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."
going by the near fanatic stuff of the AGW lobby we see here, this comes as no surprise. People who say sceptics of AGW theory are like creationists or are like holocaust deniers can to any length.
As regards the apparent death threats I think there needs to be perspective. Are they coming from a nutty fringe on the far left of the environmental lobby (who many reasoned environmentalists deplore), or is the entire science establishment emailing threats to Timothy Ball?
Of course we've no way of knowing, but I think it wouldn't be unfair to imagine on the balance of probability it's the former.
I can quite believe it, when you have the likes of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth extremists that behave a lot like the Aninal Rights activists it's not difficult to put them all in the same camp.
What about amateur enthusiasts learning the science?
I've had death threats, my e-mail address placed on a child porn site mail list (leading to vile junk mail), repeated hack-attacks after asking too many awkward questions of an American contrarist, people going onto boards I've never been on and abusing me, etc etc etc.
This is not when I was a sceptic, but since I've been persuaded by the strength of the evidence.
Originally posted by CobblyWorlds: What about amateur enthusiasts learning the science?
I've had death threats, my e-mail address placed on a child porn site mail list (leading to vile junk mail), repeated hack-attacks after asking too many awkward questions of an American contrarist, people going onto boards I've never been on and abusing me, etc etc etc.
Originally posted by CobblyWorlds: What about amateur enthusiasts learning the science?
I've had death threats, my e-mail address placed on a child porn site mail list (leading to vile junk mail), repeated hack-attacks after asking too many awkward questions of an American contrarist, people going onto boards I've never been on and abusing me, etc etc etc.
Were you abused as a child CobblyWorlds?
You'd feel pretty small had I been, wouldn't you?
Thanks for reinforcing the point I was making Roger58 and WIYM. There are uncivilised buffoons on both sides of any argument.
Originally posted by CobblyWorlds: What about amateur enthusiasts learning the science?
I've had death threats, my e-mail address placed on a child porn site mail list (leading to vile junk mail), repeated hack-attacks after asking too many awkward questions of an American contrarist, people going onto boards I've never been on and abusing me, etc etc etc.
Were you abused as a child CobblyWorlds?
You'd feel pretty small had I been, wouldn't you?
Not at all. If you had been (and you don't have to answer, of course), it might explain the extraordinary amount of time and effort you put into convincing yourself that the world is broken and "ferreting around on the internet for months" in search of irrefutable evidence of this.
As 'ulterior motives' appear to be a popular topic here, I was wondering if you might have one? Something like: proving the world really is broken is a roundabout way of proving something a lot closer to home isn't.
Or to put it another way: what might CobblyWorlds be getting on with in the world, if he wasn't so furiously busy trying to prove it was broken?
Not at all. If you had been (and you don't have to answer, of course), it might explain the extraordinary amount of time and effort you put into convincing yourself that the world is broken and "ferreting around on the internet for months" in search of irrefutable evidence of this.
As 'ulterior motives' appear to be a popular topic here, I was wondering if you might have one? Something like: proving the world really is broken is a roundabout way of proving something a lot closer to home isn't.
Or to put it another way: what might CobblyWorlds be getting on with in the world, if he wasn't so furiously busy trying to prove it was broken?
Perhaps your time would be better spent arguing your case?
Originally posted by WordSmithy: Perhaps your time would be better spent arguing your case?
But I AM arguing my case WordSmithy. I've simply asked CobblyWorlds a question about his relationship to global warming. And my time is now best spent waiting for his reply.
As a self-proclaimed smith of words, I'm sure you appreciate that we have an abundance of them and they can be put together and used in many different ways. Of course, if you know a lot of words (as most adults do) and then limit yourself to only using a few of them over and over again that denies everyone a good, nourishing exchange.
As you appear more interested in personal attack than debating the issues, kindly go and do it somewhere else. The whole point of this thread is make people think about the dangers of personalising the debate.
I know it's amazing Roger but I have got much better things to do with my time.
1. Programming neural network simulations - 2.5 years in abeyance. Steve Grand has some good ideas. 2. Trying to revise Rizzi's "Passive Microwave Systems. 3. I've found some notes on the GSM A5/1 encryption algorithm and keep menaing to programme and mess around with that. http://www.mirrors.wiretapped.net/security/cryptography...orithms/gsm/a5-1-2.c GSM A5/1 is the encryption algrorithm used in GSM mobiles. The bit parity code at the start of the code segment there is neat, my own way is so long winded being a bit by bit with division by 2 at each iteration - inelegant. 4. Finally I've got about 15 new climate science papers to read.
In short I have stacks to do. And don't like having my time wasted by ill considered stuff broadcast by C4 and then repeated here without comprehension or scepticism.
WordySmith is right. If like me you questioned your scepticism and got out there and learnt, you may find you're wrong.
Like I did in 2005.
January 2005, when I started to realise we've been in the Anthropocene for 30 years.
And this is where I started:
Can't locate on the PAOC site - but these google: "paoc chap1"..."paoc chap12"
MIT is slow right now (US evening?), so perhaps leave it till the AM. These come up in Google, so they're public access (if not why meta-tag?). You're getting a pretty good basic science course for free so respect MIT's bandwidth and download for later reading, if possible during US night.
Once you've grasped all that you're ready to start, I know it's daunting.
Cobbly, l am new to this forum but l can spot your posts speed-reading. lt is invariably 'cut and paste' of links that, overall, totally swamp anything you have to say.
Thanks Cobbly, you sound like a very clever man in your field.
I'll pass up on the links you've listed as I have no felt need to save the world - so the material wouldn't be at all daunting to me.
As for being a sceptical, someone who knew far more about this than I ever will once defined madness as 'a need to be believed'. I think he found that out not by questioning his scepticism, but by tolerating it.
I don't need to be believed. I don't care what others think. But I will not stand by and see the real science abused.
PS I was trying to be helpful with those links, for you and anyone else here. I am not at all clever, I'm a persistant also-ran who's standing on the shoulders of giants.
Arcana69, I'm sorry. I know the links are confusing and my posts require more effort and time than most can be bothered with. Not a criticism of anyone, just an acceptance that not everybody is a nerdy science nut like me.
If I post links it's so that those sceptical of what I say can check my references and ensure I'm not 'spinning'.
As a former sceptic that's changed his opinion 180degrees it concerns me that people have swallowed that programme hook line and sinker without being critical of it.
I don't need to be believed. I don't care what others think. But I will not stand by and see the real science abused.
PS I was trying to be helpful with those links, for you and anyone else here. I am not at all clever, I'm a persistant also-ran who's standing on the shoulders of giants.
Arcana69, I'm sorry. I know the links are confusing and my posts require more effort and time than most can be bothered with. Not a criticism of anyone, just an acceptance that not everybody is a nerdy science nut like me.
If I post links it's so that those sceptical of what I say can check my references and ensure I'm not 'spinning'.
As a former sceptic that's changed his opinion 180degrees it concerns me that people have swallowed that programme hook line and sinker without being critical of it.
Well said Cobbly, nicely put, and an excellent set of resources. You underate yourself, but that could be mere affectation or false modesty as it's sometimes called. You are more than a match for the buffons hanging around here, they remind me of young Tories... I'm glad to hear you were a sceptic who saw through that denial, more credit to you. Having spent thirty years waiting for homo sapiens to wake up to what it's done, it's gratifying that it's now centre stage where it belongs. Those who deny it are very much intellectual bedfellows with the creationists, and their tactics are remarkably similar and their [abuse of] argument as tenuous.
Are they coming from a nutty fringe on the far left of the environmental lobby?
Here is an interesting admission. What other segment of science has a nutty fringe on the far left? And it sort of accepts that climate change isn't science at all, but in reality is a political lobby. Bravo for honesty, finally at long last.
quote:
As a former sceptic that's changed his opinion 180degrees it concerns me that people have swallowed that programme hook line and sinker without being critical of it.
On the otherhand it troubles cobbly not at all that we have been bombarded for the last few months (or has it been years?) by global warming propaganda, swallowed hook line and sinker, by the accommodating world press, and regurgitated back at us with nary a skeptical question.
Here is a skeptics question for you. Do you believe that NASA, or any other scientific establishment, has equipment so finely attenuated that they can measure the solar fluxuations necessary to produce a .6 degree temperature rise that occures over the course of 70 years? If you do you have more faith then I. Maybe you should join the convent or something.
C4 Forums 
