International human rights nonprofit Global Witness released the results of a survey of climate scientists this week in a report called Global Hating, which found that Twitter and Facebook are utterly failing to protect these scientists from harassment.
The report found that 39% of the polled scientists have been targets of online harassment. For scientists who have over 10 publications, the figure jumps to 49%. Even worse, 73% of those appearing in the media at least once a month have been subjected to abuse, creating a pretty clear incentive for scientists to stay in their ivory tower.
Almost all of the abuse included attacks on the scientists’ credibility (81%) or work (91%). However, while only 3% of men experienced gendered attacks, 34% of scientists who identified as women said their sex or gender was targeted, and were three times more likely to receive ageist abuse and threats of sexual violence.
Overall, nearly a fifth of female climate scientists reported receiving threats of physical violence, as did 16% of male scientists.
This violent rhetoric has an impact: "51% report anxiety caused by the abuse, and 21% of women report physical illness resulting from the stress," the report states. "Over a fifth end up dreading work, and nearly half (48%) report a loss of productivity."
There's also another chilling effect: "41% of affected scientists polled said their experience had made them less likely to post on social media about climate issues."
Fortunately, there are those who, like us, run on spite: "23% of affected scientists reported that their experience had made them more likely to do so, which suggests many scientists are determined to communicate climate topics on social media in spite of the risk they may receive harmful content." But still, no one should have to consider getting harassed a job duty.
"People being racist, calling all sorts of colourful names, and bullying – these are not uncommon," Dr. Shouro Dasgupta told Global Witness as one of four case studies. "Most of the harassment I receive is racist in nature partly because they can’t question my expertise, so they question and attack what is unnatural to them, which is race."
Most of this harassment "happens in private messages, which is why many researchers keep their direct messages closed." Potential collaborations that could've been started by an easy and casual DM introduction get cut off, reporters can't easily reach scientists who may otherwise not have readily available contact information, and scientists have to weather repeated attacks.
Dr. Mark Maslin said, "I might get 1,000 likes for a tweet and maybe 10 nasty comments – but it is those comments we remember." And it's not like it's on outlandish content, either. For Dr. William Colgan, the "most hate-filled" episode lasted for months after Greta Thunberg retweeted him, "and it was just a random tweet saying 'Hey, here we are at climate strike' on a random Friday, a little video of kids walking through the streets in Copenhagen."
"It happens on a regular basis," Dr. Helene Muri explained. "The more extreme cases are comments in the direction that I should kill myself in such and such a way. Or the worst one is when they say that they are going to hunt me down and do various things to me." This abuse doesn’t stop her, though it does mean she'll turn some opportunities down. But certainly not all of them, as Dr. Muri remained grounded, saying "I still try to engage as much as I can because climate change is a much bigger issue than the consequences that I am experiencing from actively engaging in communication."
Scientists shouldn't have to wonder if, on top of everything else, social media use means exposure to dangerous people who threaten to literally kill the messenger bearing bad news.
And while groups like the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund can offer some assistance for those experiencing legal harassment, the real responsibility here lies with Facebook and Twitter, the platforms on which most of the abuse happens. Global Witness’ report goes through the reforms and recommendations that are possible, but for the sake of space, we'll sum it up in one sentence: When a rowdy patron gets too drunk and starts harassing customers, it's up to establishment security to remove him, not leave it to the guests to figure it out themselves.