As
we have been chronicling. Not all abuse comes from climate change
deniers. There are some lessons to be learned from this article
Threats
and Hate Mail
Reveal
Climate Disinformation's Dark
Side (Op-Ed)
Seth
Shulman, Union of Concerned Scientists
7
April, 2014
Lawrence
Torcello, a philosophy professor at the Rochester Institute of
Technology, never imagined he would become the focus of a vicious
barrage of hate mail when, last month, he published an article in
a British online journal about the ethics of climate-change
misinformation.
But,
sure enough, in recent weeks, Torcello has been subjected to death
threats, racial slurs, and anti-gay and anti-Semitic epithets. He's
been called a fascist, a Stalinist, a Nazi and a communist. One of
the many contemptible emails he received, for example, reads simply:
"DIE you maggot." An anonymous phone message ominously
threatens that he'll "be paid a visit." In all, Torcello
estimates that he has been subjected to more than 700 harassing
calls, emails and tweets.
What
did Torcello do to attract such a response?
He
raised the ethical issue — in an academic venue, no less — of how
society should contend with those
who knowingly disseminate misinformation about climate science.
Sadly
familiar
Before
delving into the details, it's important to note that Torcello's case
highlights an increasingly common form of harassment that is all too
familiar to scientists and other researchers who have spoken out
about climate change. Eminent climate scientists, such as Michael
Mann and Benjamin Santer, have faced similar intimidation and even
death threats. Mann was likened in print to a child
molester;
Santer was subjected to a dead
rat on
his doorstep, among many other similar incidents. [Michael
Mann: Climate-Change Deniers Must Stop Distorting the Evidence
(Op-Ed)]
Torcello's
case is particularly interesting, though, because he appears to have
fallen victim to precisely the type of disinformation campaign he
decried. He has seen his argument distorted beyond recognition by
media outlets that thrive on half truths and politically charged
controversy, whipping up the ire of an ugly and angry fringe in the
process.
A
philosophical argument
It
should be clear to anyone who actually reads Torcello's article that
he is wrestling with the philosophical question of how society should
hold to account those who willfully distort climate science and
disseminate misinformation. Of course, it's more than an academic
question because it is a well-known fact that fossil-fuel interests
have long been underwriting
a disinformation campaign specifically
designed to block climate action and confuse the public about the
issue.
Torcello
argues from a moral and philosophical standpoint that those who
purposefully engage in misinformation campaigns ought to be
considered criminally negligent. As he explains, the core idea of
criminal negligence as a legal and moral concept is that people can
be held responsible when they fail to exercise reasonable care that
takes into account the potential harm their actions may cause to
others. And, as Torcello rightly contends, climate misinformation
campaigns are already causing widespread harm. [Is
There a Climate Crystal Ball? (Op-Ed) ]
While
you might reasonably disagree with Torcello's argument, of course,
it's hard to imagine his views leading to a barrage of hate mail
until you see the way certain media outlets chose to distort his
views.
Blatant
distortion
The
first blatant distortion of Torcello's argument appeared on
Breitbart.com, a politically conservative website, in an article that
inaccurately alleged Torcello was saying that "scientists who
don't believe in catastrophic man-made global warming should be put
in prison." That inflammatory piece of misinformation was soon
picked up on sites including The Daily Caller and FoxNation.
The
Drudge Report stretched the distortion of Torcello's article even
further, erroneously contending that he had "called for the
incarceration of any American who actively disagrees that climate
change is solely caused by human activity." Of course, Torcello
had never said anything of the kind.
Nonetheless,
a variety of climate misinformers quickly jumped in to further fan
the flames. Blogger Anthony Watts branded Torcello "despicable"
and urged his readers to contact Torcello and his institution.
Britain's Lord Christopher Monckton, a longtime climate contrarian,
wrote to the provost of the Rochester Institute of Technology,
questioning Torcello's fitness "to hold any academic post at the
Institute."
Torcello
says he is grateful that his university came strongly to his defense,
issuing a statement that
both defended his academic freedom and underscored the scientific
consensus about human-caused global warming. But he still marvels at
the phenomenon.
"It
still seems incredible to me that so many people would bother to
write me or call me without actually having read my article," he
says.
Disinformation:
The real issue
Fringe
groups can whip themselves into a frenzy all they like, but it
doesn't change the fact that Torcello's academic article raises an
important issue.
Society
has known for years, and even decades, that the overwhelming
scientific consensus is that human
activity is leading the planet to dangerous and potentially
catastrophic climate change.
The latest report from
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issues the most sober
warnings yet about the imminent
threat we face.
All
the while, we've known that some fossil-fuel interests, such as
ExxonMobil and Koch Industries, have purposefully, and often
underhandedly, worked to confuse the public about the dangers their
actions are causing to the planet. A detailed, peer-reviewed study by
Robert Brulle at Drexel University offers a comprehensive analysis of
the way these carbon producers and others have bankrolled front
groups dispensing climate disinformation.
Meanwhile, recently
published research shows
that nearly two-thirds of the industrial carbon pollution released
into the atmosphere since 1854 can be directly traced to the carbon
extracted from the Earth by just 90 entities — 83 producers of
coal, oil and natural gas, and seven cement manufacturers.
So,
it's becoming increasingly clear who's actually driving climate
change. In that sense, questions like Torcello's are becoming more
urgent. How should those who knowingly disseminate disinformation
about climate change be held accountable? And what kind of
responsibility do the major carbon producers have for climate-related
damage they continue to cause to people around the globe?
Fighting back
Regardless
of the answers that ultimately emerge to those questions, it is clear
that a reasonable debate does not include hate mail and harassment.
Unfortunately,
however, Torcello's case is common enough that my colleagues at the
Union of Concerned Scientists decided to publish aprimer offering
helpful pointers about how harassed scientists should respond,
including the following:
1.
Avoid getting pulled into debates with people who only seek to waste
your time;
2.
Respond only through mainstream sources or your own blog; and
3.
Keep records of harassing messages, and contact authorities if they
become threatening.
Torcello
says the response he has received has shown him that "those
seeking to distort the findings of climate science are equally
willing to distort philosophical and political argument with blatant
acts of dishonesty." It's a sad reality that those who write
about climate change now must prepare for this sort of harassment,
and that universities and other organizations need to be prepared to
support their employees during such assaults as well.
Still,
even ugly harassment can't be permitted to shut down a debate whose
time has come.
Seth Shulman is a senior staff writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a veteran science journalist and author of six books. This op-ed, and Shulman's otherGot Science? Columns, can be found on the UCS website. Shulman contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.