Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Scientists Threatened For "Climate Denial"

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the marching-to-the-beat-of-a-different-thermometer dept.

1165

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."'"

cancel ×

1165 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I Don't Buy It (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318345)

If he's trying to clear his name, he's doing a bad job of it.

I found an article by him [canadafreepress.com] 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 [sourcewatch.org] 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 [elsevier.com] 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.

Re:I Don't Buy It (5, Insightful)

ajs (35943) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318501)

You don't have to buy anything, just walk up to a representative sample of people who think that global warming is anthropogenic and say, "actually I think it's probably just a natural cycle."

The shock, hostility and downright hatred you will come across will very quickly render claims of death threats highly believable. Is this guy a jerk? Maybe. Is his science on-par? I have no clue. But, there is no denying the fact that this has become such an emotionally charged issue that climatology is probably the hardest field to do real science in today. I really wish we could de-politicize the whole process, but I fear that we would have had to start slowing this train about a decade ago in order to accomplish that feat.

Re:I Don't Buy It (4, Interesting)

AlanS2002 (580378) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318595)

"I really wish we could de-politicize the whole process"

If the process was de-politicized something would of probably been done about global worming 10 - 15 years ago, however due to lobbying from very wealthy interest groups it's only now that something is starting to be done about it.

Re:I Don't Buy It (5, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318801)

What if what "was done about it" was the wrong thing? And what iof nothing needs to be done about it?

Re:I Don't Buy It (0, Flamebait)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318837)

Really, that's very odd. Because I see a lot of people claiming that this has become an emotional issue, and I see a lot of people who deny anthropogenic global climate change (not skeptics, but outright deniers) who become very emotional about the issue. In fact, the deniers are the only ones I have seen become emotional, all the while they are claiming it is others that are emotional. Classic case of projection. Governments and big business do everything they can to repress good science and cloud the issue with emotions, and then claim the other side is repressing and clouding the issue.

Re:I Don't Buy It (1)

MaggieL (10193) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318959)

In fact, the deniers are the only ones I have seen become emotional...

Really. You don't get out much, do you?

This whole "deniers" thing is an obvious infraction of Godwin's Law...

Re:I Don't Buy It (3, Informative)

Sciros (986030) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318579)

Well, when you mention polar bears and ice caps on mountains, etc., it seems like that's a whole other topic altogether. The scientific community isn't saying that global warming isn't happening; they're just not agreeing about how it is being caused. While it [sort of] correlates to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, it correlates to other things as well. On top of that, ocean current changes (which can have an effect on climate), as well as other phenomena, are not fully explored or understood and may well be responsible as well. That is, there are many postulations and theories about what's causing global warming and there is no super ninja conclusive evidence for one over the others. Our climate models are simply not that good.

I'm not defending this particular scientist's ideas; I am not familiar with them. But I do agree that there's just as much money to be made on the Green side of the fence as on the Exxon-Mobil side (or whatever). So like you, I want to question everything and I appreciate that this scientist at least inspires that tendency.

They do agree its anthropogenic (2, Insightful)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318745)

The scientific community isn't saying that global warming isn't happening; they're just not agreeing about how it is being caused.
Not true. They are in almost complete agreement that it is primarily anthropogenic in nature, and that greenhouse gases are the anthropogenic culprit. The evidence for this is overwhelming. Heck, even Lindzen [opinionjournal.com] says so:

At some level, [that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system] has never been widely contested.

While it [sort of] correlates to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, it correlates to other things as well.
Forget correlation. It's basic science. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. Absorbing infrared radiation leads to an increased thermal equilibrium. We have increased the CO2 concentration by 100 ppmv. Over the last 800,000 years it has fluctuated between 180 ppmv (ice age) and 280 ppmv. It is now at 380 ppmv. Lest you argue that it could be the oceans releasing CO2 (people actually argue that), levels in the oceans are increasing too.

But I do agree that there's just as much money to be made on the Green side of the fence as on the Exxon-Mobil side (or whatever).
Really? You really believe that? On what basis do you make such a radical claim? What is the profit motive on the Green side of the fence and how does that come close to the profit motive on the ExxonMobil side of the fence? Luckily, ExxonMobil is gradually beginning to reconsider [cnn.com] its position.

Re:I Don't Buy It (1)

smilindog2000 (907665) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318883)

Err... no. The scientific community, including Bush's own team commissioned to study the issue, agree that we are causing global warming. It's only the dumb media outlets that perpetuate the myth that many scientists strongly disagree on whether we are causing climate change. When I meet an educated, generally well informed individual who buys into the media promoted myths about climate change, I react pretty strongly: go get educated. The information is out there, waiting for you to read it. Don't expect your local news to feed it to you.

Re:I Don't Buy It (3, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318905)

What money is there to be made on the green side? Where does the majority of research money in the world actually come from, people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, or those who have a vested interest in changing it?

Re:I Don't Buy It (1, Interesting)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318655)

All you need to do, is a Lexus-Nexus search.

You will find articles dating back 20 years or more, with many articles devoted to the coming catastrophe of Global COOLING. They were all anticipating the new Ice Age.

It is the height of meglomania to suggest that human beings have a greater impact on the planet than that big-ass hot thing that comes over the horizon every morning.

Humans tend to think that the span of our lifetimes are significant, when in the scope of Universe, our lifespans, and indeed human life on this planet are nothing but a blip, a footnote, a grain of sand on the beach.

