Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Threatened For "Climate Denial"
Forrest Kyle writes "A former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg has received multiple death threats for questioning the extent to which human activities are driving 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 skeptic because all scientists should be skeptics, 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." Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology [...] 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."'"
If he's trying to clear his name, he's doing a bad job of it.
I found an article by him in which I hoped to hear his logic and reasoning against global warming.
He claims it is just a natural cycle. That he's seen two of these in his career and he'll see one more before he dies. If his "death threat" was someone saying that he won't see temperature returning to normal before he dies, I don't think it was a death threat.
I can't find a formal report of his research but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If this is his argument, he leaves out a lot of things that need to be explained to me before I let it go. Like, why are polar bears suddenly on the endangered species list? What's happening to all the snow on the tops of mountains? Where are the ice glaciers (with ice that has been around for thousands if not millions of years) going? What is his retort to the CO2 levels being their highest ever--even after looking at ice core samples?
His article only mentions a professor from MIT but not what his criticisms are.
If their work is being derided, I want to know what their work is. I'm a skeptic also, if these people are being published in newspapers, you would think that they wouldn't waste their time on death threats and counter-counter-criticisms but would instead try to get the truths they have been finding in their research out to the public. If you're conducting good science that, in and of itself, will clear your name in the end.
The more I search for information on Timothy Ball, the more he seems like he's playing just as dirty as the people he's fighting. Check out his lawsuit for a journal publishing a letter. I feel we're not hearing the full story here.
When I'm at work and I enter situations in which someone is decrying someone else and vice versa, I just present everyone with facts. If I had done research and I received death threats, I would submit to major newspapers two things: my research published with permission to reprint it & the death threats in their original form. Nothing could boost my efforts to get the truth out there more. The fact that I see a PhD and scientist spending more time saying his life is in danger than presenting me with his findings tells me a lot about what his motives are.
He was published, I guess in Ecological Complexity which I do not have access to. If anyone has papers from his work, I would love to see it--otherwise I'm going to tune this soap opera out as emotional noise in what should be a stoic process.
Question everything. Question both sides. And if you have something that is true, present it. I'm not calling him a liar, I just can't call him anything right now because all I can find are stories about who called who what.
My work here is dung.
It's indisputable the Earth is warming. People differ as to why. Answers range from natural cycles to human activity. Perhaps it's both.
I would ask what ended the ice age 10,000 years ago? There used to be ice MILES thick over much of Europe and the US northeast. The few hundred thousand people on Earth at the time had no technology more advanced than a camp fire. What ended that ice age? Clearly the earth has warmed because of non-human causes.
That said, it does not matter why it's warming. Our house is burning and people are bickering over it being arson or lightning. If we don't do something about it the climate will continue to change and probably not in a good way. The vast number of people live where they do because they have food/water available to them there.
This is not about "fault" or people's "guilt" that we've ruined eden. It's about deciding we are gonna do something about it even if that means trying to compensate for a "natural" progression caused by the earths orbit or the sun, etc. This may mean altering our technology to reduce CO2 to make up for more solar activity or doing other more imaginative things.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792 811497638&hl=en
It covers both the politicization of the issue, and many scientific facts ignored by global warming films.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
> the particular science that shows that carbon dioxide absorbs in the IR
> where O2 doesn't isn't reallly up for debate. You can show it with mathematics
> or with IR spectroscopy. It's some of the most solid science that there is.
Of course so does water vapor. Therefore we must ban dihydrogen monoxide.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Somebody denied that C02 is a greenhouse gas?
Straw man.
Find one by an actual climatologist and not by an author who has also warned us about the "summer of the shark". The truth is that during this global cooling scare manufactured by Time and Newsweek, real scientists were already doing research on global warming.
It's the height of ignorance to believe otherwise. If you don't trust environmentalists, perhaps you'll believe what Lindzen himself has said:
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
If you don't believe him, all you have to do is to look back at ANY Slashdot article on global warming in the last 5 years to see an incredible amount of vitriol and hate directed at those like myself who are highly skeptical of "Global Warming" as a man-made phenomena.
