Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'

[Tyrant]

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.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml

 

[The Question]

Jesus fucking Christ, more "accepted facts" that have to be enforced with bullying. Dont'cha just love this shit?

 

[Grandtheftcow]

You know if they wanted to present their evidence and logic behind their conclusions crying about persecution like a creationist or holocaust denier isn't the way to do it.

 

[Tyrant]

You know if they wanted to present their evidence and logic behind their conclusions crying about persecution like a creationist or holocaust denier isn't the way to do it.

They are crying about persecution because they are being prevented from doing just that.

Nice lumping Creationism in with those, BTW.

 

[Grandtheftcow]

They are crying about persecution because they are being prevented from doing just that.

Nice lumping Creationism in with those, BTW.

Does the article point out any specific cases of cut funding? Of the scientific community muzzling peer reviewed articles for political reasons? It only makes vague mentions of environmentalists and goverment conspiracies and others on the filthy hippy green team strongly opposing their views.

If you've toyed with creationists before then you'd see the parallels between their claims and the ones presented in the article.

 

[Tyrant]

Does the article point out any specific cases of cut funding? Of the scientific community muzzling peer reviewed articles for political reasons? It only makes vague mentions of environmentalists and goverment conspiracies and others on the filthy hippy green team strongly opposing their views.

Are you asking whether or not genuine scientific inquiry has been stifled, or if the complaining scientists lack credence for not bringing up issues pertaining directly to the global warming debate? I don't quite understand what you were trying to say with your first post as it relates to the article and its echoing of the scientists' claims of harassment.

 

[headvoid]

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

OMG what a whiner - there should be some sort of godwins law thing about people crying "it's just like the holocaust"

I'm almost tempted to do the monty python "oppressed" speech at this point.

 

[The Question]

There should be a version of Godwin's law when the word 'denier' is leveled at someone, actually. The first side of the debate to engage in ad hominem or poisoning the well loses, period. Death threat someone? You lose. Try to blacklist them from their profession? You lose. Impugn their character for the media? You lose.

 

[headvoid]

I would question wether anonymous e-mails are really part of the debate. I could send a note to Uri Geller calling him a denier of science - doesn't mean he's won the bendy spoon arguement.

 

[The Question]

I would question wether anonymous e-mails are really part of the debate. I could send a note to Uri Geller calling him a denier of science - doesn't mean he's won the bendy spoon arguement.

Calling someone a name without backing it up with valid points and/or counterpoints is a gesture of forfeit. You could be absolutely right about the guy, but you have to do more than that:

1. You have to demonstrate that you're right about his character.
2. You have to keep in mind that his character is irrelevant to the validity of his claims. Calling your opposition names is only, ever, for the benefit of the audience, and it only impresses the least-trained among them.

Sure, Uri Geller is either a kook or a con-artist. That by itself doesn't mean he's wrong. (Keep in mind, please, that I'm only running with your example; until someone proves conclusively in a controlled environment that telekinesis is plausible, I call bullshit on that one my own self.)

So does calling someone a name automatically mean they're right? No. Does trying to shut them up, or damage their character in the public eye mean they're right? Well, if they're wrong, those steps are entirely unnecessary -- so it doesn't mean they're right, but it's a strong indicator that they are, because it says that you fear the idea that people will hear and think about what they have to say.

 

[headvoid]

I see the point you are making, but this is 5 e-mails sent to an account - this could have been one uber green eco dipshit with access to the net.

I fail to see the "damaging their character in the public eye" or any "fear the idea that people will hear"

You could easily read this story that someone is whining about their funding being cut because basically they aren't very good - Oh, I know - I'll whine that someone has been sending me nasty e-mails and this is part of a grand conspiracy. I know which I think is more likely.

 

[The Question]

I guess in the specific subject referred to in the OP, more information on the nature, volume and severity of the aforementioned behavior is needed. Sure -- as you point out, "death threats" could be a handful of poison pen letters from a single ecofascist. It could also be that the word 'scientists' in the article covers only a handful of fruiters on the raggedy edge of the scientific community who would be shunned by the rest of the community even if majority opinion were with them on this particular issue.

I was speaking only on general principle, however, regarding a hypothetical variation on Godwin's Law.

 

[Acrimonious]

This extremely interesting video done by the BBC addresses the global warming issue and some of the scientists you mentioned are in the documentary. It's very well-done.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU