« New Audio Tape of Al Zawahiri | Main | Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners »

Accept Global Warming Alarmism or Else

Some scientists are reporting not only being ostracized by the scientific community if they do not buy into the global warming hysteria, but also of receiving death threats.

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.

Watch The Great Global Warming Swindle here. (Link via Lucianne.)


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Accept Global Warming Alarmism or Else:

» larry borsato linked with The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Comments (39)

Who so ever dare question t... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Who so ever dare question the left on their beliefs are subject to the same things the Islamist do to those who question Islam. Free speech is only for those who agree. I think it is a call to arms for those of us who think them dangerous.

Here is an url that you can... (Below threshold)

Here is an url that you can send to friends and family that will direct them to the video "The Great Global Warming Swindle".


For more information on the documentary you can go here.


Ah, Timothy Ball, the guy w... (Below threshold)

Ah, Timothy Ball, the guy who lies about his credentials, then sues the guy who calls him on it. I'm not saying he didn't get email death threats, but I think I'd be skeptical about his claims. You can read up on Ball here.

Plus hell, I've had people send me death threats by email. They had no clue who I am so not really much of a threat, but still a pretty no-effort thing to do.

Wait! You need to read this... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Wait! You need to read this week's Sports Illustrated and how global warming COULD affect sports as we know it....




I've had people send me... (Below threshold)

I've had people send me death threats by email. They had no clue who I am so not really much of a threat, but still a pretty no-effort thing to do.
Posted by: mantis at March 12, 2007 02:34 AM

And of course your time at Wizbang has afforded you so much notoriety that you're as famous as Bell and thus, so much easier to find if one wanted to do harm.

Oh wait... it hasn't. Carry on mantis, you are safe.

Hold it; holllllllllllld it... (Below threshold)

Hold it; holllllllllllld it!

I was informed that there is no longer a debate on global warming. Why is it being discussed again?

Notice the credentials of the anti-warming scientists--MIT prof, etc.

No, their not as wise as the Lefty blog idiots who are convinced, because they read it on Kos or some other insipid blog, that it's all a Halliburton plot against their new religion!

It's not just Timothy Ball ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

It's not just Timothy Ball who has experienced political interference in the study of climate change. Lawrence Solomon has done a ten part series on "the Deniers" for the National Post (Canadian). In it he interviews a number of scientists who are or were authors for the IPCC, but now have seen there work ignored or altered by politicians.

Here's a link to The Deniers -- Part I Links to the other parts are in the middle of each individual part. This is some great reading for anyone who wants to know the truth about the attempt to stifle scientists who don't fall in line with the IPCC.

mantis -- read the entire sires. If you're open minded I expect it will alter your opinion. Maybe not about global warming, but about the misconduct of the IPCC.

Damn, I wish that global wa... (Below threshold)

Damn, I wish that global warming would come this way, I'm tired of winter.

And of course your time ... (Below threshold)

And of course your time at Wizbang has afforded you so much notoriety that you're as famous as Bell and thus, so much easier to find if one wanted to do harm.

Did you read what you quoted from me? It's quite clear that I didn't consider them real threats due to my anonymity, and that my point was how easy an email threat is to make, and how willingly some people will do so without any intention of following through.

The point however is that a... (Below threshold)

The point however is that anyone would even think to threaten a scientist for a divergent view at all. The entire mechanism by which science works is people attempting to prove one another wrong.

Timothy Ball, chair of the ... (Below threshold)
no longer civil behavior:

Timothy Ball, chair of the National Resources Stewardship Project which is a pseudonym for deniers promoting the energy industry lies about climate change and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science.aka Charles Simpson.

You know people who write about and promote such garbage (Lorie Byrd) when THOUSANDS of scientists from 130 countries have now joined together to warn us of a climate change which IS happening.
It's no longer when but how much, unless we do something about it, should be locked up. That's right, locked up.