We are called "Deniers", fools, idiots, trolls, tools, apologists for "big oil", ignorant, and any number of insults that you can imagine. Our intelligence is derided, our ability to research and think critically is questioned and our honesty is doubted. We are treated much like those who "insult Islam" are treated by Muslims. With disrespect, derision, and hatred. That some of the eco-religious would choose to "take it to the next level" with death threats is NOT SURPRISING AT ALL.
There are many many scientists, not funded by big-oil, who seriously doubt or outright disagree with the conclusion reached by a few high-profile scientists in regards to the veracity of man-made global warming. Many of them have signed on to a petition that states:
You can see the petition online here: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm
and a scientific abstract that further explains their position here: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Their science is sound, and after doing my due-diligence I agree with them. I will not be shouted down by eco-religious fanatics or ideological thugs, and neither will these scientists.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Coming from an ecology based formation at the university, i have learned some principles of ecological research.
The first thing that needs to be understood is that ecology "scientists" need funding for their research (which is more often than not government-funded).
They NEED their research to make an impact in order to receive further funding for more research.
In ecology, you never have an "absolute numerical value" to your results. You will obtain a "range" of values, the minimal of that range being the "best-case scenario" and the maximum "the worst-case scenario".
Now in a research, you always "summarize" your results in the intro and/or in the conclusion of your report. In ecology, the "summary" always ONLY include the worst case scenarios.
Remember that they need to create an impact. Saying "all is normal" won't grant them further funding for additional researchs. In a sense, it even put their work as "useless".
It's the reason why today, we are hearing a lot less about the "ozone layer". In the 80s and early 90s, the problem was on the news everywhere all the time. Now we barelly even hear about it. See, the ozone layer is currently slowly re-building according to other researchs. Scientists gave the worst case scenario and what has been observed by others comes down to the fact that the problem wasn't as big as observed.
I strongly suspect the same thing with the green-house effect and rising temperatures. When a day is anormaly high (even if not even record-breaking) or if there are a higher number of typhoons and tornados (even if not record breaking) media are quick to "blame it on rising temperatures".
It's the ecological disaster of the decade... it's shocking... it's what the media wants, it's what the reserchers want as it's basically a ticket to funding.
Now comes another researcher that looks at it from a different perspective and comes to the conclusion that the worst case scenario is improbable and tends on the other side of the spectrum, where the "problem" is actually normal climate variation in the long term.
His views contradict the majority of other reserchers and invalidates some of what they are saying.
If they can't discredit his methodology, they'll discredit his research itself. Fail that, they will discredit the researcher himself.
I've read multiple catastrophe-scenarios over a number of ecological studies.
- In the 80s, i've read that if we continued to cut down trees at the speed we were doing, that no more trees would exist on the planet by 2010. It won't be the case.
- I've read in older studies that no petrolum would exist in the world by 2005. It was not the case.
- I've read that California would dissapear by 2000 from earthquakes. Did not happen.
- I've read that New York will be submerged by rising sea water by 2020. I doubt it will be the case.
There IS a problem with rising temperatures. The problem however is NOT what you are led to beleive by ecologists.
The lesson i've learned when listening to ecologists and catastrophe scenarios is:
Take their numbers, divide by 3 to 4, make an approximation of what the REAL problem is.
The lack of drinkable water in some countries (even the U.S. is lacking in some of it's regions) is a more urgent problem than rising temperatures. But it isn't as popular, hence it does not bring enough money...
Think about it,
Specialists in hydrology, climatology, ecology, oceanology, geology and almost all the other "...gy" discipline can gain funding if their researchs include "rising temperatures" in them.
Conclusion,
I don't know anything about this particular researcher or his studies. But he has raised an interesting point: you CAN be placed aside, discredited and have your funding CUT if you go against the ideas of the majority of other researchers.
