painful experience of being criticized on platforms such as X. According to these supposedly recalcitrant researchers, the online world is a mean place, with people speaking unkindly about their predictions.
It's almost comical. After all, social media is a battleground of ideas, not a safe space for flattered pundits. If scientists cannot handle criticism of X, how can they hope to withstand the scrutiny of peer review or public debate? Ben Pyle rightly points out that climate scientists’ complaints about the “abuse” of social media often serve as an excuse to silence dissent altogether. These scientists are unwilling to engage in criticism, preferring instead to play the victim and use their emotional trauma as a shield against legitimate questions.
“Science” as a moral crusade
this guardian The dramatic tone of the article matches its moralistic language. It seeks to turn science into a crusade, with climate scientists cast as warriors for justice fighting the forces of ignorance and denial. This framing is not just condescending; This is manipulative. The article portrays climate scientists as noble crusaders, implying that their opponents are not only wrong but immoral.
Scientists have even managed to make their sentiment seem like a badge of honor, arguing that their despair over climate change somehow legitimizes their work. But in reality, emotional outbursts and moral grandstanding are signs of weakness, not strength. Scientists are expected to be objective and dispassionate—traits that make their conclusions reliable and untainted by personal bias or emotional manipulation.
The irony here is obvious: scientists who claim to be guided by evidence resort to emotional appeals when the evidence is unconvincing. This is a tactic designed to stifle debate rather than promote it. By treating criticism as a form of attack, these scientists are essentially saying, “Agree with us, or you'll exacerbate our emotional pain.” This isn't science; it's science. This is emotional blackmail.
Public scrutiny is a good thing
contrary to complaint The GuardianPublic scrutiny is not an attack on science; it is a vital part of it. The scientific method thrives on skepticism, criticism, and revision. When climate models fail to accurately predict reality, the appropriate response is not to indulge scientists' feelings but to demand better models. If a scientist appears The Guardian Unable to deal with this, they are in the wrong field.
This weak response to criticism is particularly troubling given the sweeping policy changes based on climate projections. For example, enthusiasm for net zero emissions has profound consequences for energy costs, employment and global inequality. Public skepticism is not only justified; This is necessary. If climate scientists want to be taken seriously, they should welcome tough questions, not shy away from them.
Conclusion: Resist or surrender
this guardian The article provides a window into the current state of climate science—a field increasingly driven by emotional manipulation rather than empirical rigor. Scientists' complaints about being criticized reflect more on their own insecurities than on the validity of their claims. If these researchers want to be seen as credible, they need to toughen up. Real science does not hide behind emotions; it faces scrutiny head-on and welcomes challenges as a means of improving its findings.
So, to those climate scientists complaining that X is being “abused”: toughen up. If you cannot defend your models and predictions against popular criticism, perhaps you are not as confident in your conclusions as you claim. merge to The Guardianwhich seems to be an attempt to protect these vulnerable “warriors” from criticism: stop trying to turn suspicion into a sin. The future of the planet deserves better than a bunch of whining scientists looking for sympathy instead of solutions.
Relevant
