Change of attitude needed as debate overheatsBY ROSSLYN BEEBY
14 Jun, 2011 04:00 AM
An excess of vitriol has led to a climate of fear among scientists.
What are the essential qualities of a good debate? According to the Kettering Foundation - a United States think tank that explores issues of democracy - good debate is characterised by broad participation, civility, diversity of views and a willingness to consider opposing arguments and re-examine one's own. Good debate is not about personal attacks or ''bully pulpit'' generalisations.
Just over a week ago, The Canberra Times published a story revealing Australia's climate scientists are being targeted by ''a vicious unrelenting email campaign that has resulted in police investigations of death threats''. It's been interesting to watch, and read, the reaction.
Seriously, who could condone abusive, violent threats against Australia's scientists? Or, apparently taking their cue from the kind of sexist comments that launched the global Slutwalk phenomenon, argue those arrogant climate scientists are just asking for it?
Naturally, there are opposing views on climate change and the Gillard Government's proposed carbon tax, just as there were opposing views on the introduction of a goods and services tax. But it's possible to disagree with dignity.
Various bloggers have accused us of ''beating up'' our front-page story from a handful of complaints. Not so. We spoke to more than 30 scientists, in all states and territories, to ascertain if threats were confined to pockets of high-profile scientists regularly quoted by the media. They were not. It seems anyone speaking up on climate change - however briefly - is fair game in this trolling campaign.
Two of the most shocking cases involved young women who have had little media experience or exposure. One was invited to speak on climate change at a suburban library. Her brief was simple - talk about everyday things people can do to cut their carbon footprint, talk about climate books available at the library (list provided), leave time for questions, and mingle afterwards. The other woman was asked by a local newspaper to pose with her young children for a photograph to illustrate an article promoting a community tree-planting event. She was briefly quoted as saying planting trees could help mitigate climate change. Two days after the article appeared, she received emails containing threats of sexual assault and violence against her children.
As for the woman speaking at the library, her car windscreen was smeared with excrement - animal or human, does it matter? - and the words ''climate turd'' written (also in excrement) across the car bonnet. Proof perhaps, of a climate dissenter with a Freudian complex indicating arrested development.
These vile attacks were intended to intimidate. Why not raise a difference of opinion during the half-hour of coffee and chat after the library talk? Why send abusive emails to a young woman whose photograph illustrates a chatty story in the back pages of a regional newspaper?Several bloggers who dispute the reality of climate change have disputed the veracity of these threats. Opposition science spokeswoman Sophie Mirabella issued a statement claiming, ''the apparently false allegation of death threats have diminished the individuals involved and reflect poorly on the scientific community''.
False allegation? Who did she speak to? Apparently not the climate scientist who has been advised by state police to install a panic button in his office after receiving death threats. Or to the scientist who had his house vandalised (hence police advice to install video surveillance), or the researcher who received an email, with a marksman's target superimposed on his photo. Sorry Sophie, none of this behaviour is acceptable.
Forum
Pages: 1 
