At Guardian article titled ‘We have emotions too’: Climate scientists respond to attacks on objectivity is a remarkable exercise in self-compassion, featuring climate scientists speaking out about the perceived unfair criticism they face. This is in reaction to the pushback we received after the publication of a stupid survey by the Guardian last May
These self-appointed climate saviors insist that their predictions should be accepted without question, and otherwise they complain about the cruelty and injustice of the world. This isn’t science under attack – it’s the fragile ego that cries when others refuse to buy the doomsday narrative.
Researchers say they have been subjected to ridicule by some scientists after taking part in a large Guardian survey of experts in May, during which they and many others expressed extreme fear of rising winter temperatures and the world’s failure to take adequate action. He said that he had been told that he was not qualified to participate in the discussion about this climate crisis, spreading suffering and injustice.
However, researchers say that embracing these emotions is necessary to do good science and is an incentive to work on better ways to deal with the climate crisis and the world’s rapidly increasing destruction. He also said that those who reject fear because they are full of doom and alarmism often talk about their privileged position in western countries, with first-hand experience of the effects of the climate crisis.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/25/we-have-emotions-too-climate-scientists-respond-to-attacks-on-objectivity
Real “Crisis”: Feelings of Pain
At Guardian The piece is full of climate scientists’ complaints about what they criticize, a situation that seems to cause great distress. They whimper about public skepticism as if it were an attack on their personal well-being. In one melodramatic segment, a scientist complains about being called a “liar” on social media. Well, welcome to the world of public debate, where people will scrutinize, question, and yes, sometimes rudely reject claims that seem dubious. But the Guardian it seems determined to present these professionals not as strong researchers who can handle criticism, but as delicate flowers that wither under public doubt.
Instead of addressing substantive criticism—like failed climate models, inconsistent predictions, or the fact that climate policy often does more harm than good—these scientists turn to emotion. He said harsh words from the public are as much a threat as climate change. He even suggested that “climate anxiety” is fueled by “online abuse” from skeptics. So let’s get straight to the point: models can handle complex calculations about global warming trends, but scientists can’t handle tweets?
The “Toxicity” of Skepticism
One theme dominates The Guardian This article is a scientist’s characterization of public surveillance as “toxic”. This is a clever rhetorical strategy, designed to make criticism not just misguided but morally wrong. By framing dissenters as aggressors who “damage” scientists, the article tries to flip the script: suddenly, it’s not about whether the climate model continues to rise in scrutiny; about what critics hurt the feelings of scientists.
If anything, this rhetoric reveals scientists’ shaky confidence in their own predictions. People who are confident in the data do not crumble in the question. He engages, explains, and persuades. But here, instead of presenting hard evidence to silence critics, climate scientists want sympathy. This is a non-serious approach to a field that is supposed to determine the fate of our planet.
Ben Pile’s criticism Everyday skeptics nailed it when he observed that the current trend among climate scientists is to assume skepticism is not only wrong, but dangerous. By shifting their focus to criticism of so-called “toxicity”, scientists avoid the real problems – like why their models often overshoot reality, or why predictions of impending disasters keep running late like badly managed train schedules.
I believe it is an implication of the Carrington series Guardian his articles and surveys. This suggests that people with no scientific expertise to speak of are still considered ‘scientists’ and experts. This suggests that those with scientific expertise will gladly and radically depart from the consensus position and objective data on meteorological events and their impact on society. And it shows that he is not reluctant to use his own emotional state as leverage to coerce others. Carrington thinks that showing the emotional problems of scientists will convince us to share our worries. But all it shows is how foolish it is to defer to the authority of climate science. It’s an unstable mess. Science must be cool, calm, rational, detached and disinterested, or just a stupid 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- hysterical unstable/
Victims are Shields
A whole tantrum (see murder of crows, whale pods), climate whiners fleeing to ideological shelters, Natural Climate Changecrying for help. You see, when public skepticism becomes too much for fragile nerves to handle, this tantrum runs straight to “father”, hoping for a pat on the back and a warm bottle of validation. And a better place than that naturea publication that will bend over backwards to support an emotional narrative? The scientist clearly needed a safe space where his feelings could be held, rather than questioned. Forget the strict defense of models and theories – no, no, this time it’s about defending them soft psyches from the angle, bad skeptics on Twitter.