No, they're not.
No, it's not, in fact most of it is correlative which is why you get terminology like relying on global "fingerprints," as in it's just an assumption based two things that look like they could be affecting each other but haven't been proven to with any direct evidence.
"Sufferin' succotash."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Bal l
Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP). [1] Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG). [2] Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy. [3]
Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. [4] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations. [5]
The links to PR companies is what bothers me. PR companies have studied and refined group psychology for decades, centuries even if you look at how it evolved from greek study of rhetoric, and it has even gotten us into wars like the 1st gulf war ( http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html ). They make Hitler's propaganda team look ineffecient in comparison. Stalin would be envious of them. Having observed PR campaigns for decades, this is a very high level and well funded campaign. I see their tactic - attacking global warming advocates as emotional and vindictive. Basically taking the science out of global warming and turning themselves into victims, because everyone likes a victim. I wish I wasn't so skeptical and negative but having seen PR companies in action, this has all the hallmarks of a PR campaign. The best PR goes unnoticed, it's not obvious to those uniniatied in PR tactics, but it is most definitely happening.
I personally only want to see peer reviewed data, nothing else matters. The PR companies want to take this to the people rather than to the journals.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
Given the vitriol I've witnessed, I have no doubt that people doing work that might contradict greenhouse-gas driven anthropogenic global warming receive all sorts of threats and probably funding problems. Surely anyone who put their name out there as an anthropogenic global warming critic is going to receive threats from loonies, and surely there are at least some anthropogenic global warming critics who's research is being de-funded, but that doesn't mean the two are related. Their research could be being de-funded because it's bad research.
It seems to me that anyone who wants to be civil about the debate over global warming (rather than taking up arms in a useless flame-war) needs to look at one thing; peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Likewise, to make the case regarding political bias affecting research into global warming, what one needs to look at is submitted papers and grant proposals. Let's not hear one side complain about how they're being repressed; let's see evidence of repression. Do you have a history of quality research, and had your quality grant proposal rejected because the research you proposed could contradict the theory of anthropogenic global warming? If so, put the information out there for people to judge. Did you submit a quality research paper to journals, only to have it rejected due to political bias, not the quality of the paper? Put it out there. The laymen might not be able to evaluate all this on their own, but there are still plenty of unbiased scientists and organizations that would review these cases carefully if these claims were advanced with appropriate evidence.
Is research being suppressed? I don't know, it wouldn't surprise me either way, given how politicized this topic is. But if they want to make a case for it, the thing that they need that's been lacking so far is substantial evidence.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
While you can probably live by using less electricity and using public transportation, tell starving African villagers than they are not entitled to burn the oil and coal in their own country. For every person who could die from "global warming flooding" or whatever, there's another person who will die from starvation due to scaling back development or, if they're lucky enough to eat, from breathing in pollutants caused by cooking their food indoors with fire because they have no electricity.
There's a romanticism involved with "going back to being one with nature" or living a more peasant-like life. Explain that to those actually living it.
Causality 2: Do you deny that?
(Implied) Causality 3: Do you deny that?
Where is this "correlation" that you're describing? I'm talking causes.
Do a google search on "Ben Hocking". I'm not a back seat scientist. I might not be that credentialed, but I do have an MS in astrophysics, a Masters of Computer Science and I will soon have a Ph.D. in CS. I've also published several articles in Journal of Neuroscience and have written two grant proposals to the NIH. What are your credentials?
Skeptics are great - they look for the truth. Pseudo-skeptics who only look to prove their preconceived ideas or try to make themselves look smart give real skeptics a bad name.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
He never said such a thing. The exact quote from the article is:
All the connotations of. The word denier (when refering to those who deny) is uncommon, as is usually used as a strong term.
Anyway, the word itself, to many, does indeed carry sucha reference. Just now i googled denier, and the second line (first entry, first sub-entry) was a Holocaust reference in Wikipedia.
