The researchers in question participated in a Guardian survey of experts earlier this year in which they shared feelings of extreme fear about what they believed was a failure on the part of the world to do something about future rises in temperatures. They said that they were ridiculed by some scientists after expressing their distress and were told they were not qualified to participate in these discussions.
They were accused of letting emotions cloud their judgment, and one even said that those who dismissed her fears as alarmist were, according to The Guardian, “speaking frequently from a position of privilege in western countries, with little direct experience of the effects of the climate crisis.”
They’re also attacking those who scrutinize them as “toxic,” shifting the focus away from their scientific integrity to their emotions and trying to make critics seem like the bad guys.
One of them, Dr. Shobha Maharaj, seemed to think – or wanted people to think – the issue was actually her skin color and gender rather than questions about science, stating: “Being a woman of colour from the global south and a scientist, I’m used to having everything I say pushed back against, so I didn’t at first find the trolling at all surprising, but I did find it concerning.”
Apparently, these scientists believe that their predictions should just be blindly accepted and that any criticism is somehow racist or coming from a position of privilege. When someone dares to ask deeper questions about the facts or doesn’t jump right on board with their doomsday scenarios, their reaction is to whine about it and talk about how people are hurting their feelings.
Shouldn't the science be able to speak for itself?
If they were truly confident in their data, they would let it speak for itself. There would be no need to defend it or try to convince anyone as its validity would be clear. Now, instead of presenting further evidence to appease critics, they are appealing for public sympathy. This is not doing much to inspire confidence in their scientific claims.
Their complaints about social media, with one scientist being upset about being labeled a “liar,” are also quite ridiculous. These platforms are places for people to share ideas and debate the topics of the day, but these scientists are acting like social media should be a safe place where they cannot be criticized.
Of course, we all know where this is headed: complaining that people are “abusing” someone online is often a precursor to having them censored so that their opposing views will not get any airtime. A good scientist would engage with criticism and present evidence defending their position rather than simply act like a victim and try to silence those who question them.
Ultimately, criticism and revision are essential parts of the scientific method. When the predictions made by a climate model do not end up panning out, shouldn’t a scientist want to develop better models that do not repeat the same mistakes of the previous ones instead of attacking those who criticize them?
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