We humans cant fix TRAFFIC for fuck's sake! I tend to think the Earth can and will do what it will do without consulting us.

Re:I Don't Buy It (5, Interesting)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318757)

Which is why "global warming" is on it's way out and "global climate change" is on it's way in. But the inability to predict the changes has nothing to do with changes currently observed OR whether or not it was caused by mankind.

My thought is that we're facing backlash based on 30 years of bad predictions- with nobody noticing the logic of "hey, maybe we SHOULD reduce pollution for other reasons", or "maybe we should capitalize on all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere and provide us with some nice large lumber-grade bamboo forests for building materials in the mean time".

Educate us (5, Interesting)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318861)

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 is the height of meglomania to suggest that human beings have a greater impact on the planet than that big-ass hot thing that comes over the horizon every morning.

Humans tend to think that the span of our lifetimes are significant, when in the scope of Universe, our lifespans, and indeed human life on this planet are nothing but a blip, a footnote, a grain of sand on the beach.

It's the height of ignorance to believe otherwise. If you don't trust environmentalists, perhaps you'll believe what Lindzen [opinionjournal.com] himself has said:

At some level, [that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system] has never been widely contested.

Re:I Don't Buy It (2, Insightful)

P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318727)

Even if he is a POS shill for the fuel industry, does he deserve to have his life threatened? As an aside, I have seen way to many facets of weather lately blamed on global warming such as hurricanes. This is complete and utter bunk.

Re:I Don't Buy It (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318963)

Simple. NO!

No one deserve to ahve their life threatened or live in terror simply because they belive something different then you. Reguardless of who he is associated with in the proccess. And when you force someone to belive as you do, Don't be surprised when there is a revolt! Yes, the peasents will become restless, Lets hope they don't share the same lack of conern about people's wellbeing as you do.

Re:I Don't Buy It (5, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318735)

TFA is more about the death threats he's recieved, and the general unwillingness to believe anything other than worst-case "day after tomorrow" type scenarios.

I don't think any true climatologists have such a dim view - but the media does, and Al Gore does, and a large community of activists do. And those activists have the same mindset of those who murder doctors at abortion clinics, or assault people wearing fur coats.

How are you going to have any sort of open discourse or intelligent discussion, or any sort of pursuit of the "truth" with such people involved?

Believing something other than "mainstream science" these days has some nasty consequences. Science has sort of replaced religion to a lot of people, and people vehemently defend Darwin like a religious fundy would defend the Bible.

I wonder if there are any true-life Galilleo's out there, muzzled and silent, who's name won't be known for centuries, when they're proven right?

Re:I Don't Buy It (1)

rider_prider (698555) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318877)

for example, you mentioned the polar bear issue, the actual numbers indicate (something like) only 5 of 17 populations of polar bears are decreasing, other are stable or increasing, which is what one would expect from any species. So why the call for endangered status? Also the polar bears did not die off during the medieval warm period so why are we the panic now? Questioning the conclusions of science is a critical part of good science. When we start to discourage open and transparent discussion based on fact we all lose.

Re:I Don't Buy It (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18318901)

The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792 811497638&q=the+great+swindle [google.com] (video, sound, googlevideo)
I propose that there would be three possible, general reactions to this video.
1. Its lies/they are dumb/big oil paid them/etc
2. It is interesting information, I will dig into the information more.
3. This is 100% correct, its all a massive fraud.

IMO, point 1 would be the prevailing point. Thier minds are set and they would be the last ones to change, if ever, any position, if "consensus" changes. (Btw, blood letting and humors were consensus once)
Same holds for 3, although these tend to be the minority position.
Number two is the sientific position. There is information, or a different way of looking at information, lets explore it. Its called an open mind.

Re:I Don't Buy It (3, Interesting)

malsdavis (542216) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318981)

I think the article is intending to mislead.

I've also read up on some of the reports by this "scientist" and many are anything but scientific. Scientists criticise other scientists all the time for this.

The only difference here seems to be that the issue is a politically sensitive one.

This really begs the question... (4, Insightful)

Seoulstriker (748895) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318359)

This really begs the question: are the climate scientists who dissent really tools for corporations or are the climate scientists who advocate (consent to global warming caused by man) really tools for government/special interest groups?

Ummm, do you know what that expression means? (1, Informative)

Seoulstriker (748895) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318407)

Check out the wikipedia article about begging the question [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Ummm, do you know what that expression means? (1)

Seoulstriker (748895) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318447)

hahaha, dude, you're talking to yourself, you freakin' schizo... [wikipedia.org] .

It's not schizophrenia... (1)

Seoulstriker (748895) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318487)

I think you mean that the other guy has Multiple Personality Disorder [wikipedia.org] , which is actually being called "dissociative identity disorder" these days.

Re:Ummm, do you know what that expression means? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18318497)

no one cares, goddam pencilneck

Re:This really begs the question... (1)

SCPRedMage (838040) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318433)

So there's no question that there are tools involved, then?

Re:This really begs the question... (2)

Reapman (740286) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318451)

Both?

Regardless of what side you feel is right, you'd have to be blind to not realize that there are groups out there on BOTH sides that will do what they can, moral or not, to find proof saying they're right and the others are wrong. I have no doubt that big business gets scientists to say (via grants or whatever) what they want, just like I have no doubt that there are special interest groups that do the exact same or try to (a bit harder I'll admit if you don't have the billions the oil industry has)

Hence why your always best to investigate BOTH sides, then come up with the truth, which is usually in the middle. Never take anything at faace value.

