Death Threats Made Against Anti Global Warming Foes

[red states rule]

Another example of the oh so tolerant left. Now if you speak out against global warming you get death threats


Scientists Receive Death Threats For Questioning Man’s Role in Global Warming


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

 

[jasendorf]

We should all be skeptical as to whether six billion eating, breathing, defecating, consuming, living human beings could possibly be contributing to the well-documented current climate change of the Earth. Boo to those who threatened him. They're no better than anti-choicers.

 

[red states rule]

We should all be skeptical as to whether six billion eating, breathing, defecating, consuming, living human beings could possibly be contributing to the well-documented current climate change of the Earth. Boo to those who threatened him. They're no better than anti-choicers.

Before lecturing the rest of us please start with your own moonbats

Tell Gore to cut back HIS energy use and ask John Edwards why he needs a brand new 30,000 sq ft mansion (since he lectures how Americans are not doing enough to help the poor)

 

[jasendorf]

Before lecturing the rest of us please start with your own moonbats

Tell Gore to cut back HIS energy use and ask John Edwards why he needs a brand new 30,000 sq ft mansion (since he lectures how Americans are not doing enough to help the poor)

Sounds like you have a lot of class envy issues my friend. First you're upset about the Dixie Chicks making money... now you're upset that John Edwards makes money. Why do you hate capitalism so much?

 

[red states rule]

Sounds like you have a lot of class envy issues my friend. First you're upset about the Dixie Chicks making money... now you're upset that John Edwards makes money. Why do you hate capitalism so much?

Keep changing the subject since you cannot make a defense of the moonbat left saying one thing and doing another

 

[jasendorf]

Me change the subject? Might I humbly submit that you are the one who started the thread with death threats aimed at some researchers with a contrary view of humans' involvement in climate change and then magically moved on to "John Edwards' 30,000 sq. ft. mansion"?

Who's changing the subject?

Don't be mad if I called out YOUR subject change by noting your extreme class envy... which is what really seems to drive your line of thought. YOU changed the topic Mr. 30-Year-Veteran-Of-Dealing-With-The-Left... I was simply trying to find out why you changed it.

 

[red states rule]

Me change the subject? Might I humbly submit that you are the one who started the thread with death threats aimed at some researchers with a contrary view of humans' involvement in climate change and then magically moved on to "John Edwards' 30,000 sq. ft. mansion"?

Who's changing the subject?

Don't be mad if I called out YOUR subject change by noting your extreme class envy... which is what really seems to drive your line of thought. YOU changed the topic Mr. 30-Year-Veteran-Of-Dealing-With-The-Left... I was simply trying to find out why you changed it.

The left is constantly telling the rest of us how to liver our lives, how we need to cut back on energy use, and how we need to lower our standard of living - all to solve a problem that DOES NOT EXIST

Meanwhile, those who do the lecturing does not live THEIR lives in the same manner

Then, if you speak out against the non exisitent problem you are attacked and/or your life is threatened

 

[jasendorf]

Still trying to justify your changing of the subject or trying to convince us that that was what your original post was all about?

I'm not so certain what the problem is here. I don't care what you do for or against the environment... whatever it is you do, only you have to live with that for the most part.

For me, it's a pretty simple equation. If humans are contributing significantly to climate change then the little things I do will hopefully combat the growth of our effect and I won't have to look my kids in the eye some day and say, "whooops, sorry". If not, then I'll just have to live with the mileage-saving (which means money saving) effects of making sure my cars' tire pressure is right and be happy that my four-cylinders seem to get me to the same job as my co-workers' eight-cylinders at a lower cost to me. I can live with that.

 

[red states rule]

Still trying to justify your changing of the subject or trying to convince us that that was what your original post was all about?

I'm not so certain what the problem is here. I don't care what you do for or against the environment... whatever it is you do, only you have to live with that for the most part.

For me, it's a pretty simple equation. If humans are contributing significantly to climate change then the little things I do will hopefully combat the growth of our effect and I won't have to look my kids in the eye some day and say, "whooops, sorry". If not, then I'll just have to live with the mileage-saving (which means money saving) effects of making sure my cars' tire pressure is right and be happy that my four-cylinders seem to get me to the same job as my co-workers' eight-cylinders at a lower cost to me. I can live with that.

