View Full Version : Scientists threatened for climate denial
your enemy
2007-03-13, 21:38
Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'
By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:24am GMT 11/03/2007
Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.
They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.
Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.
One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.
"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.
"I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal."
Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.
Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.
"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."
Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do."
Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml
BastardMan
2007-03-14, 01:57
Global Warmings a scam. Its the next "Al Quieda". We need one world government to save the Earth! Shut up al Gore and shove 'an inconvinient truth up your arse.
Its full of lies.
Watch the "Great Global Warming Swindel". It disproves his arguments completly.
Temperature has fluctuated as far back as can be recorded. Its naturally occuring.
quote:Originally posted by BastardMan:
Watch the "Great Global Warming Swindel". It disproves his arguments completly.
Temperature has fluctuated as far back as can be recorded. Its naturally occuring.
no it doesn't. it just makes pretty sounding statements about nordic farmers that idiots like you jump on and claim proves global warming is false.
it doesn't prove a single thing, but if you want to actually back up your sweeping statements with facts, there is a thread in green planet i created about this exact topic.
Sergeant_Tibbs
2007-03-14, 02:22
quote:Originally posted by BastardMan:
We need one world government to save the Earth!
Dude, shut up. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Oh wait, it's true.
http://tinyurl.com/2dy44w
People will still eat it up though, and that makes me a little http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)
Edit - I LOVE how this all of a sudden became the biggest hugest most importantest thing ev0r, almost overnight. http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=397582007 http://usi nfo.state. gov/xarchi ves/displa y.html?p=w ashfile-en glish&y=20 07&m=March &x=20070313161124saikceinawz1.445949e-03
And America's second favorite skull and bones member is plugging his new book, sweet! http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/13/114513.shtml
How much longer is this shit going to go on?
[This message has been edited by Sergeant_Tibbs (edited 03-14-2007).]
When people listen to Kerry and Gore on climatology, we are indeed doomed.
phoenix05
2007-03-14, 15:29
quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:
no it doesn't. it just makes pretty sounding statements about nordic farmers that idiots like you jump on and claim proves global warming is false.
it doesn't prove a single thing, but if you want to actually back up your sweeping statements with facts, there is a thread in green planet i created about this exact topic.
STFU. You're just eating whatever crap the Government is feeding you.
Congratulations on becoming one of the Governments Gimps.
[This message has been edited by phoenix05 (edited 03-14-2007).]
DuckWarri0r
2007-03-14, 15:44
Ok wait a minute, wasn't it just like two years ago that everyone was like "global warming is a heap of bullshit". Including governments. What the hell changed?
[This message has been edited by DuckWarri0r (edited 03-14-2007).]
ArmsMerchant
2007-03-15, 19:12
quote:Originally posted by DuckWarri0r:
Ok wait a minute, wasn't it just like two years ago that everyone was like "global warming is a heap of bullshit". Including governments. What the hell changed?
It wasn't "everyone." We in Alsaka have been noticing changes from global warming for years.
What is happening is that people are starting to wake up.
Real.PUA
2007-03-16, 01:46
The consensus among scientists has been here for many years, but it takes a while for them to convince nonscientists when there is such huge political ramifications (which leads to propaganda and a media war).
Slave of the Beast
2007-03-16, 08:00
quote:Originally posted by DuckWarri0r:
Ok wait a minute, wasn't it just like two years ago that everyone was like "global warming is a heap of bullshit". Including governments. What the hell changed?
It's become a perceived vote winner, i.e. the first politician to do something about it (or to lie loudly enough about doing something) gets to save the human race, or some such nonsense.
Which as far as reasons for herd voting go, is fairly compelling.
Shame about the scientific debate.
Real.PUA
2007-03-16, 10:11
The debate among scientists ended long ago. Unless the dissenters can provide new evidence such as climate models that dont involve CO2 there is not much more to discuss. Practically every major scientific association is on the same page.
And if professor Lindzen doesnt want to bee seen as a stooge he should stop taking exorbitant consulting fees from oil companies.
[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 03-16-2007).]