At nature the article is not just a plea for public sympathy; it’s a full-on tantrum disguised as scholarly commentary. The authors are not interested in hard science or debate—they want therapy. With a straight face, he argues that public criticism is tantamount to abuse, reducing scientific discourse to a matter of emotional resilience. So instead of refining their models, these complainers want us to accept that hurt feelings are a legitimate basis for climate policy.
At nature The article doubles down on this victim narrative, portraying scientists as burdened not only by the existential threat of climate change but also by societal hostility. The author makes a point of equating climate research with front-line war reporting, as if posting dire projections on X is the equivalent of dodging a bullet. This is a transparent attempt to solicit sympathy and criticism. If scientists can present themselves as victims of a cruel society, then their arguments become untenable.
At Guardian The piece further expands on this theme, portraying scientists as misunderstood martyrs who bear the emotional weight of seeing a bleak future. It’s as if the skepticism of unprovable projections makes the persecutor of the truth seeker. The narrative is clear: “Don’t ask us, or you’re part of the problem.” But when the scientific discourse devolves into moral posturing, it loses credibility and begins to resemble a political campaign-which is driven by the manipulation of emotions rather than evidence.
Social Media Tears
Of course, no article about the suffering of scientists would be complete without a good dose of social media victims. At Guardian The article presents complaints about “abuse” online, as scientists recount their horrific experiences of being criticized on platforms like X. According to hard-nosed researchers, the online world is a rude place where people talk about their predictions.
This is almost funny. After all, social media is a battleground for ideas, not a safe haven for pampered experts. If scientists can’t handle criticism of X, how can they hope to withstand the scrutiny of peer review or public debate? Ben Pile rightly points out that climate scientists’ complaints about the “abuse” of social media are often an excuse to shut down arguments altogether. Rather than engage in criticism, these scientists prefer to play the victim, using their emotional wounds as a shield against legitimate questions.
“Science” is a Moral Crusade
At Guardian the article’s melodramatic tone is matched by moralistic language. It tries to turn science into a crusade, with climate scientists as honest warriors against the forces of ignorance and denial. This framing is not just patronizing; it is manipulative. By presenting climate scientists as good crusaders, the article shows that their opponents are not only wrong, but dishonest.
The scientist can even make his emotions like a badge of honor, arguing that despair about climate change can legitimize his work. But in reality, emotional outbursts and moral grandstanding are signs of weakness, not strength. Scientists are supposed to be objective and dispassionate – traits that make their conclusions believable, not subject to personal bias or emotional manipulation.
The irony here is palpable: scientists who claim to be guided by evidence use emotional appeals when the evidence is inconclusive. It is a strategy designed to stifle the debate rather than foster it. By framing criticism as a form of aggression, these scientists are effectively saying, “Agree with us, or you contribute to our emotional suffering.” This is not science; it’s emotional blackmail.
Public Inspection is a Good Thing
Contrary to the complaints The Guardianpublic scrutiny is not an attack on science; that’s an important 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 pander to scientists’ feelings but to call for better models. If the scientists are shown in the The Guardian can’t handle that, they’re in the wrong field.
This thin-skinned response to criticism is particularly troubling given that policy changes are based on climate forecasts. The rush to Net Zero, for example, has important implications for energy costs, employment, and global inequality. Public skepticism is not only justified; it is important. If climate scientists hope to be taken seriously, they must embrace the tough questions, not back down.
Conclusion: Buck Up or Bow Out
At Guardian The article offers 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 are more about their own insecurities than about the validity of their claims. If these researchers want to be seen as reliable, they have to harden up. Real science does not hide emotions; it faces research head-on and accepts challenges as a way to improve findings.
So, to the climate scientists who complain about “misuse” in X: harsh. If you can’t defend your models and predictions against public criticism, maybe you’re not as confident in your conclusions as you claim. And for The Guardianwhich seems to be intended to protect this “gentleman” from criticism: stop trying to turn skepticism into sin. The future of the planet is better than a bunch of whining scientists asking for sympathy instead of solutions.
Related