IF is the key word. There is NO evidence that global warming really exists.

British Documentary: Global Warming 'Biggest Scam of Modern Times'
Posted by Matthew Sheffield on March 7, 2007 - 00:27.
A British television station is set to do something that no American network (including Fox News) has ever done--air a lengthy documentary arguing that global warming is not caused by humans.

The Washington Times has the story:

With a packet of claims that are almost certain to defy conventional wisdom, a television documentary to be aired in Britain this week condemns man-made global warming as a myth that has become "the biggest scam of modern times."

The program titled "The Great Global Warming Scandal" and set for screening by TV Channel 4 on Thursday dismisses claims that high levels of greenhouse gases generated by human activity causes climate change. Instead, the program suggests that the sun itself is the real culprit.[...]

In his program, Mr. Durkin rejects the concept of man-made climate change, calling it "a lie ... the biggest scam of modern times."

The truth, he says, is that global warming "is a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry, created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists, supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding, and propped up by compliant politicians and the media."

Channel 4 says that the program features "an impressive roll-call of experts," including nine professors, who are experts in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, biogeography and paleoclimatology.

There's lots more:

Scientists in the Channel 4 documentary cite what they claim is another discrepancy involving conventional research, saying that most of the recent global warming occurred before 1940, after which temperatures around the world fell for four decades.

Mr. Durkin's skeptical specialists view this as a flaw in the official view, because the worldwide economic boom that followed the end of World War II produced more carbon dioxide, and therefore should have meant a rise in global temperatures -- something he says did not happen.

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" also questions an assertion by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report, published last month, that it was backed by some 2,500 of the world's leading scientists.

Another of Mr. Durkin's professors, Paul Reiter of Paris' Pasteur Institute, an expert in malaria, calls the U.N. report a "sham" because, he says, it included the names of scientists -- including his own -- who disagreed with the report and who resigned from the panel.

"That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he says. "It's not true."


http://newsbusters.org/node/11241

 

[jasendorf]

IF is the key word. There is NO evidence that global warming really exists.

Now you're just being silly or stupid. Perhaps both.

That global warming is occuring isn't just conjecture, that's documented. What is at play here is whether humans share any of the blame. Most of the deniers shade their words in terms such as "human-induced climate change"... in other words, they're trying to fool simpletons into believing that climate change/global warming isn't occuring at all... while remaining factually correct. Did humans "induce" (or start) climate change? Obviously not. Are 6 billion humans a major contributing factor? That's what's up for debate.

 

[red states rule]

Now you're just being silly or stupid. Perhaps both.

That global warming is occuring isn't just conjecture, that's documented. What is at play here is whether humans share any of the blame. Most of the deniers shade their words in terms such as "human-induced climate change"... in other words, they're trying to fool simpletons into believing that climate change/global warming isn't occuring at all... while remaining factually correct. Did humans "induce" (or start) climate change? Obviously not. Are 6 billion humans a major contributing factor? That's what's up for debate.

Global Warming Expedition to North Pole Cancelled Due to Cold and Frostbite
Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 12, 2007 - 16:53.
Folks, you can’t make this stuff up. However, I sincerely beg all readers to properly stow potables, combustibles, and sharp objects before proceeding further.

An expedition to the North Pole to bring attention to global warming was cancelled due to the extraordinarily cold weather. I kid you not. As reported by the Associated Press Monday (emphasis mine throughout):

The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.

"Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.

I’m verklempt, and having difficulty typing through the tears of laughter. But, unlike our intrepid explorers, I must go on for the benefit of mankind:

Then there was the cold - quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said.

"My first reaction when they called to say there were calling it off was that they just sounded really, really cold," Atwood said.

<Johnny Carson voice> How cold was it? </Johnny Carson voice>:

She said Bancroft and Arnesen were applying hot water bottles to Arnesen's foot every night, but had to wake up periodically because the bottles froze.

Ouch. That’s cold! Marvelously, it was much colder then Bancroft’s trip 21 years ago:

The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with photographic evidence of global warming. In contrast to Bancroft's 1986 trek across the Arctic with fellow Minnesota explorer Will Steger, this time she and Arnesen were prepared to don body suits and swim through areas where polar ice has melted.

<insert hysterical laughter here>:

Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures.

"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."

Yep. It was soooooo cold up there because of global warming.

Talk amongst yourselves, for I’m having trouble breathing and might need medical attention!

http://newsbusters.org/node/11369

 

[red states rule]

The enviro wackos are not going to like this

They will blame Fox News, Rush, and Sean for brainwashing the masses





March 12, 2007
To Americans, the Risks of Global Warming Are Not Imminent
A majority worries about climate changes, but thinks problems are a decade or more away

by Lydia Saad

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- One has to wonder why Americans don't demand more political action on global warming when surveys routinely find them saying they believe it is happening and are generally worried about it -- and when activists like former vice president Al Gore are sounding piercing alarm bells about the risks of climate change. Yet, only a small fraction of the public names global warming in unaided measures of perceived problems facing the nation or as a top government priority. Although a majority of Americans say they are at least fairly worried about global warming, the issue ranks near the bottom of other environmental issues rated.

One answer could be that, while Americans say they are worried about global warming, they also believe the worst manifestations of the problem are a long way off. A recent Gallup Panel poll explored this idea with a pair of questions concerning each of seven possible ways that global warming could affect life as we know it on Earth. These range from stronger hurricanes, to extinction of animal species, to a significant rise in ocean levels. Gallup asked respondents to rate how much they worry about each event happening, and to predict when, if ever, they think each event will occur.

Generally speaking, not much more than one-third of Americans are "very worried" about any of the seven effects of global warming measured in the survey; however, a solid majority are at least "somewhat worried" about nearly all of them.

The most common concern is for the worsening of weather events such as hurricanes, flooding, and droughts, as well as rising ocean levels swamping coastal areas. Americans express slightly less concern for the extinction of animal species and spread of tropical diseases. Far fewer Americans are worried that northern Europe will experience dramatic cooling due to changes in the Gulf Stream. Concern about the most severe effect of global warming -- "that human life will cease to exist on earth" -- is in a class by itself, as it is the only item for which a majority of Americans (66%) are not especially worried.

Next, as you may know there is a lot of talk these days about global warming and what its effects might be. How worried are you that each of the following will happen as a result of global warming -- very worried, somewhat worried, not too worried, or not worried at all?


for all the poll numbers see http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26842
__________________

 

[90K]

Well watch this video and then it can at least give some explaination about if we are really in a global warming period.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...+Swindle&hl=en better have some time because it is long but worth it...
I'm not against being wealthy and with much comes much responsibility lest we forget All these rich people lecturing us commers about conservation need to get a grip and lead by example

I liked this video because many topic were openly covered and I believe the makers of this documentary tried to be open and forth coming on the subject.

 

[insein]

Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, American Left. Its all the same. Try to eliminate the opposing point of view. How else do explain this absurd infatuation with Foxnews and Talk Radio when liberal viewpoints are expressed on CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, Headline News, NYT, LAT, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, etc. Liberals have a majority hold on the media yet when some viewpoints surface that counter their own, its an all out war to eliminate them. They can't stand not being able to control the thought process in the country 100%.

 

[jasendorf]

The only attempts I see in this thread of someone trying to obfuscate, distract and silence the opposing view is old Terrance there... he cuts and pastes hundreds of lines of text after every opposing post hoping to hide the truth underneath all his cut & pasted crap...

Too bad the guy doesn't have an original thought in his head... only the stuff fed to him from the right-wing propaganda machine.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Now you're just being silly or stupid. Perhaps both.

That global warming is occuring isn't just conjecture, that's documented. What is at play here is whether humans share any of the blame. Most of the deniers shade their words in terms such as "human-induced climate change"... in other words, they're trying to fool simpletons into believing that climate change/global warming isn't occuring at all... while remaining factually correct. Did humans "induce" (or start) climate change? Obviously not. Are 6 billion humans a major contributing factor? That's what's up for debate.