Or maybe that's just me...

Re:This really begs the question... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318749)

Who I DON'T trust in this is the environmental movement or the oil industry. Nor do I trust governments or commentators. Their self-interest, and at times, mutual interests, make them highly suspect.

That being said, the scientific community hasn't, so far as I have seen, behaved this way. There are heated debates, but then again, take even the most mundane field of research, and you'll find that to be so. At the end of the day, the evidence will win out. When a majority of a group of specialists come out and say "CO2 emissions match to recent warming, and thus far all the data gathered indicates an unparalleled warming within the observable climactic record", I tend to take notice. When Al Gore makes a movie, I could care less. Al Gore is somebody I'd put no more faith in on this topic then I would Exxon.

That's not to say that the skeptics should be ignored, and, in fact, science simply would not function without them. I can well imagine that in any field as the tide turns towards a theory, those who remain skeptical will be looked at as naive or even stupid by their peers. And yet, those skeptics who have chosen to go through the normal course of action, which is peer-review, are not being tossed out the door. Studies, like the warming on Mars, which might indicate a solar component to global warming, are still being published, so all this noise about threats and censorship rings false to me. Scientists are simply too competitive for conspiracy theories to hold much water.

Working for a research company... (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318987)

I work for a small R&D firm, not in the environmental arena, but another analogous environment. We have a number of Phd Docs who get money from large firms. Are they corrupted by that money? Hardly. I've seen one of our docs, who was paid by a large firm to speak at a presentation, stand up and say their product sucks in front of a crowd in a conference hall. They paid for his opinion, and that's what he gave them. (although I believe his words were a bit more elegant)

All of our Docs started out saying "I'm really excited about X, lets find out all we can on it." which means they have to talk to the consumers and corporations that already have a stake. And if the corps are willing to pay for research that will improve the consumers' lives, wonderful! It's not like the consumers are going to come to us and pay for the R&D process.

So yeah, take what funded individuals say with a gain of salt, but realize that if they were not funded, then the research would not have been done, and the only people who want to pay for research are those with a vested interest. And as always, trust peer reviewed journals over the mass media.

-Rick

Re:This really begs the question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18318455)

Yes and yes?

Re:This really begs the question... (1)

Ckwop (707653) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318547)

This really begs the question: are the climate scientists who dissent really tools for corporations or are the climate scientists who advocate (consent to global warming caused by man) really tools for government/special interest groups?

I saw a documentary a week or so ago on the United Kingdom's Channel 4. I believe this interview is taken from that show. The show made the case against man made global warming, calling it part of a natural cycle.

The claims it makes are fairly reasonable. It is true that carbon dioxide is a green house gas. It is also true to that we have released a lot of CO2 in to the atmosphere. However, clouds seem to have a far greater impact on climate than CO2 levels and the mechanism for cloud formation from cosmic rays seems like a better smoking gun than CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

That said, even if they are completely wrong, climate change is just one factor in man's destructive rampage on the planet. I'm worried about shrinking bio-diversity and the shear amount of waste we produce as a people. We should care about these things anyway so cutting CO2 as part of this line of thinking is a good idea. Conservation is in everyone's best interest!

Simon

Re:This really begs the question... (1)

slashkitty (21637) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318965)

Here is the program you're speaking of: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792 811497638&hl=en [google.com]

Sure, man is having an impact on things, but, should we waste billions of dollars building C02 capturing plants or cover the earth with a sun shield? Are people driving around in Hybrid cars /helping/ things? Well, no, they are still hurting, maybe even more.

If you don't want to have an impact on the planet, you shouldn't be living or breathing.

Re:This really begs the question... (0, Flamebait)

Frobozz0 (247160) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318675)

Seriously? It does nothing of the sort. If I took everything I read at face value and had the world-view of a 5 year old, maybe. But the stark reality is that man made global warming is real, just as gravity and evolution. But conspiracy theorists and ultra-conservatives throw in their two cents to keep people in a constant state of re-evaluation of the facts. They imply there is dissent where there is none.

The only questions regarding man made global warming are how severe the effects will be, and how we can change our contribution to it with behavioral and scientific resolutions. I used to think it was just a cycle at first, and then I say the overwhelming scientific consensus.

Fact: It's going to be 69 degrees in New York City before the second week in March. That's absurdly early for that kind of weather. And if I had the "scientific" mind of some of these critics, I'd look in the Almanac and see that the weather has spiked like this before in March. What I'd leave out is the FREQUENCY at which this is occurring. It's not isolated incidents or simple deviation from the average.

Re:This really begs the question... (2, Informative)

slashkitty (21637) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318781)

http://skepdic.com/begging.html [skepdic.com]

You have no idea what begging the question means. You're welcome to ask other questions though.

Re:This really begs the question... (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318799)

A scientist who "dissents" (how can there be dissention in the pursuit of facts?) is somebody who's results and conclusions don't match with the picture given to society by the media.

Real scientists aren't on teams. They measure, observe, record, and conclude. The one's who judge aren't scientists - they're activists.

Re:This really begs the question... (1)

argoff (142580) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318853)

Well, lets put it this way. Are Al Gore and the UN an orginisation of environmentalists and scientists persuing truth, knowledge, and understanding or are they politicians who don't give a shit about anything else other than power.