Slave of the Beast
2007-03-16, 14:41
quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:
The debate among scientists ended long ago.
1) Evidently not.
2) Religious orthodoxy stands still. Scientific investigation does not.
Be very careful that the line between the two does not blur.
quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:
Unless the dissenters can provide new evidence such as climate models that dont involve CO2 there is not much more to discuss.
The documentary in question provided alternative suggestions as to the primary cause of global warming.
Did you not watch it?
quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:
Practically every major scientific association is on the same page.
Ad populum.
quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:
And if professor Lindzen doesnt want to bee seen as a stooge he should stop taking exorbitant consulting fees from oil companies.
And of course, his financial activities automatically discredit every else who shares a similar opinion...
quote:Originally posted by phoenix05:
STFU. You're just eating whatever crap the Government is feeding you.
Congratulations on becoming one of the Governments Gimps.
are you fucking stupid?
cars/factories/cigarettes/generally BURNING ANYTHING emits carbon dioxide. you know that combination of carbon.. and oxygen, a nasty little gas which CAN kill you.
anyway, the o-zone which is a specific oxygen isotope, is being, hmm... decimated is a good word. the ozone is literally being over powered by all the extra CO2. essentially we've created another mother fucking atmosphere, within our atmosphere. or above it, or below it... something thefuck.
and all in all, with all the deforestation, we've been dwindling away our oxygen factories. slowly short-circuiting the system that kept the climatic balance of the planet in check. and now... now we're just waiting out the repurcussions.
ahve a good day.
Slave of the Beast
2007-03-16, 18:49
quote:Originally posted by eXo5:
...we've created another mother fucking atmosphere, within our atmosphere. or above it, or below it... something thefuck.
quote:Originally posted by eXo5:
are you fucking stupid?
Good question.
Real.PUA
2007-03-16, 19:59
quote:Originally posted by Slave of the Beast:
1) Evidently not.
2) Religious orthodoxy stands still. Scientific investigation does not.
Be very careful that the line between the two does not blur.
Evidently yes, as every major scientific association is on the same page. A consensus among scientists has been reached.
quote:The documentary in question provided alternative suggestions as to the primary cause of global warming.
Did you not watch it?
Not all of it, but I did watch enough to catch some completely false claims (such as volcanos releasing more CO2 than human activity). That, however, is irrelevant. A documentary is not the forum for scientific debate. Nobody cites An Inconvenient Truth (which I also did not watch) in the scientific literature. Scientists debate in peer reviewed publications, which are quite lenient on what they publish.
quote:Ad populum.
LOL. How else do you suggest that I prove a scientific consensus has been reached? The fact of the matter is that the scientific associations (which represent thousands of scientists) are in agreement, thus, a consensus among scientists has been reached. it's not an ad populum argument, it's a statement of fact.
quote:And of course, his financial activities automatically discredit every else who shares a similar opinion...
He's called an industry stooge, not for his opinion, but because of where he gets money. I dont see why you have brought the few other scientists who share his opinion into this. Where have they been called stooges?
swblacksheep
2007-03-17, 20:18
quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:
An Inconvenient Truth (which I also did not watch)
Well how can you deny it if you haven't seen it?
Are you afraid it might be true?
CatharticWeek
2007-03-19, 15:28
quote:Originally posted by swblacksheep:
Well how can you deny it if you haven't seen it?
Are you afraid it might be true?
Because it's a fucking biased movie. Let's just let the information out there speak for itself instead of being pitched.
Slave of the Beast
2007-03-19, 19:21
Damn, I should spend less time in PD....
quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:
Evidently yes, as every major scientific association is on the same page. A consensus among scientists has been reached.
quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:
LOL. How else do you suggest that I prove a scientific consensus has been reached? The fact of the matter is that the scientific associations (which represent thousands of scientists) are in agreement, thus, a consensus among scientists has been reached. it's not an ad populum argument, it's a statement of fact.
An ad populum is an ad populum. I don't care if it's a consensus between Jesus and his 12 disciples, it'll still be an ad populum.
