Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Photizo, Nov 29, 2009.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Yes, it does. What does it say about so-called "skeptics" who resort to threats of violence when they cannot prove their case? Character matters.

    Climate Scientists Claim 'McCarthy-Like Threats,' Say They Face Intimidation, Ominous E-Mails
    May 23, 2010

    Climate scientist Michael Mann says he has received hundreds of them -- threatening e-mails and phone calls calling him a criminal, a communist or worse.

    "6 feet under, with the roots, is were you should be," one e-mail reads. "How know 1 one has been the livin p*ss out of you yet, i was hopin i would see the news that you commited suicide, Do it."

    "I've been called just about everything in the book," Mann, who runs of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, told ABC News. "It's an attempt to chill the discourse, and I think that's what's most disconcerting."

    Mann is not the only one. The FBI says it's seeing an uptick in threatening communications to climate scientists. Recently, a white supremacist website posted Mann's picture alongside several of his colleagues with the word "Jew" next to each image.

    One climate scientist, who did not wish to be identified, told ABC News he's had a dead animal left on his doorstep, and now sometimes travels with bodyguards.

    "Human-caused climate change is a reality," Mann said. "There are clearly some who find that message inconvenient, and unfortunately they appear willing to turn to just about any tactics to try to suppress that message."

    Scientists See Political Campaign by Senator

    Many climate scientists, however, say the most disturbing recent example of what they call intimidation is not anonymous hate mail.

    Rather, they point to a governmental report released in February by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., one of the most vocal climate skeptics in office, which names 17 climate scientists and argues some of them may have engaged in "potentially criminal behavior."

    Inhofe's report referred to an incident late last year known as "Climate Gate," in which e-mails hacked from computers at the University of East Anglia in Britain gave the impression some climate scientists may have been trying to hide flaws in their research. Several subsequent investigations have exonerated the scientists' work.

    One section of Inhofe's report outlined the laws the scientists may have violated, including the Federal False Statements Act, which the report noted could be punishable with imprisonment of "not more than five years."

    Climate Scientist: 'Modern-Day McCarthyism'
    "It's reminiscent of other periods in American history," Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climatologist named in Inhofe's report, told ABC News. "People were smeared not on the basis of anything they did but just by powerful people seeming to ... insinuate that they've somehow done something wrong."

    Mann agreed.

    "Some of the attacks that are being made against climate scientists smack of modern-day McCarthyism," he said.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Well, well...we agree on something. (Character matters)

    These allegations most likely have been made up in order to garner sympathy and support while further demonizing the threat to their scam. In no way would would I extend to them the benefit of the doubt.

    2010...hmmmm...I'm sure if these "threatening emails" still exist (cough, cough), they can no doubt produce them so as to provide evidence of the alleged 'hatred'. Maybe those who discovered the climate gate mischief can temporarily lay aside their differences to help bring them to light. Just a thought.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Sorta hard to make up the police reports about the dead animals being left on doorsteps.

    However, deniers will surely deny that that happened, since that is how they operate. They cannot handle the reality of the situation, so they invent a reality they prefer, then deny anything that conflicts with their new fantasy reality. They then believe in their fantasy with all their might, and lash out viciously at anyone who threatens their fantasy. In this sense they are more a religion than any sort of rational "side" in a debate.
    Sure. Here are a few more. If you contact the Australian police perhaps they'll send you the emails they investigated:

    Australian climate scientists threatened with death
    The debate over a carbon emissions tax heats up.

    By Cristina Luiggi | June 7, 2011

    A public smear campaign, death threats, and threats of sexual violence, have prompted leading Australian climate scientists to take drastic measures to secure their safety. According to The Guardian, several scientists at the Australian National University in Canberra were transferred to a secure facility following a deluge of threatening emails and phone calls. The threats “were so serious and so explicit that the Australian Federal Police have been called in to investigate,” The Telegraph reports. This is the latest chapter in a bitter argument raging in Australia since last February, when the prime minister proposed a tax on carbon emissions. The tax, which is fiercely opposed by the mining and petroleum industries, is designed to stave off the disastrous consequences of climate change—among other things, a predicted one-meter rise in sea level.

    Perhaps if deniers spent more time trying to learn science, and less time making rape and death threats against people who disagree with their fervent religious beliefs, we could make a lot of progress.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    No one is contesting the existence of police reports.

    Perhaps if the scientists and politicians involved in the global warm--I mean, climate change SCAM, could admit they are a pathetic, feckless bunch, many might realise there is a God.
  8. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Stop cramming your religious beliefs down everyones throat.
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Good! So you admit that they are accurate.
    Sounds like the kind of "debate" one would expect from a denier whose religion was attacked.
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Your entire posting on this thread consists of violations of the third and ninth Commandments of the Christian Bible. You engage in wholesale, deliberate, and blatant violations of the principles you profess to lie at the root of good character and a decent life, and then you threaten others with the nature of your God.
  11. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    I admit they are accurate? I assume they are accurate. What of it?