Well they can always get funding (4, Funny)

AlanS2002 (580378) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318371)

from oil companies to speak at conferences full of other climate change deniers.

Re:Well they can always get funding (1)

JoeLinux (20366) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318659)

I'm having trouble discerning whether this is a REALLY clever troll, someone making t3h fun-nay, or a rabid greenie.

The first two, bravo. The third? Crack a book. Notably, State of Fear [amazon.com] by Michael Crichton.

nail -- meet hammer! (5, Insightful)

mikesimaska (660104) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318377)

from the original article... " the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored. "

Re:nail -- meet hammer! (1)

physicsboy500 (645835) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318683)

But what you fail to see is there is some validity to both sides. There is evidence that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. The religion that is spoken of would immediately cite that as being bad without the need for research, but the truth is it could be either. If CO2 itself is the cause of global warming AND global warming is valid AND global warming is a bad thing (plant and animal life would not be able to adapt and survive) then measures should be taken to stop it.

I feel that while this singular issue is very much overdone in the environmental world and has much less real-world validity than some other issues, there is good that is being done. When CFCs were used in spray cans, the ozone developed it's widest gap ever. They were outlawed for use by lobbying through environmental groups and the ozone has done nothing but repair itself since. I agree that CFCs may not be the only cause of ozone depletion, but there was major evidence that they caused a great deal of breakdown of O3.

The answer, like that of many questions lies in the middle ground and at the risk of sounding like a 90's tv show...

The truth is out there.

UofW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18318379)

I'm not validating the reaction, but being a professor at UofW makes me skeptical of his abilities. It's about the level of a community college in the states.

More denial crapola on slashdot (1, Informative)

andy314159pi (787550) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318387)

Stop with the " global warming is a political agenda driven conclusion" crapola like this. It's totally unacceptable. The mechanism for carbon dioxide IR trapping has been known since 1935 and it's not up for debate.

Re:More denial crapola on slashdot (0, Flamebait)

andy314159pi (787550) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318419)

whoever modded me down for writing the truth can suck my balls.

Re:More denial crapola on slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18318885)

The mechanism for carbon dioxide IR trapping has been known since 1935 and it's not up for debate.
This comment showed me just how intelligent and reasonable you are.

whoever modded me down for writing the truth can suck my balls.
Now this comment convinces me even more!

/sarcasm

Seriously, do you really think that this helps your cause in any way? Do all the others that deliver death threats, try to dry up funding and otherwise intimidate those who disagree think that it advances their cause one little bit?

Frankly, for me, it has the opposite effect. Those who speak and act as you do obviously do not have a clue and are sooo desperate to have someone believe them that they will resort to anything (except reason, because there isn't any) to stifle debate because debate will prove them wrong!

And that's the truth! Anyone who mods me down for writing the truth can suck my balls.

Science Should Always Be Up For Debate (5, Insightful)

MarkPNeyer (729607) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318489)

Saying "we will not debate this" accomplishes nothing. All science is up for debate. If the science is solid, it will withstand all criticisms, no matter how ludicrous.

Re:Science Should Always Be Up For Debate (1)

andy314159pi (787550) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318523)

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.

Re:Science Should Always Be Up For Debate (2, Interesting)

rlp (11898) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318689)

> 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.

Re:Science Should Always Be Up For Debate (1)

andy314159pi (787550) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318831)

as you know, that's a strawman argument because human activity has a relatively low impact on the amount of water vapor that's in the air. Human activity has increased the CO2 levels by (someone help me out, I think it's like 40%)

Re:Science Should Always Be Up For Debate (2, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318813)

Science should be up for debate; not for sale.

And forgive me if I don't take the skepticism over global warming seriously from the same crowd that believes people can rise from the dead and that while the massive scientific proof behind global warming is ludicrous and unreasonable, they're pretty sure that lesbians cause natural disasters.

Re:More denial crapola on slashdot (1)

MollyB (162595) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318545)

This post deserves up-modding! However, the problem I see with the hoo-haw about the subject is not facts, but willful blindness. This is not the only arena in which obtuseness rules...

Re:More denial crapola on slashdot (2, Interesting)

slackmaster2000 (820067) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318701)

Somebody denied that C02 is a greenhouse gas?

Straw man.

Re:Seconded (mod parent up) (1)

Bastian (66383) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318821)

Mod parent up.

Nobody's denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that the levels of it are increasing. The debate is over where all this extra CO2 is coming from.

Re:More denial crapola on slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18318755)

Just... listen to you. You sound like an evangelical.

Re:More denial crapola on slashdot (1)

zapster (39411) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318827)

Ha! You prove the point in the article. If you don't believe you are a "denier" your alternate viewpoint is "crapola" and the issue is "not up for debate"....Think about it, you sound like the Churches response to Galileo's heliocentrism.

Re:More denial crapola on slashdot (4, Informative)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318833)

http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/0 8/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/ [boston.com]

Indeed. I attended a week's worth of lectures on global warming at the Chautauqua Institution last month. Al Gore delivered the kickoff lecture, and, 10 years later, he reiterated Schneider's directive. There is no science on the other side, Gore inveighed, more than once. Again, the same message: If you hear tales of doubt, ignore them. They are simply untrue.

I ask you: Are these convincing arguments? And directed at journalists, who are natural questioners and skeptics, of all people? What happens when you are told not to eat the apple, not to read that book, not to date that girl? Your interest is piqued, of course. What am I not supposed to know?