As stated, among whom the consensus is, is irrelevant. The point is the validity of your argument relies on the number of people agreeing with you - i.e. an ad populum. Unless of course the scientific community has transcended basic logic.
And if you think so called "scientific consensus" confers some kind of intellectual bullet-proof coating to an argument, then your knowledge of the history and politics of science needs some serious expansion. Do you seriously believe science operates in some kind of sterile intellectual vacuum, free from politics, reputations, personal grudges and fierce competition for funding?
I'll give you one example of how solid scientific consensus can be. Stanley B. Prusiner after publishing his landmark paper on infectious prions in Science (1982), no less, was pilloried by the prevailing "consensus" opinion (note the word opinion) of the scientific community. Why? In a nutshell, it put all those supposedly dispassionate and rational scientists back's up.
He later won the Noble prize for his work on prions in 1997.
You simply cannot base your argument on a consensus. Be it scientific or otherwise.
quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:
Not all of it, but I did watch enough to catch some completely false claims (such as volcanos releasing more CO2 than human activity). That, however, is irrelevant.
Then why type it?
quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:
A documentary is not the forum for scientific debate. Nobody cites An Inconvenient Truth (which I also did not watch) in the scientific literature. Scientists debate in peer reviewed publications, which are quite lenient on what they publish.
But this isn't Science is it? It's Green Planet.
quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:
He's called an industry stooge, not for his opinion, but because of where he gets money. I dont see why you have brought the few other scientists who share his opinion into this. Where have they been called stooges?
The point is that anyone reading this thread who hasn't seen the documentary, may quite reasonably assume that your comment is representative of all the scientists in that documentary, as you haven't bothered to discuss their credentials. Either that, or the implication that he is a lone and completely isolated voice.
Hardly a fair or unbiased representation of the facts, would you say?
swblacksheep
2007-03-19, 23:52
quote:Originally posted by CatharticWeek:
Because it's a fucking biased movie. Let's just let the information out there speak for itself instead of being pitched.
Besides all the "family morals" bullshit he was throwing out during the movie, the scientific evidence that there are negative global warming effects was overwhelming.
Real.PUA
2007-03-20, 08:24
quote:Originally posted by Slave of the Beast:
An ad populum is an ad populum. I don't care if it's a consensus between Jesus and his 12 disciples, it'll still be an ad populum.
As stated, among whom the consensus is, is irrelevant. The point is the validity of your argument relies on the number of people agreeing with you - i.e. an ad populum. Unless of course the scientific community has transcended basic logic.
And if you think so called "scientific consensus" confers some kind of intellectual bullet-proof coating to an argument, then your knowledge of the history and politics of science needs some serious expansion. Do you seriously believe science operates in some kind of sterile intellectual vacuum, free from politics, reputations, personal grudges and fierce competition for funding?
I'll give you one example of how solid scientific consensus can be. Stanley B. Prusiner after publishing his landmark paper on infectious prions in Science (1982), no less, was pilloried by the prevailing "consensus" opinion (note the word opinion) of the scientific community. Why? In a nutshell, it put all those supposedly dispassionate and rational scientists back's up.
He later won the Noble prize for his work on prions in 1997.
You simply cannot base your argument on a consensus. Be it scientific or otherwise.
My argument was in reply to your "shame about the scientific debate" which indicated to me that you weren't aware of the consensus that had been reached among scientists. I wasn't using the consensus to prove global warming as fact, but merely to deny the claims that the debate is ongoing.
quote:Then why type it?
Because it was relevant to your comment, but not to the prior discussion. Numerous errors and manipulations of data/graphs, and use of outdated data have been discovered in this documentary, btw. If that is what you want to discuss then we can do that. I may even go so far as to actually watch the documentary if that is the case.
quote:But this isn't Science is it? It's Green Planet.
And yet we are talking about the scientific debate. So , yes, science is the topic.
quote:The point is that anyone reading this thread who hasn't seen the documentary, may quite reasonably assume that your comment is representative of all the scientists in that documentary, as you haven't bothered to discuss their credentials. Either that, or the implication that he is a lone and completely isolated voice.