Those of us with brains are so sick and tired of the dissemination of lies that it's time to simply lock you brainless farts up so you can't do any more damage to yourself and all others. Let the adults who have an education and care about the children after us take care of that which you could care less about. Your only motivation is money. That's it. Black and white. You could care less about anything else.

You make me sick.

Well civil,Thanks ... (Below threshold)

Well civil,

Thanks for making that so easy.

Should athiests also get jail time for not believeing in a god?

Can you point me to a singl... (Below threshold)

Can you point me to a single scientific experiment that conclusively proves that man made Co2 or hell man made anything is affecting the earth's temperature? I'm betting you can't. And until you can it's all just speculation. The earth has been warmer than it is now and it's been colder. Guess what, It will be both colder and warmer in the future too.

And just for the record, the consensus argument is meaningless. It doesn't matter how many people agree with you if they're all wrong.

I thought that Environmenta... (Below threshold)

I thought that Environmentalism was a Religion of Peace?

Sounds just like what they ... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

Sounds just like what they do is a socialists nation like CUBA or CHINA in other words YOU ETHER ABIDE BY THE RULE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OR YOU ARE OUT and these eco-extremists are forcing everyone to beleive in this global warming hoax or you no longer are a scientists ITS TIME TO DECLARE WAR ON THE RADICAL GAIA WORSHIPPING TREE HUGGING ECO-FREAKS. SMASH EARTH FIRST

civil:THO... (Below threshold)


THOUSANDS of scientists from 130 countries have now joined together to warn us of a climate change which IS happening.
Consensus building is carried out by trained ``facilitators'' who ask questions designed to elicit silence or to force individuals who might be opposed to a policy to identify themselves. Facilitators ``don't ask if everyone agrees (which encourages everyone to start talking)'' but ask ``if there's anyone who does not agree (which encourages everyone to keep still).'' Questions are phrased so that they seem to express an idea that is universally thought to be good, or generally felt to be bad. For example: ``Does anyone think we should not be concerned about the future well-being of our species?''

It is nearly impossible to prove that a consensus does not exist. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared that a consensus by 2,000 scientists had determined that global warming was caused by human activity. The consensus stands in the public perception despite the vocal disagreement of thousands of scientists. When asked why the consensus had not been validated even by a straw vote, Michael Cutajar, Executive Secretary of the Conference of Parties said: ``Consensus is not unanimity; it is very much up to the president.''


Head-to-head debate is increasingly being characterized as ``childish'' and as leading to ``gridlock.'' It is frequently being replaced with the consensus process, which predetermines outcome and removes accountability to the people affected by it.

Give civil a microphone and... (Below threshold)

Give civil a microphone and turn it up. The more people hear his and the like type of argument, the more reasonable people will prevail.

Far be it from me to deny t... (Below threshold)

Far be it from me to deny that global warming exists. However, I am much encouraged that the debate continues as to the the cause and mankinds role in this disaster. Recently PETA announced that the flatulence from cows raised for food is more of a source of greenhouse gases than is the burning of fossil fuels. They further stated that switching to a Vegan diet would be more beneficial to sweet mother Gaia than trading your SUV gas guzzler for a Toyota Prius. I am a little unclear on what method they advocate for the Bovine genocide that must logically follow. Further, they don't factor in the increased flatulence of the human poplulation when said humans are forced into a 'beans and broccoli' diet.

After much pondering, I have come up with a theory of my own. You see, I have this amazing little box in my kitchen. It is called a "Microwave". It warms thing up by bombarding the object inside with (you guessed it) microwaves. Now sweet mother Gaia is surrounded by hundreds of satelites that are up there just beaming microwaves down on us all. And the number of satelites is growing exponentially. If that weren't bad enough, we also have Cellular towers being constructed daily whose sole purpose is to beam microwaves at us. Some individuals are selected, seemingly at random, for further zapping by the State Troopers who are issued radar guns to aim directly at them. I admit that I have conducted no verifiable scientific tests to prove my theory, but I will state that I felt much warmer shortly after being selected for the individual zap by one of our local troopers.

