These Climate Scientists Are Telling You What They Really Think

Researchers explain why they feel frustrated, angry, worried, and helpless in the global warming debate.

A climate scientist expresses some of her feelings about the climate debate.<a href="">Joe Duggan</a>/

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Angry. Worried. Frustrated. Anxious.

Such are some of the words that Australian climate scientists use to express their feelings about the dysfunctional climate debate (which, in Australia, has recently seen the repealing of a carbon tax, a chief objective of the current Liberal Party prime minister Tony Abbott). Their writings appear on a new website, entitled “Is This How You Feel?,” run by Joe Duggan, a master’s student in science communication at the Australian National University’s Centre for the Public Awareness of Science. Reached by email, Duggan explained that he “wanted to give scientists the chance to step away from the dry data and clinical prose that laypeople find so hard to engage with.”

Here are some particularly striking emotional expressions from the researchers, expressions that the climate “skeptic” blogger Anthony Watts has said make him want to “hurl”:

I feel a maelstrom of emotions.

Life would be so much simpler if climate change didn’t exist.

I am infuriated. Infuriated we are destroying our planet.

I often feel like shouting…But would that really help? I feel like they don’t listen anyway. After all, we’ve been shouting for years.

It makes me feel sick.

I feel betrayed by our leaders who show no leadership and who place ideology above evidence, willing to say anything to peddle their agendas.

We have so much to lose.

And, perhaps most memorable of all:

I see a group of people sitting in a boat, happily waving, taking pictures on the way, not knowing that this boat is floating right into a powerful and deadly waterfall.

You can read all of the letters here. People often allege that scientists can’t communicate, but as these letters show, that’s not really true.

When they’re actually speaking or writing in the language that they use with other scientists, then yes, scientists can seem incomprehensible. But when they’re speaking simply as people, freed up to express emotions, they share thoughts and feelings that we can all instantly understand.

“This is not the only way to communicate climate change, but it is one way,” says Duggan. “We need to kill apathy through death by a thousand cuts. Maybe this can be one cut.”

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend