NCclimber 0 #1 March 12, 2007 QuoteScientists 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #2 March 12, 2007 Ha. Just wait till you see what we they do to the ones that promote intelligent design. Muuhahahah! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #3 March 12, 2007 QuoteHa. Just wait till you see what we they do to the ones that promote intelligent design. Muuhahahah! Are they receiving death threats, too? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #4 March 12, 2007 I'm sure glad nobody here acts that way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #5 March 12, 2007 There are reasons why I have suspected that the Global Warming Movement is less than completely honest. First, plenty of studies seem to indicate that methane is much, much more potent as a greenhouse gas, which says to me that there could be more bang for the buck in efforts to reduve methane than CO2. That fact that C)2 is so strongly attcked tells me that it is more about a war against the petrochemical inductry than anything. Indeed, if greenhouse gases were a big problem, I would think that biodegradable products would be shelved in favor of non-degradable, non-methane prorducing products. (Don't light a match around week-old lawn clippings). You've got people praising the hydrogen cell because it only emits water vapor. I have two problems with that. First, water vapor is the LEADING greenhouse gas, and they laud producing more of it. Second, "zero emission vehicle" is the term utilized, because while the vehicle itself does not produce emissions (except for water vapor - which is kinda like marketing) the prduction of hydrogen sure as hell does. It's why I've been so torn on it... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,151 #6 March 12, 2007 >First, plenty of studies seem to indicate that methane is much, much more potent as a greenhouse gas . . . It is. But: a) We emit much, much less methane by several orders of magnitude. Here in the US we emit 27mmt methane vs 5900 mmt CO2. b) There is much more CO2 in the atmosphere - 370ppm vs 1.5ppm. c) its half-life in the atmosphere is much lower (so it's removed more quickly) d) we _have_ made efforts to reduce CH4 emissions, and they have been effective. Increases in methane levels are slowing down. So while it is a problem, it's one that's being dealt with pretty effectively, and is a minor problem compared to CO2. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,151 #7 March 12, 2007 >You've got people praising the hydrogen cell because it only emits >water vapor. I have two problems with that. First, water vapor is the >LEADING greenhouse gas, and they laud producing more of it. Uh, right, but gasoline cars emit more water than hydrogen fuel cell cars. >the vehicle itself does not produce emissions (except for water vapor - >which is kinda like marketing) the prduction of hydrogen sure as hell does. That's the big problem - we don't have a good source of hydrogen, so we have to make it from oil, which doesn't help with the problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #8 March 12, 2007 They get death threats from screwballs - the same type of people that bomb abortion clinics. They are shunned by scientists because 99% of scientist agree on global warming, and those who don't are morons. Hence, no funding for morons. Makes sense to me. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,188 #9 March 12, 2007 Quote You've got people praising the hydrogen cell because it only emits water vapor. I have two problems with that. First, water vapor is the LEADING greenhouse gas, and they laud producing more of it. Second, "zero emission vehicle" is the term utilized, because while the vehicle itself does not produce emissions (except for water vapor - which is kinda like marketing) the prduction of hydrogen sure as hell does. It's why I've been so torn on it... All the water vapor emitted by vehicles powered by oil or H2 is a drop in the ocean compared with... the ocean. Water vapor has its own equilibrium that depends on ocean temperature.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #10 March 12, 2007 QuoteFirst, water vapor is the LEADING greenhouse gas, and they laud producing more of it. I'm really scared now. If highly educated people like lawrocket have THIS kind of unbelievably weak understanding of basic concepts like steam, clouds, and rain, the human race is unavoidably screwed. It's over folks. We may as well just party on. Ain't nothing gonna save us now. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #11 March 12, 2007 QuoteThey get death threats from screwballs - the same type of people that bomb abortion clinics. Abortion clinics do a bit more than just offer opinions. QuoteThey are shunned by scientists because 99% of scientist agree on global warming, and those who don't are morons. Hence, no funding for morons.What a myopic perspective. You seem to fit right in with people this article references. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #12 March 12, 2007 Quote Abortion clinics do a bit more than just offer opinions. So, you are OK with the abortion clinic bombings but not the global warming death threats? Nice. (both are equally stupid IMO) -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #13 March 12, 2007 QuoteAll the water vapor emitted by vehicles powered by oil or H2 is a drop in the ocean compared with... the ocean. Water vapor has its own equilibrium that depends on ocean temperature. that's an interesting perspective you make - that even if industry/etc does emit various gasses and toxins the world is too big a place to assume mankind has any effect significant above and beyond what the planet already is doing ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #14 March 12, 2007 I understand that. Billvon DID let me know something I did not already know - that hydrogen powered vehicles produce less water vapor than gasoline-powered vehicles. I also understand that some wonder whether water vapor becomes its own regulatory mechanism. The way it was explained it that the more water vapor there is in the atmosphere the more clouds you would expect to see. Specifically, cumulus and cumulonimbus clouds, which are good at reflecting the heating energy. Cirrhus clouds, on the other hand, are poor at reflecting rays btu good insulators. With an increaee in water vapor in the atmosphere, especially that which comes from heating of the ocean, one would expect to see more cumulus clouds as a natural expected event. So when you say that water vapor has its own equilibrium that depends on the ocean temperature, it seems that ocean temperature has its own equilibrium based in part on water vapor. I do not know the nature and extent of the variables of clouds that are assessed with global warming. What was explained to me seemed to make sense - though I readily admit that truths are often counterintuitive. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #15 March 12, 2007 QuoteIf highly educated people like lawrocket have THIS kind of unbelievably weak understanding of basic concepts like steam, clouds, and rain, the human race is unavoidably screwed. I never hesitate to be make a statement and have contrary evidence provide feedback. I am very often wrong - and learn from those like billvon and kallend who provide feedback and evidence of my error. I learn as much - if not more - from being wrong and corrected than from being right. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #16 March 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteAbortion clinics do a bit more than just offer opinions. So, you are OK with the abortion clinic bombings but not the global warming death threats? Nice. Why would you think I'm OK with abortion clinic bombings? Speaking of stupidity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #17 March 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteAbortion clinics do a bit more than just offer opinions. So, you are OK with the abortion clinic bombings but not the global warming death threats? Nice. (both are equally stupid IMO) On a level of stupid that stands alone, your inference that I'm OK with abortion clinic bombings. DURRR. Well, you seemed to imply that the abortion clinics deserved it more since they "do a bit more than offer opinions." Why even say that if you don't somehow see them as more responsible for the repercussions of their actions? -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #18 March 12, 2007 The dishonesty here, really, is that there is some sort of conspiracy to hush up scientists that are at odds with the majority opinion. This -isn't- how science works. There simply -isn't- a "powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions." The fact is, the opposite is true and it is members of the U.S. Administration that are trying to hush up their own experts that attempt to speak out. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/306820_bears09.html?source=mypiquade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,622 #19 March 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteAll the water vapor emitted by vehicles powered by oil or H2 is a drop in the ocean compared with... the ocean. Water vapor has its own equilibrium that depends on ocean temperature. that's an interesting perspective you make - that even if industry/etc does emit various gasses and toxins the world is too big a place to assume mankind has any effect significant above and beyond what the planet already is doing Fallacious reasoning assuming water vapour and CO2 are exactly the same thing. Its perfectly possible for human beings to be able to affect the planet with some of our outputs and not others.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,151 #20 March 12, 2007 >Why would you think I'm OK with abortion clinic bombings? You did imply that they do more to deserve such actions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #21 March 12, 2007 QuoteWell, you seemed to imply that the abortion clinics deserved it more since they "do a bit more than offer opinions." Why even say that if you don't somehow see them as more responsible for the repercussions of their actions? I was just pointing out that there is a difference between making unpopular claims and what some consider to be systematic murder. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #22 March 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteWell, you seemed to imply that the abortion clinics deserved it more since they "do a bit more than offer opinions." Why even say that if you don't somehow see them as more responsible for the repercussions of their actions? I was just pointing out that there is a difference between making unpopular claims and what some consider to be systematic murder. An argument can be made that the disservice the global warming deniers are doing mankind is equivalent to mass murder. The repercussions of ignoring global warming could POSSIBLY kill billions. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #23 March 12, 2007 QuoteI'm sure glad nobody here acts that way. Only because of the greenies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #24 March 12, 2007 Quote>Why would you think I'm OK with abortion clinic bombings? You did imply that they do more to deserve such actions. I pointed out that one was more inflamatory than the other. It's quite a stretch to say I was approving violence against either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #25 March 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteWell, you seemed to imply that the abortion clinics deserved it more since they "do a bit more than offer opinions." Why even say that if you don't somehow see them as more responsible for the repercussions of their actions? I was just pointing out that there is a difference between making unpopular claims and what some consider to be systematic murder. An argument can be made that the disservice the global warming deniers are doing mankind is equivalent to mass murder. The repercussions of ignoring global warming could POSSIBLY kill billions. How about we ban dissent in the scientific community? That should ensure that we get it right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