    Yes, the truth hurts doesn't it...scroll back through the thread noting how the 'deniers' treat those who insult the collective 'public piety' of the A'GW ' religious zealots. These zealots are quickly becoming caricatures of themselves.
  12. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
    Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin...the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2015
  13. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    I repeat, stop cramming your religious beliefs down everyones throat.
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    You're contradicting yourself, then. "These allegations most likely have been made up . . . "
  15. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Photizo, you know, I assume that your god, charged man with taking care of the earth and its creatures. - How is helping boost the temperature rise to the extinction level (Wet bulb temperature of ~35 C or 95F lasting only an hour for man) by constantly denying man has anything to do with global warming going to go down for you on judgment day?
  16. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Ah, another one who doesnt read the links.

    The quote you attributed to me was a quote from the link I posted. But I did put in a : when it should have been a . so there was a typo.... anyways Your quarrel is with Judith Curry. Let me repost.

    ---> REPOST for CLARITY:

    Climate Wars

    The paper published by Monckton et al. Why models run hot is creating quite a stir. Matt Briggs writes about the bizarre reaction by climate reporters
    advertised by this tweet: Proof That Climate Reporters Are Uniformly Ignorant And Can’t Differentiate Science & Politics, and responds to a critique by Kevin Trenberth

    ----> What I said:
    From above link (embedded in text) ----> TYPO ---> :

    But its still cute how you focus on Monckton and ignore what the post was about.

    Follow-up to NYT Soon smear campaign:

    Note the above documents were signed off on by the Smithsonian.

    But Being as this is the Climate gate thread heres something of interest:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Conflict of interest?

    NOTE! Its not me who is complaining about funding sources. I am fully aware places like Shell, BP, Koch, Microsoft, (and a little closer to home for you, Andersen windows, 3M, Xcel energy-- formerly NSP) all fund various studies/adventures in various realms of science, arts, edu, pbs, etc. And they are typically given no strings attached.

    The thing that bothers me about this whole episode (NYTs, et al) is they dont address the paper. They are not addressing the funding for this current paper rather they approach it from the most simplist fallacy possible.
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The Ten Commandments are your measure, not mine. However you think judgment will fall upon you for your incorrigible and calculated practice of violating them, especially the 9th in this thread, it is all according to your own measure.

    And as you repost, I repeat: You are being played by these sources of yours. You are posting fraud and scam and dishonesty and bullshit from people famous for it.

    Monckton does not stop being a fraud because you get his pitch treated with respect second hand, and your sources are not honest and informative for you because they are getting their material elsewhere. Judith Curry is not here posting her garbage featuring Monckton et al - you are .

    Why are you describing the NYT article on Soon as a smear campaign? Why would it bother you that the contents of Soon's latest paper were not addressed in an article on his decades of taking money under the table from people with political agendas?

    My guess is: Because you have been manipulated by the likes of Judith Curry, who treats "research" by the likes of Soon and Monckton as comparable, categorically equivalent, to the papers and articles and research of the IPCC scientists and analysts. You keep posting bullshit from such sources. They are not your friends. They are scamming you, and you turn around and spam this forum with their effluvia.
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2015
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Billy T this article may be of interest. (Published today)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    My guess it has to do with the thawing of "permafrost" with subsequent CH4 emissions
  19. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 25, 2015
  20. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Yes. Thanks. I had seen some other notices about this, but not yours. You may know I have a model of what is currently happening that even PREDICTED what the ground level temperature was on the day last summer that the CH4 concentration was 9.6% of the air mix at the bottom.

    Here is a link to my model, made 5 August 2014, :
    according to which these new holes are large pumps that send CH4 up into the air, as least in summer time. That pump also draws down warmer summer air and is a positive feed-back mechanism speeding the release of CH4.

    Likewise, the same modeled mechanism is why CH4 is bubbling up in the Arctic Ocean, now in some circular columns even 1Km in diameter when currently accepted theory (that ignores this "pump") states that is impossible as the terminal velocity of the tiny bubbles is so low that they would dissolve / cease to exist/ before they could reach the surface.

    What caused the large hole to very rapidly appear, I don't know, but tend to think the mechanism was something like this:
    Surface liquid water at least a few degrees warmer than 0C formed small lakes* in summer, and that water found a path down to deliver heat that released CH4 from deep and old (from last ice age) methane ice hydrates, but time was needed* to use all the delivered heat. Thus, when winter returned to the area, the lake re-froze after most of the water had drained down and the path down was sealed with ice. This let the pressure of the CH4 from the thermally decomposing hydrates build up until it could, probably in the spring when ice above was not so strong, escape to the surface thru a weak point. Not a chemical explosion, but "pressure explosion" that ruptured the confining "tank."

    * Note that there is a small lake visible in some photos taken of the area from helicopter last summer shortly after scientist learned of the new hole. It looks to me to be no more than 1km away from the Yamal hole most famous and first investigated.

    ** Just like a 0C ice cube dropped in few degree C water does not immediately all melt.
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 25, 2015
  21. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

  22. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    So, Photizo, you link to a site that shares your ideology. A site where commenters literally blame everything on jews, Obama and liberals. Nice job.
  23. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    You are judging/accusing me according to your misunderstanding of what you erroneously label my measure. That's called Quackery*; nevertheless, you believe you are right concerning your assessment--this same state of 'perspicuity' leads you to believe you are right concerning AGW. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, guess what?

    * A "quack" is ... a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan."

Share This Page