When pressed on the issue on T.V., Paladino denied that his remarks were sexist and then simply walked out on the interview to avoid further questioning. Paladino insisted that he was simply referring to Gillibrand’s lack of a mind of her own when casting votes, although, as Irin points out at Jezebel, he could have chosen a number of other non-sexist adjectives in that case: “Pawn. Puppet. Pushover.” But he went with “Schumer’s little girl.” Degrading much?

Paladino has already received plenty of Change.org coverage for his various offensive acts: Forwarding emails with the phrase “Run n___ers, run” and depicting the Obamas as “pimp and whore.” Calling LGBTQ people “disgusting.” Saying we should imprison poor people to teach them “hygiene.”

Paladino is big on abstinence-only education and what conservatives like to call “family values,” but had an affair while married that resulted in a child. (Well, he is against contraceptive access, so I guess there’s some consistency there.) His insistence that his private life was off-limits to the press didn’t stop him from alleging sans evidence that his Democratic opponent, Andrew Cuomo, had also engaged in an affair, an unfounded smear he later found himself forced to retract. And despite opposing abortion being legal even in cases of rape or insist, he has had no problem being landlord to Planned Parenthood and filing for special tax exemptions over the clinic. It’s not hypocrisy when there’s a lot of money involved, right?

If Paladino wins his race for governor, I might have to consider moving out of the state, so I hope all New Yorkers will cast their ballot against him. You can also demand he apologize for calling a female senator a male colleague’s “little girl.” He might have thought that by walking out on his interview the issue would just go away, but sexist politicians should know their language has ongoing consequences, and they can’t get away with derogatory remarks just before they come up for election.

Photo credit: Tracy_N_Brandon

Gubernatorial Candidate Carl Paladino Calls Senator "Little Girl"

But when do aggressive emails and comments cross this line? This has been an issue in so many areas of our modern life. Sure, the occasional controversial academic could get used to attacks, but in the climate change arena, the discourse is getting seriously out of hand.

When a steady stream of vitriolic hate is directed at a whole pack of prominent scientists whenever they dare venture beyond obscure journals, I think this line is surely crossed. Some of it is almost certainly from individual crazies. Others suggest these attacks are orchestrated, and blogger Tim Lambert notes that one high-profile spokesperson for the climate denial machine regularly publishes the email addresses of “target” scientists. Regardless of the source, I fear it is only a matter of time before abusive words translate to abusive actions.

The Guardian in the U.K. has compiled some of this hate mail, much of it directed at scientists whose private email exchanges were published by unknown hackers last year. These scientists were called “Nazi morons” and told to “gargle razor blades” and “rot in hell,” in a small sampling of hundreds of expletive-laden rants, many from anonymous writers. (I actually can’t a imagine a U.S. paper publishing the language in the above link.) They’ve also received many death threats and been told to commit suicide. Phil Jones, the scientist at the center of the “Climategate” scandal, said a few months ago that he has indeed had suicidal thoughts.

These scientists have called out for help, but U.S. local police and the FBI have generally not taken any action, citing free speech rights. Instead, researchers are left fearful and paranoid, which surely affects their ability to concentrate on their job and most certainly colors what they are willing to say in public.

“The effect on me has been tremendous,” Stanford University scientist Stephen Schneider told The Guardian. “Some of these people are mentally imbalanced. They are invariably gun-toting rightwingers. What do I do? Learn to shoot a Magnum? Wear a bullet-proof jacket?”

Earlier today, Change.org blogger Nikki Gloudeman wrote about growing calls for transparency in the climate science process. I wonder how in the world scientists can be more “transparent” when they fear for their lives. Clearly, these anonymous attackers — the original Climategate hacker, likely among them — are not after any real honesty. They are after blood. I truly hope they don’t ever get what they came for.

Photo Credit: Alan_Cleaver2000, Flickr User

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

For Climate Scientists, Death Threats Come With The Job