IMNSHO, a denier, when referring to one who denies, is nearly always predicated with what is being denied. On its own, however, it would refer to a famous topic that has famous incidents of deniers. One such case, and to many nearly the only case, would be the Holocaust.
Have you read my journal today?
Color me skeptical, but I don't think you're entirely accurate. I've been skeptical in global warming posts on Slashdot before, and there's usually at least one guy who suggests that I'm in denial and that it's people like me who are going to destroy the planet. I'm interested in the truth, and I'm not above listening to someone who suggests that this is part of a natural cycle. Think of our mean temperature like the angle of a pendulum. As we add more CO2 to the air it acts to drive the pendulum of temperature. That is not what is in question. What is in question is the extent of the driving.
That is where I'm skeptical, but I usually get accused of ignoring the whole issue. Thankfully I haven't been referred to in the same light as a holocaust denier.
Global warming is an extremely emotionally charged issue for a lot of people because of the impact it will have on our future if we do nothing and it turns out the driving from the CO2 results in us cooking the civilization off the face of the planet.
SRSLY.
Landsea is the only one of your sources under 65. I think he's a credible scientist, but he only works on hurricanes and isn't skeptical about the overall phenomenon of global warming. Even if he's 100% right, the other impacts of global warming (sea level rise, drought, famine) are worse.
The fact that you're bringing out Seitz, who was completely senile by the time the oil companies were putting his name on press releases, discredits you completely.
Lindzen thinks that the earth's climate is warming with 98% certainty. He would only take a 50-1 bet against it.
Tim Ball has never worked on climate change, has no quantitative ability, and is basically obsolete. He sues his critics for telling the truth about him.
Is that the best you can do? Your denialist sources suck.
Just one? I'll bite.
Dr. David Legates, and a paper he published with Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, "Estimation and representation of long-term (>40 year) trends of Northern-Hemisphere-gridded surface temperature: A note of caution"
Dr. Legates is also the Delaware State Climatologist, and, unlike Michael Mann, actually has a degree in climatology. Also, before anyone brings up politics, Dr. Legates is a registered democrat, and was appointed to the state climatologist position by a democratic governor, who is now fairly upset that he isn't towing the party line on this particular issue. And lastly, all allegations of him receiving funding from oil companies are unsubstantiated.
Furthermore, for a guy who seems to have a lot of science degrees, you seem to have some problems with simple logic. I'm trying to understand how you went from a quote that says human-made factors should have an effect on climate to the proclamation that "They are in almost complete agreement that it is primarily anthropogenic in nature". I mean, we know what CO2 does as a participating media in radiation problems. That doesn't mean we know that it drives the process.
OK, I'll bite.
They deny the truth.
Scientists don't tend to use words like "truth" for theories that are not readily shown by experimental evidence. And sometimes even when they can be.
For example, general relativity can be experimentally demonstrated in a range of contexts. Most scientists believe that the theory is accurate, but there are still a lot who wouldn't use the word "true," simply because it may not be true on all scales, or it may turn out that GR is a good description of one area of a larger theory (e.g., Newtonian mechanics aren't strictly "true" -- but they're a damn fine approximation in most contexts). You still see some interesting discussion on this stuff in the dark matter debate, although the GR/dark matter side is increasingly looking like it's going to win out on this one.
Your divisive and dismissive language ("pseudo-skeptics") doesn't actually get us anywhere. Setting yourself up as judge over which skepticism is warranted and which is not a scientific approach -- this is the model of a Religion, where there is acceptable dogma and unacceptable dogma. Show me the errors in their logic or explain why their experiments are inaccurate, don't call them names.
Disclaimer: I am a scientist by training, even if I don't work as one now. I am an environmentalist. I'm a skeptic. I've seen evidence that supports the theory that there is global warming. I haven't seen compelling evidence in either direction on the anthropogenic question. Having done computer modeling of physical systems, I don't have deep trust of computer models of chaotic systems.