Here's the kind of information the "scientific consensus" types don't want you to read. MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen recently complained about the "shrill alarmism" of Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth." Lindzen acknowledges that global warming is real, and he acknowledges that increased carbon emissions might be causing the warming -- but they also might not.

"We do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change" is one of Lindzen's many heresies, along with such zingers as "the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940," "the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average," and `"Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why."

While vacationing in Canada, I spotted a newspaper story that I hadn't seen in the United States. For no apparent reason, the state of California, Environmental Defense, and the Natural Resources Defense Council have dragged Lindzen and about 15 other global- warming skeptics into a lawsuit over auto- emissions standards. California et al . have asked the auto companies to cough up any and all communications they have had with Lindzen and his colleagues, whose research has been cited in court documents.

"We know that General Motors has been paying for this fake science exactly as the tobacco companies did," says ED attorney Jim Marston. If Marston has a scintilla of evidence that Lindzen has been trafficking in fake science, he should present it to the MIT provost's office. Otherwise, he should shut up.

"This is the criminalization of opposition to global warming," says Lindzen, who adds he has never communicated with the auto companies involved in the lawsuit. Of course Lindzen isn't a fake scientist, he's an inconvenient scientist. No wonder you're not supposed to listen to him.

Inspite of what you may believe, there is a politicaly motivated movement to ensure that scientists that do not agree with the Global Warming Consensus are not heard ...

How about you ask some of these people about whether there is not political agenda:

Dr. Christopher Landsea:
Leading expert in the field of hurricanes and tropical storms.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory

- resigned as an author of the IPCC 2007 report, released earlier this month stating the IPCC was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound."
- wrote a lengthy and detailed open letter to his scientific colleagues explaining why he was withdrawing from helping to author the report.
- "I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized." - "In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns."


MIT physicist Dr. Richard Lindzen
- His work was ignored by the IPCC because it contradicted the IPCC goals

Dr. Frederick Seitz:
Past-president of the National Academy of Sciences and president emeritus of Rockefeller University
- " I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report... this report is not what it appears to be -- it is not the version approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page.. Whatever the intent was of those who made these significant changes, their effect is to deceive policymakers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming."

Dr. Timothy Ball:
Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg
" Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening."

Re:More denial crapola on slashdot (1)

srmalloy (263556) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318923)

Yes, and it's equally true that the temperature changes correlate well with the CO2 levels... It is curious, though, as to the mechanism by which increased CO2 levels drive increased temperature when, historically, the CO2 variations have lagged the temperature changes. If man-made CO2 emissions are driving global warming, then the period from around 1940 to around 1970, when major increases in industrialization drove CO2 production upward, would show a steady increase in temperature... pity that the actual recorded temperatures declined during that period, though; it casts the whole premise into doubt.

Meanwhile in the real world (2, Insightful)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318409)

Billions of people in Bangladesh, India and China will lose their homes and be forced to illegally migrate to other countries because of the climate "scientists" who deny global warming is happening.

But that's the practical side of it.

Ignore the hurricanes, tsunamis flooding Bangladesh, and the loss of island nations worldwide, if you must. But don't call your "belief" science.

Re:Meanwhile in the real world (4, Insightful)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318687)

I'm afraid you're talking nonsense, people may be forced to migrate because of the effects of a global climate change but not because of scientists disagreeing with the popular scientific consenus.

Scientists like this guy aren't denying that we are undergoing a climate change but they do disagree about the underlying cause of the change which is something they are perfectly entitled to do.

Having watched the documentary mentioned in the article I have some sympathy with the viewpoint that this whole issue has been hijacked by a number of pressure groups and political associations which is leading to an overly emotional and hysterical treatment of the entire issue.

Personally I am in two minds on the subject, I see a lot of people saying the case is comprehensively proven who want to decide what action we should now take and also a lot of people saying that the case isn't yet proven and there are a number of scientific arguments which still need to be overcome.

What I would like is for the hysteria and the political posturing to stop and instead promote a more balanced approach to considering the scientific arguments.

Even if global warming is largely due to human activities I don't believe and I have not seen any evidence to support the view that the effects are going to be anywhere near as catastrophic as is made out in various news reports and in the media, e.g. huge tidal waves towering over the Thames Barrier and destroying the City of London seem to me to be based more on a need for sensastional television than anything else.

Re:Meanwhile in the real world (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318899)

See, that's what the scientists working on cold weather research and bioweapons told themselves in China and Germany ...

It sounds great.

But, in the real world, that is the end result.

Morals are fine when it's not you that is affected by your lack thereof.

Re:Meanwhile in the real world (4, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318731)

Ignore the hurricanes, tsunamis flooding Bangladesh, and the loss of island nations worldwide, if you must. But don't call your "belief" science.

You just shot down your own argument.
Hurricanes: Wasn't this last hurricane season supposed to be the worst in history due to global warming. How did that work out?
Tsunamis: Are you saying that earthquakes are caused by global warming? Please! Stop blaming everything on GW. It just makes you look (more) stupid.
Loss of nation states: Name one nation that is now underwater.

Re:Meanwhile in the real world (1)

evil agent (918566) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318887)

...because of the climate "scientists" who deny global warming is happening.

He's not denying the existence of global warming, he's disputing the cause of global warming. Way to sensationalize this even more...

And now.... (1)

pfortuny (857713) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318421)

Shall anyone come to his defence?

Or will this dissident simply be left to himself because
his dissension matches the Administration's thougt?

Just a thought.

There is an easy solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18318423)

Ignore the whole thing!!!

If it is true... we're all gonna go.. no matter how much you (or we) care.

Who's lying? (1)

twiddlingbits (707452) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318435)

I could swear over the last few months I have seen several articles posted that agencies like the NSF are denying funds and ruining scientists who SUPPORT Global Warming. In the article the prof from MIT says the reverse. So who is lying? Both sides? Neither side?

However, I don't doubt the enviro-wackos are after anyone who can present FACTS to debunk the Global Warning religous cult as just that, a cult. Those folks like Earth First and others have done some nasty things in the past to "protect" the Earth.

Re:Who's lying? (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318591)

It would require a special type of liar to receive funding from both the corporations and the environmentalists....

Re:Who's lying? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18318871)

Your concerns are well taken. But they cut both ways.

I've seen a few claims of discrimination against anti-human-cause folks like this, mostly on the blogs of conservative pundits, but nothing really substantiated.

There are always a few scientists on the wrong side of the consensus, and they do, unfortunately, catch some crap they probably shouldn't. (Sometimes, as with the guy who first theorized continental drift, they turn out to be right.) The problem I have with this particular situation is that 1. there is a well-established conservative/corporate media spin machine in the US, 2. unsubstantiated complaints of "discrimination" such as this, planted into the media, fit right into their modus operandi, and 3. the position of the current US adminstration as well as leading corporate interests on this issue (denial) is well known. So these allegations could have a legitimate basis, or they could be manufactured for spin to whip up the political base.

Given the political climate in the US today, and the clear willingness of conservatives in the US to depart from reality in the pursuit of their goals (see Iraq), I'd bet on the former until proven otherwise. The cause of global warming is a complex and critical question, but we have already seen that there are substantial economic and political interests at stake, and many of the stakeholders (particularly on, though not limited to, the politically conservative side of the spectrum) do not feel any particular constraint to facts or scientific process (see Evolution).

he said ... she said (1)

guysmilee (720583) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318463)

"he said ... she said" has no place in science! The descent this person is facing is for good purpose ... (note: i am not talking about the death threats that is not acceptable ... however they also don't indicate he's a closet "good will hunting")

More denial crapola on slashdot (-1, Troll)

andy314159pi (787550) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318465)

The mechanism for carbon dioxide IR trapping has been known since 1935 and it's not up for debate.

so sad.... (0, Troll)

toomanyhandles (809578) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318467)

....that industry shills might resent being labeled as industry shills.

You don't get anywhere in science by ignoring evidence, improperly addressing issues regarding evidence, or telling people to simply not talk about evidence.

My feeling is that the majority of these guys are presenting and interpreting data the same way that big tobacco dealt with the data link between tobacco and cancer. In other words, improperly.

Re:so sad.... (1)

kmeister62 (699493) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318919)

I suppose you're referring to the Green Party, Sierra Club, etc, etc, etc shills. Back in the 70's it was the next ice age. Then it was ozone depletion, "we're doomed!". Then the ozone hole closed. Answer this one, Why did the middle ages warming period get removed from the latest "scientific" reports? Was it to skew the charting results in order to get the "hockey stick" result? Color me skeptical....

Flat Earth Society (3, Insightful)

krbvroc1 (725200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318513)

This raises the larger question...At what point do you stop funding the scientists investigating that the Earth is flat? At some point, the evidence becomes overwhelming and those who ignore it really are 'deniers'. I'm not sure about this particular scientist, but a lot of those skeptics are funded by the very corporations who have a vested interest in doing nothing. For how long was there a group of scientist who claimed that cigarette smoking could not be linked to any negative health effect data?

Re:Flat Earth Society (5, Insightful)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318779)

At what point do you stop funding the scientists investigating that the Earth is flat?

When they stop making testable, correct, non-trivial predictions?

Re:Flat Earth Society (1)

AlanS2002 (580378) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318791)

and where did a lot of PR firms find new business when the facts were fully out in the open about smoking? With oil companies.

This is really stupid. (3, Funny)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318515)

This guy actually believes he's targeted for death? When scientists on his side of the spectrum start dying off mysteriously, I'll care.

Re:This is really stupid. (1)

krbvroc1 (725200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318951)

Its misleading. Some folks were saying, 'If you ignore climate change, millions of humans could be killed'. He took it personally.

Earth IS warming, the WHY is almost unimportant (1, Interesting)

hmbcarol (937668) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318529)

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.

Re:Earth IS warming, the WHY is almost unimportant (2, Insightful)

profplump (309017) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318697)

The why become very important when it comes to "fixing" whatever the problem may be.

If your house is on fire because your fuel oil tank is leaking and shorting out an electric line, water is probably a very bad solution, at least until you've turned off the power and done something to contain the oil.

Re:Earth IS warming, the WHY is almost unimportant (1)

Burnhard (1031106) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318967)

Moreover, the "fixing" rests on the assumption that the cause is something we can control, such as the temperature of the sun. It also begs the question as to whether we live in the best of all possible worlds already, such that you would want to keep things the way they are now. Given that we don't understand enough about cloud formation, the oceans, the atmosphere, the sun and the bio-sphere to make accurate models, I'm slightly incredulous that we are thinking about spending $250,000,000,000 per annum on "fixing" at all. There is no doubt the earth is warming and sea levels are rising, but change is natural phenomena and our species will adapt to that change, as it has always done in the past.