Hardly a fair or unbiased representation of the facts, would you say?
He is the one that complained of being called a stooge, not the others. If you can show that the others have been called stooges you will have a point, but you havent done that. I would also like to see the publication record of the scientists in the documentary (are they still active in publishing or are the retired?).
[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 03-20-2007).]
As punishment for Green Planet's continued existence, I'm going to drop a 360 in my car and run open headers. Goddamn hippies...
Slave of the Beast
2007-03-29, 14:54
quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:
My argument was in reply to your "shame about the scientific debate" which indicated to me that you weren't aware of the consensus that had been reached among scientists.
Your indications were incorrect.
quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:
I wasn't using the consensus to prove global warming as fact, but merely to deny the claims that the debate is ongoing.
No a consensus agreement indicates the scale of the argument, not it's existence.
quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:
Because it was relevant to your comment, but not to the prior discussion. Numerous errors and manipulations of data/graphs, and use of outdated data have been discovered in this documentary, btw. If that is what you want to discuss then we can do that. I may even go so far as to actually watch the documentary if that is the case.
Care to be specific?
quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:
And yet we are talking about the scientific debate. So , yes, science is the topic.
Science, as in the peer reviewed journal, not the topic.
quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:
He is the one that complained of being called a stooge, not the others. If you can show that the others have been called stooges you will have a point, but you havent done that.
I'm not talking about what he said, I'm talking about your targeting of him and it's implication.
quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:
I would also like to see the publication record of the scientists in the documentary (are they still active in publishing or are the retired?).
Well, who's stopping you?
Real.PUA
2007-03-29, 19:13
quote:Originally posted by Slave of the Beast:
Your indications were incorrect.
Possibly, but you are intentionally vague and avoid taking any solid positions. Like right now you could have clarified what you meant but you chose not to.
quote:No a consensus agreement indicates the scale of the argument, not it's existence.
Does argument = debate in this context? Let's not change the language we are already using. But if we extend this logic of yours, every scientific proposition is still "in debate" including whether or not the earth is flat. Scale is irrelevant unless the scale is specified. So go ahead and specify the scale.
quote:Care to be specific?
I was specific. I said graphs were manipulated/misrepresented. Do a google search. A few online newspapers have ran stories on it.
Here's one example: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/more_tggws_fakery.php
The film has not a shred of credibility.
quote:Science, as in the peer reviewed journal, not the topic.
The point is just because a few tards can get a film on TV doesn't mean it has one shred of scientific credibility. Don't make claims about a scientific theory or a debate among scientists without citing the proper sources.
quote:I'm not talking about what he said, I'm talking about your targeting of him and it's implication.
I didn't target anyone, I responded specifically to what he said. So if you arent talking about what he said, you arent talking about what I said.
quote:Well, who's stopping you?
Want to guess who isnt publishing? Go ahead and guess who is retired and who isnt. You probably don't care because you arent even debating anything you are just making statements that lack substance. Try making a claim regarding the topic of this thread.
Astralis
2007-03-31, 01:48
Legalize marijuana... Problem solved...
Within 6 months we will have so much green fluffy plants covering the US to take in the extra c02 100 times over http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)
Legalize marijuana... Problem solved...
Within 6 months we will have so much green fluffy plants covering the US to take in the extra c02 100 times over http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)
rofl, excellent
deus-redux
2007-04-08, 22:11
Back on topic please.
People shouldn't be threatened for their interpretation of evidence, even if it is wrong.
I'm all in favour, however, of threatening people who don't even look at the evidence. :D
-deus-
Prometheus
2007-04-08, 22:46
In science, it is as exciting to be proven wrong as to be proven correct. In both cases you acquire a glimpse of the greater truth.
deus-redux
2007-04-08, 22:55
In science, it is as exciting to be proven wrong as to be proven correct. In both cases you acquire a glimpse of the greater truth.
Exactly. A true scientist aspires to know more. Someone who wants to prove themselves right all the time, is more a narcissist.:p
On a side note, you're fast becoming one of my favourite posters.
-deus-