The only defense against this assault that I can think of is to paint your house with lead-based paint. If lead can stop Superman's Xray vision, surely it will somewhat mitigate this terrible onslaught.

Burt,Aluminum foil... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:


Aluminum foil is great at stopping microwaves. You can prove it to yourself by taking two eggs and wrapping one in plastic wrap and the other in aluminum (tin) foil and cooking them in your microwave on high for about 10 minutes. Before the 10 minutes are up the egg in the plastic wrap will explode and make a real mess. If you open up the aluminum foil wrapped egg you will find it's still cool. You could just use two cups of water, but the egg exploding is much more fun unless you have to clean up the mess.

To protect your brain from all those microwaves from space just make a tin foil hat. Liberals have been using them for years. Liberals that haven't use them turn out like civil behavior.

There are some really smart... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

There are some really smart, well educated and informed people who don't buy the IPCC story on global warming. Here's just one recent example.

Plus hell, I've had peop... (Below threshold)

Plus hell, I've had people send me death threats by email. They had no clue who I am so not really much of a threat, but still a pretty no-effort thing to do

Posted by: mantis at March 12, 2007 02:34 AM

Mantis, you really shouldn't confuse someone telling you to go crawl into a hole and die with a death threat

Mantis, most knowledgeable ... (Below threshold)

Mantis, most knowledgeable people have quit saying that "thousands" of scientists agree with the global warming theory after it was shown that scores of scientists shown as supporting the U.N. study/conclusions had done no such thing.

The Left will hang everything on a lie if it suits their pre-conceived folly.

It is a religion among you, just like the Mayan religion being invoked to clear the "hostile spirits" from Guatemalan ruins after Bush takes his tour.

Bad news via <a href="http:... (Below threshold)

Bad news via Hot Air. Apparently we are all wrong. It's our lack of faith in Allah that's causing Global Warming. Well, that and Manbearpig.

A MUSLIM cleric has blamed the drought, climate change and pollution on the lack of faith Australians have in Allah. Sheik Mohammed Omran told followers at his Melbourne mosque that out-of-control secular scientific values had caused environmental disaster. "The fear of Allah is not there," he said at a recent meeting. "So we now have a polluted earth, a polluted water, a wasteland. "What are the people now crying for? The prophet told you hundreds of years ago, 'Look after the water'."

Mantis, most knowledgeab... (Below threshold)

Mantis, most knowledgeable people have quit saying that "thousands" of scientists agree with the global warming theory after it was shown that scores of scientists shown as supporting the U.N. study/conclusions had done no such thing.

How nice. Where did I say anything about "thousands of scientists?" The consensus argument is not convincing to me. The data is.

Mantis, you really shouldn't confuse someone telling you to go crawl into a hole and die with a death threat

Oh, I'm not. I'm referring to emails that I used to occasionally get when posting on blogs which displayed your email (unlike Wizbang, thank you Kevin). One such example was this one from 2004:

"I can easily find out where your live and since your liberal ass doesn't believe in guns it will be easy to slit your throat"

Of course it would have been next to impossible for that person to find out who I am, so it really was an empty threat. Imagine his surprise if he had and then found out this liberal does believe in guns, at least enough to have one in the house.

You mean you wouldn't slice... (Below threshold)

You mean you wouldn't slice him with your razor-sharp wit? I was wrong about you mantis.

And for the record, the person threatening you specifically mentions that your ass doesn't carry a gun. Maybe he was actually hitting on you.

You mean you wouldn't sl... (Below threshold)

You mean you wouldn't slice him with your razor-sharp wit?

I would have used my real ultimate ninja moves!

And for the record, the person threatening you specifically mentions that your ass doesn't carry a gun. Maybe he was actually hitting on you.