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
Apparently the guy from MIT in this documentary is suing Channel 4 (the English station who broadcast this program) because he says he was misrepresented and quoted completely out of context:
0 31455,00.html
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2
I would argue that there's also a logic problem that contributes to the rancor of the debate, which is that people who do not believe in anthropogenic GW are being asked to disprove the anthropogenic model.
But, to your point, it's also absolutely true that there are fanatics (on both sides) who are not interested in science or evidence or anything other than beating up on the "enemy." There are elements of both the anthropogenic model and the non-anthropogenic model that naturally fit in with wider world-views that stand in conflict. Throw in people who stand to profit (on either side), and we get the morass we're in. Little wonder it has become a very emotional issue.
Now the question is how do we get out of the swamp?
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
Even super-critical-of-Kyoto analyses put the GDP impact in 2010 (if we had adopted under Clinton) at 400 Bn, which is less than a third of projected 2010 GDP... and that calculation uses a base gas price of $1.10, with a Kyoto impact of about 0.40... since the base gas price is slightly less than double the $1.10, we can expect the impact (in the worst-case-scenario, without technological discoveries and improvements) to be significantly lower than the $400 Bn.
Furthermore, this 'study' totally ignores the economic positives associated with alternative source development -- it only looks at the negative impacts. Any wonder, since it was funded by the DoE, which is a stomping-ground for energy lobbyists?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
a clear-cut list of factors from a group would be welcome.
Indeed. I've said this in discussions on the subject before, but it bears repeating: If vehicle emissions are 30% of the problem and power plant emissions are another 30% then its worth the investment to switch to nuclear power and electric cars. But what if they're 3% each and the solar wind interactions due to the Earth's falling magnetic field is responsible for 60% of the warming? If that was the case then changing our driving habits wouldn't make a whit of difference; we'd need to find some way to counteract the sun-related heating instead.
We owe it to ourselves and to the people we're asking to change their lifestyles to narrow down the possible causes in to the specific causes with their respective rates so that we ENGINEERS can develop reasonable solutions.
Let me put it another way. I accept the theory if evolution. Its not particularly good science but its the only science that explains where we came from; every other explanation is either untestable or has been disproven.
Nevertheless, if you told me that we needed to invest a trillion dollars in changes to prevent the evolution of the superbug that must be coming, I'd laugh you right out of the room. It doesn't warrant serious consideration. You want a hundred million to set up the CDC, okay, but don't sit there and tell me with a straight face that we have to reinvent society because something as flimsy as the theory of evolution predicts the emergence of a superbug.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
I'm a geologist (a scientist that studies the earth, mostly as very ancient history). Sea level rises and falls naturally over a range of 400-600 ft. Right now it's close to the typical maximum. However, most of North America has been under water at various times in the past. Humans didn't even exist then. There's lots of scientific literature to contradict the anthropogenic assumption about global warming, but it doesn't seem fashionable for people to read or reference it.
Most of the easily recoverable resources of the earth have been squandered. That is a compelling argument for conservation, not just of fossil fuels, but of everything. The biggest argument to my mind against the burning of petroleum is not global warming, but the need for plastic feedstock. Without modern manufacturing we will all live in the fourth world.
Global warming is probably natural. Wasting more resources fighting nature is foolish.
Of course, what do I know? I just spent 12 years in college trying to figure out what I didn't know.
rhb
The fad term "global warming" is applied to al the evil things mankind does to the environment.
Does the earth go through cyclic changes in temperature? Absolutrely.
Is it the end of the world as ascribed by the eco people? Of course not (and that's why I call GW BS)
And there was an interesting study I heard on the radio that the glariers melting were a natural part of offsetting the rise in temps, that occur naturally.
The point is, GW is NOT hard accept fact, but that doesn't mean we (mankind) can't help do something to offset the effects
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.