Taking the long view- (-1, Flamebait)

IWantMoreSpamPlease (571972) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318537)

American elected people are fond of quick, short-term fixes. They almost always ignore the long term consequences and/or views.

I look at global warming in 1 of 2 ways:

Mankind is responsible and something intelligent and long-term (solution-wise) must be done

Mankind isn't responsible, but steps should be taken to even things out anyway.

The bottom line is, of course, responsible or not, Mankind needs to take a proactive stance and find long term solutions to Global Warming.

There is a third view:

Global Warming is bullshit.

But no one takes those people who think like that seriously anway.

(Note, I suscribe to the Global Warming is bullshit viewpoint)

Re:Taking the long view- (1)

AP2k (991160) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318753)

[if] Mankind isn't responsible, ... steps should be taken to even things out anyway.
The act of counteracting global warming if it is not caused by humans is just as bad as inaction if it is. That is, of course, if it is threatening mankind as a whole, which I am not convinced it is all that big a threat. The most we could do is throw off the balancing forces enough so that global cooling becomes a reality much faster than it is supposed to and the earth freezes again. Hopefully we have the technology by that time to leave this rock.

(Note, I also suscribe to the Global Warming is bullshit viewpoint)

Re:Taking the long view- (-1, Troll)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318759)

You honestly think that pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere has no effect? And even if you don't think it's human-created, you think the earth doesn't go through massive temperature changes in its history? It's calling the whole thing 'bullshit' that is the problem. Whether humans are the cause or not, it's happening. Sea levels are noticably rising, glaciers are definitely melting, weather is getting much worse. To claim that the Earth is not warming up is simply being blind to science. That's why no one takes such people seriously.

Why worry ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18318607)

The atmosphere is infinite and its ability to adjust is also infinite...So lets just pump as much poisonous crap into it as we like and not worry about it.

I mean, when has unbridled excess ever led to something bad ?

Global Warming Documentary (2, Informative)

dylan_- (1661) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318629)

These guys are back public eye because they recently appeared in a UK Channel4 documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Basically a rehash of all the outdated silly arguments you've heard a thousand times before. You can read the RealClimate response here [realclimate.org] if you like.

But that's pretty boring, science type stuff. What's much more fun is watching the right-wing contingent defending this piece of crap, proclaiming its truth and accuracy, when the film was produced by members of the Revolutionary Communist Party! Regular contributors to the RCP's journal, "Living Marxism" no less.

What an interesting meeting of minds.

denier (1)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318631)

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.

I didnt think of the Holocaust.

Re:denier (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18318881)

Well the jews want you to think of the Holocaust. I mean who profited the most from it? Land, Money. I'd go so far as to say Hitler single handedly empowered jews. Thank God it wasn't niggers.

Dumbing Censorship Down (1)

alteran (70039) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318633)

It's now censorship when people choose not to fund you based on your previous "work?" Puh-lease. Lots of guys are getting funds to try to debunk theories about global warming. At some point you just have to accept responsibility for being a poor scientist, regardless of your views.

Right wing idiots who choose the posts on Slashdot (0, Redundant)

andy314159pi (787550) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318635)

Stop with the " global warming is a political agenda driven conclusion" crapola like this. It's totally unacceptable. The mechanism for carbon dioxide IR trapping has been known since 1935 and it's not up for debate.

Re:Right wing idiots who choose the posts on Slash (1)

hmbcarol (937668) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318777)

Left or right wing has NOTHING to do with this. Truth does.

The greenhouse effect is real, there is no doubt. But it's also true that just a few thousands of years ago an ice age ended. The earth was warmed by enough to melt ice miles thick. What casued that? Isn't it interesting that the earth went through such a recent warming that clearly was not caused by our emissions?

You can't fight global warming (which is real) without knowing WHY it's happening. Clearly we can reduce our emissions. But what if that's not enough because it's NOT ENTIRELY THEIR FAULT?

What do we do if it's a solar cycle? We may have to think BEYOND cutting our CO2. We may need to find ways to sequester more CO2 than we make, or find clever ways to reflect solar energy.

People are so focused on "blame" they may not be seeing this is really a larger problem than it first appears.

Re:Right wing idiots who choose the posts on Slash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18318985)

you don't understand. the gp was saying that if you disagree with him you must be right wing. that's the way things go when you bring non-political issues onto a political platform; those who agree with your position on a non-political issue will try to align their party and it's values with you while those in opposition will label you a right/left wing stooge for being aligned with the other party and it's platform. you can be a a republican all you want to but as soon as you call for environmental solutions you'll be labeled a leftist. the same holds true if your a democrat and you support the 2nd amendment.

this is the reason that slashdot should distance itself from political postings. the fact that it's a flamefest means that it's good business and that's the reason slashdot won't do the right thing.

Re:Right wing idiots who choose the posts on Slash (1)

Flounder (42112) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318955)

And you've just proven the point of the entire article. If you believe it's real, then open up the debate. If it's true, then it'll be verified and make your case that much stronger.

POLITICS (1)

TopSpin (753) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318643)

Can we please stop smuggling politics in via "Science" or YROL? Slashdot has a section for politics. It shouldn't but it does, and it is intended for this sort of story. Yes, many of us do opt out of Slashdot's politics section, so your pet issue will not get as many eyeballs. Please, accept it; this is not Science.