You may be right! I hope his email address is still active. Maybe he'll want to go to an NRA meeting with me and the Israeli ambassador to El Salvador. I hear he's a party animal.

**European Union leaders ha... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

**European Union leaders have announced plans to slash greenhouse gas emissions and switch to renewable fuels. In doing so they have thrown down the gauntlet to the world -- particularly the United States, China and India -- challenging the world to follow its lead in fighting climate change

Although not perfect, European leadership committed their nations to a firm target of reducing EU greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020 and offered to go to 30 percent if major nations such as the United States, Russia, China and India follow suit. What sets these announcements apart from other previously are their magnitude -- this is on track to begin reaching emissions reductions levels of 80% by 2050 necessary to keep global heating under the dangerous range -- and the important fact that they are binding.

And brainless farts that present their flatulence on this blog will have some stupid comeback like "who cares what the rest of the world thinks" of us. "No one is going to tell us what we need to do".

Foolish stupid Americans.

Civil Behavior [/Oxymoron],... (Below threshold)

Civil Behavior [/Oxymoron],

A) More power to them (EU). If they want to gove that a go, that is their business. I'd only object if they tried to force others to do the same.

B) It is a target.

C) Nice lack of citation.

Civil Behavior,The... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Civil Behavior,

The EU's initiative is based on political science not on climate science. Long before 2020 real science will overthrow the dogma of the environmental bureaucrats who now dominate the debate and funding grants. Once science turns the corner those scientists who collaborated with environmentalist's bent on forcing their religious values on the world will find their professional reputations severely damaged. The CLOUD experiments scheduled to start at CERN this summer have the potential of debunking the IPCC's junk science in quick order.

Foolish stupid Europeans...

How nice. Where did I sa... (Below threshold)

How nice. Where did I say anything about "thousands of scientists?" The consensus argument is not convincing to me. The data is.

What data is this exactly ? Even the IPCC reports (you know the part written by the actual scientists and not political officers) say that because we can't model a complex system (pretty much impossible with known technology) that they don't really know anything.

Ok, without the parenthetic... (Below threshold)

Ok, without the parentheticals:

Even the IPCC reports say that because we can't model a complex system that they don't really know anything.

I assume you're talking about the third assessment report from 2001. Where does it say what you're claiming?"Projection... (Below threshold)

"Projections of climate change are affected by a range of uncertainties (see also Chapter 14) and there is a need to discuss and to quantify uncertainty in so far as is possible. Uncertainty in projected climate change arises from three main sources; uncertainty in forcing scenarios, uncertainty in modelled responses to given forcing scenarios, and uncertainty due to missing or misrepresented physical processes in models."


"The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and there are central processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear manner. These complex, chaotic, non-linear dynamics are an inherent aspect of the climate system. As the IPCC WGI Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996) (hereafter SAR) has previously noted, "future unexpected, large and rapid climate system changes (as have occurred in the past) are, by their nature, difficult to predict. This implies that future climate changes may also involve 'surprises'. In particular, these arise from the non-linear, chaotic nature of the climate system"

The reasom complex systems are so hard to model is because there are thousands of possible related reactions and causes that you just don't know about. The problem with using models is that a model can only tell you what you already expect will happen since you are in essence giving it all of it's possible outcomes when you create it. The models are all built on the assumption that increased Co2 causes the planet to warm. This assumption could be complete nonsense (and considering the volume of co2 compared to other gases in the atmosphere and it's limited wavelength absorption likely is) which would make these models useless.

I can make a nice pretty model, add in all the parameters and assumptions I want and predict that a giant asteroid is going to smash into earth tomorrow afternoon at 3:17 EST. That doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Taltos,Glad you lo... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:


Glad you looked it up, but the long winded expiation boils down to the simple premise that "you can't model what you don't understand."