It's not "up for debate" when scientists are getting death threats. Or when the UN only churns out the viewpoints of only similar-thinking scientists. Or when liberal politicians only push a one-sided viewpoint.

The Left has no real interest in "debating" this issue.

 

[jillian]

It's not "up for debate" when scientists are getting death threats. Or when the UN only churns out the viewpoints of only similar-thinking scientists. Or when liberal politicians only push a one-sided viewpoint.

The Left has no real interest in "debating" this issue.

Because there IS no debate. When all of the peer reviewed credible scientists think one thing and a sprinkling of oil company hired guns say something else, it's pretty silly to allow those few hired guns to cloud actual science.

That's why you'll find that most think it's silly to say there's no such thing as global warming.

 

[wiggles]

Did humans "induce" (or start) climate change? Obviously not. Are 6 billion humans a major contributing factor? That's what's up for debate.

Not so much, really.

Working Group I (WGI) The Physical Science Basis

The Working Group I Summary for Policymakers (SPM) [1] was published on 2 February 2007 and revised on 5 February 2007; the full WGI report will be published a few months later.

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, the report of Working Group I, "assesses the current scientific knowledge of the natural and human drivers of climate change, observed changes in climate, the ability of science to attribute changes to different causes, and projections for future climate change".

The report was produced by around 600 authors from 40 countries, and reviewed by over 620 experts and governments. Before being accepted, the summary was reviewed line-by-line by representatives from 113 governments during the 10th Session of Working Group I,[3] which took place in Paris, France, between 29 January and 1 February 2007.

On the issue of global warming and its causes, the SPM states that:[4]:

* "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal"
* "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

Footnotes on page 4 of the summary indicate very likely and likely mean "the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement", are over 90% and 66% respectively.

Anthropogenic means caused by human activity.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Because there IS no debate. When all of the peer reviewed credible scientists think one thing and a sprinkling of oil company hired guns say something else, it's pretty silly to allow those few hired guns to cloud actual science.

That's why you'll find that most think it's silly to say there's no such thing as global warming.

Bullpucky. There are plenty of credible scientists who disagree. You've obviously bought into the liberal "consensus" mantra.

In 1998 more than 17,000 scientists signed the "Oregon petition" expressing doubt about man-made global warming and opposing the Kyoto Protocol.

 

[insein]

Because there IS no debate. When all of the peer reviewed credible scientists think one thing and a sprinkling of oil company hired guns say something else, it's pretty silly to allow those few hired guns to cloud actual science.

That's why you'll find that most think it's silly to say there's no such thing as global warming.

That is the problem right there. Since when is science not continually growing? When do we stop testing a theory? When did a scientific theory become fact without extensive testing?

Manmade global warming is FAR from being proven. There are so many variables that go into the reasoning for the Earth's warming pattern that it is almost a scientific impossibility to prove or even come close to proving that man conclusively causes global warming. Many scientists agree with this notion. Some scientists believe global warming is manmade. That is why research is needed to see what the best course of action is. If we act like we are the cause and then it turns out we're not, we might do more harm by implementing a half-assed plan to intervene.

The problem with this issue is that people on one side of the argument are trying to exploit the situation and make money off of those who share the same opinion. Al Gore and his cohorts want to make money off of the fools who buy into his "Carbon credits" bullshit. You give him money and he promises to plant a tree somewhere so that you feel better about the environment. Who cares if he actually does it. He got your money and you feel better. Is the environment any better? Any worse? Then you have the real money in research grants. Scientists that work for grants are at the mercy of those that loan them the money. They work under the guise that they are doing independent research but in reality if they don't give their donators the answers they want to hear, they lose their funding. People like George Sauros are not going to hand out research grants to scientists who tell him manmade global warming doesn't exist. Same goes for the government grants. Politicians want a certain answer. They don't want to hand out money if it doesnt yield tyhe political fodder they want. Thats no different than your "hired guns from the oil companies" yet their credibility is never questioned because it agrees with YOUR opinions. See how this works?

So those that want to shut down the real science work by saying "there is no debate" want to silence their opponents. Any real scientist would acknowledge that research is continuous until a theory becomes a general principle.