Originally posted here.
Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'
By Tom Harper, Sunday TelegraphScientists 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."
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 5
It's part of a natural cycle. Why the left is trying to scare us into higher taxes and more government regulations at the expense of the free market is beyond me.
It is ironic, that the most developed country which is making maximum noise about global warming has not signed the Kyoto protocol! Everyone likes to live in a clean environment, but the panic buttons pressed to demonstrate the devastations caused by global warming, are aimed only to slow down the industrial developments in other countries, while maintaining their own pace of industrialization. How is the warming taking place in other planets, where there are no life forms, as we know ? If the "wise men of science" are really scared that this beautiful planet is in danger, they should apply their combined wisdom in helping to keep the global environment clean, instead of pressing the "panic buttons". In the end, there is nothing which can be done with global warming, except bear with it to the best of our ability.
... and I wonder why that is ...
Is it a case of desperation... ??? Railing against the torrent? Clambering to escape engulfing seas .... (oooh ... sorry to be getting Scary there... children... please avert your ears..... oooogy booogy booooooooogittty!!!) ... ?
Or is it a case of true frustration of those who are so absolutely sure of their... rightness...? Desperate to reach a sensible ear ... to hear the reason in their call???
I certainly have my opinion as to which case rings truer... as I am sure anyone else who is curious may have one (for opinions are indeed free to be had)
But that brings me to a question I have: How does one Know what is "right" ... ???
What is the process that someone...anyone... goes through to arrive at "right" ... ??? ... Does one ever truly ARRIVE at "right" ? or, rather, does one only ever APPROACH "right" (for isn't the domain of absolute "RIGHT" left to god alone? (or some such concept) and not to be annexed by mortal beings of flesh and bone? ( Interestingly, that is why mathematics can be such a rewarding/satisfying endeavor: anyone can solve an equation and get a "right" answer... to reveal a truth... revealing what was already there...)
By the way, for those dealing with personal ... hubris issues... (heeeoooobrrriss) ... I will clarify the difference here between "right" ... the direction (like my right toe hurts (actually, it's my left toe because a horse stepped on it a week ago but I'll go with right for the sake of this explanation) ... AND "right" the qualitative descriptor (as in ... yes, that feels just right...yes put it right there.... (ooops, was that another use of the word "right" ? ehhh, let's skip that one for now, alright?)
From what base does one start with to determine "rightness" ???
What does one use to measure up against???
Is it personal desire? ... "I want it, I want it, I want it, I want it!!!"
Well... That certainly can be powerful ... and can feel like that is it... But that just doesn't do the trick...
What about those beliefs that one just knows is "right" ...
Well... if one thinks about it, why would anyone hold a belief if they didn't think it was "right" ...
Well ... there has to be some system of openness... right?
To measure what one holds as seeming to be "right" with what seems to work as "right" in the immediate world and beyond.
So... "I hold a belief that seems right to me as a ... working hypothesis... or theory ... and I will choose to hold on to that belief until it is dis-proven, that is ... proven not to be right..."
But, in measuring one's belief for its "rightness" one must be open to input...
But in being open to input ... one must be careful in what to accept as real and relevant...
So ... How does one determine what to be open to?
So ... Really ... How DOES one determine what to accept as worthy information?
... as relevant and accurate?
Is it Volume??? ... I Really don't think it is...
I would say that source and context are very important ... fidelity and continuity are important too... and, without saying, there is validity and accuracy...
but there is smell too, amazingly ... if it just smells rotten and out of place ... it does deserve caution and a red flag ....
Chris Akins ... your stuff fails to meet any reasonable standards to be considered seriously ... (if you skipped down just to read the end here, you really should go back and read the rest).
But also, the icky, gooky, venemous, kookieness of your stuff just doesn't smell right... as it were... and its volume is just annoying...