They can hardly complain about (2, Insightful)

AlanS2002 (580378) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318707)

people deriding them when they complain about 'both sides of the argument not being heard'. 'both sides of the argument being heard' implies that there is equal support/strength on both sides, which is simply not the case in this issue. The overwhelming consensus on this issue is that climate change is a phenomena brought about chiefly by societies burning of fossil fuels.

Problem is not the dissent... (5, Insightful)

AtlanticCarbon (760109) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318765)

... it's that the dissent is being irresponsibly over-exaggerated and manipulated by certain parties (namely the Bush administration). It's somewhat similar to holocaust or evolution denials. It's not a problem, perhaps even healthy, that there is dissent. However, if decision-makers start cherry-picking oddball positions to further their policy (like the Bush administration on the environment or evolution and Iran on the holocaust) then you have a problem. The problem is with the decision-makers, not the various individuals expressing their thoughts.

If you really want grants (1)

wytcld (179112) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318769)

As this study shows [plosjournals.org] , biologists avoid using the word "evolution" in their research proposals and reports presumably because they do not want to alienate the current US government, which is a major source of grants. So scientists clearly can be influenced, at least in which words they use to report it if not in the underlying research, by the perceived biases of government bodies which fund them.

The prediction then would be that during the Bush administration we should have seen a marked decrease in mentions of "global warming" and "climate change" in grant applications and published research. But our self-proclaimed "suppressed scholar" is claiming something quite contradictory: Both that scientists say what their funders want (with the US government being the largest single funder of basic scientific research), and also that current scientists have a biased towards claims for "global warming" and "climate change," rather than favoring the bias of the current US government against these topics - which is at least as strong its bias against "evolution."

WTF? The only logical conclusion from the (somewhat justified) claim that scientists show favor towards their funders' biases is that global climate change is more of a threat than the current scientific consensus (at least among American scientists) portrays.

Do Not Forget the REAL Debate Among the Scientists (5, Insightful)

moore.dustin (942289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318811)

Almost all of the skeptics or deniers only deny or are skeptical about the _cause_ of global warming, not the fact that the planet is indeed warming.

Like many others areas of the world/media, /. likes to attack these same people for not seeing things their way. It is commonplace here to attack and mod down people who present other or counter evidence, no matter how valid it may be. The media has successfully nullified the scientific process when it comes to global warming. The media and political interests are causing global warming to be such a polarizing issue that any one person, or entity looking to present evidence counter to the what the media/politicians feed us, is going to think twice. The implications of publishing an article/paper counter to what many believe to be true are far reaching and could end your career [slashdot.org] .

All I hope for is that the scientific process can be saved from the media in the future when issues like this come up. By that I mean issues that demand action based on conclusive scientific evidence of a problem. We could all certainly be wrong about global warming and if you do not at least concede that, then you too, are contributing to the fall of one of, if not the most important advancement of our modern society, the scientific process. (Sanitation puts up a good fight for #1 :) )

My 2 cents (1)

Forrest Kyle (955623) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318841)

I figured since I submitted the article, I would offer my own perspective on it.

Personally, I think global warming is at least partially anthropogenic and that it is a serious threat to our civilization. Also, aside from global warming, I think that building millions of machines that pump poison into our atmosphere is a Bad Idea.

However, I am put off by the sense political fervor over global warming. There are too many unreasonable people shouting and pointing fingers and not enough reasoned scientific debate. The fact that the opinions of respected researchers are being ignored (or threatened) because it isn't the "cool thing to think" right now is troubling.

Some of you have already decided that Global Warming is/isn't anthropogenic, and that it is/isn't a threat and that we should/shouldn't do something dramatic about it. Nothing anyone says will change your mind. Any evidence that contradicts your opinon is "politcally motivated", "biased", or "dishonest". Any evidence that in any way supports your opninion is "incontrovertible truth". This is an unscientific mindset. I think this is what the professor from MIT is warning us about.

I think skepticism should be encouraged, and fantacism should be exposed and derided. Thus, I submitted this article. I don't think there was anything in the article that said global warming is or isn't the threat Al Gore claims it is. However, it seems to be true that dissenting scientists feel threatened and squelched for what they think. This is not the formula for progress or truth.

Believe it. (3, Interesting)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318913)

This is the kind of crap that has been going on for the last 5 years or longer.

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:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.


You can see the petition online here: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm [oism.org]

and a scientific abstract that further explains their position here: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm [oism.org]

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.

Great..... (1)

Chineseyes (691744) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318935)

Now we have eco-fanatics along with religious fanatics. How long before we have suicide bombings from eco-terrorist groups?? This just proves crazy people will always find a cause by which to justify acts of violence if/when we get rid of religion it will just be something else.

When and Where (1)

gx5000 (863863) | more than 7 years ago | (#18318983)

I want to know where and when did the tide change ??
How is the general public supposed to tell who's lying or telling the
truth, if the hysteria changes sides so often ?
Global warming ? now you're threathened because you don't beleive in it ?
I thought we were threathened because we believed and wanted to inform the public, and get
them motivated to call down their representatives to action...which would, of course, cost
Corporations millions in lost profits....When did Paid Bloggers outpace us ?
That's it, they've ruined too many winters for me here in Canada...
I'm moving in with the Inuit. At least I'll have a white Christmas there for a change !
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?