The IPCC's case for global warming is supported by little more than computer models. If the understanding that went into these models is garbage then the output can only be garbage. Scientists know this, but enough radical environmentalists got into positions of authority over the past 15 years that they are able to control scientific debate through funding and political entities like the IPCC. Many scientists have chosen to collaborate with these radical environmentalists rather then stand on scientific principles. The truth will come out and these collaborates will pay a price for lending the color of science to what is in actuality a religion, and a false one at that.

It appears that the recent ... (Below threshold)

It appears that the recent Channel 4 and More4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" has left many viewers doubting that today's climate change is largely humanly caused. In this email, anyone so affected by the programme is urged to view the following information:

1. An introduction to the flaws of the programme. http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the-great-channel-four-swindle/ (or Google "climate denial", go to 9 Mar post.)

2. How a similar docu on Channel 4 by the same director Martin Durkin in 1997 was rapped by the ITC, in particular for misleading four featured interviewees and distorting their views. See Parags. 8-11 of http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2001694,00.html

3. Prof. Carl Wunsch says: I was misled and misrepresented in the 'swindle' documentary http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece

4. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=414 (or Google "Realclimate", go to 9 Mar post.) Climate scientists' view of some of the key flawed or discredited claims made by the programme (some of which you may have seen elsewhere). A site praised by Scientific American, with explanations for the medieval grapes, why Thames stopped freezing, and loads more.

5. http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3268874#post3268874 - with THAT graph clearly explained, plus a clear guide to the links of some of the interviewees.

6. Royal Society and science academies around the world joint statement on climate change: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=3226 (or via Google "Royal Society").

7. A blog discussion on the programme, including details of apparent breaches of the Broadcasting Code, and how to complain. http://portal.campaigncc.org/node/1820 (or Google "Climate Campaign Portal".)

And good old water is high ... (Below threshold)

And good old water is high on the list of feedback mechanisms that can switch signs. Lord, it has three phases in which to work its magic.

I think I've never heard so loud,
The quiet message in a cloud.

An Inconvenient Truth - She... (Below threshold)

An Inconvenient Truth - Sheikh Omran

Compare what media reported and what sheikh Omran said about Climate change


Calvin Jones,You g... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Calvin Jones,

You gave us lot's of links to lots of junk science. The channel 4 documentary may have it's problems, but nothing so bad as Gore's fictional work. I like this B.S. from one of your links "the 40-70 cooling type period is readily explained, in that the GCMs are quite happy to reproduce it, as largely caused by sulphate aerosols." One of the major criticisms of the GCMs is that they are full of special tweaks put there to make them account for past measured climate fluctuations. Just like AI programs that can be made to predict the stock market in the past, none can predict the stock market into the future. Such is the case with the GCMs.

Here's another pile of B.S. from the same site" The way they said this you would have thought that T and CO2 are anti-correlated; but if you overlay the full 400/800 kyr of ice core record, you can't even see the lag because its so small. The correct interpretation of this is well known: that there is a T-CO2 feedback" The feedback they are tying to obscure is that temperature leads CO2 change. That is, as temperature increases it causes the CO2 increase not the other way around. It's called cause and effect and it's a fundamental principle of science. Obviously your links are political science and not climate science.

Here's link to a site that reviews literally hundreds of scientific studies.

Scientists do not say, "the... (Below threshold)

Scientists do not say, "the scientific consensus is that E=mc2." They do not say, "the scientific consensus is that the force of gravity is directly proportional to the product of the masses of two bodies, and inversely proportional to the square of their mean distances."

Why not? Because science is not done by consensus. Science is based on the formation of testable hypotheses, supported by experimental and observational results that are reproducible.

When scientists need to come to a consensus about a particular matter, it means that the science behind it is not strong enough. Einstein's mass-energy relationship requires no consensus, because it a testable proposition, which has been shown again and again, in experiment after experiment to be true. The same for the universal law of gravitation, and virtually every other scientific principle in which we invest a great deal of confidence.

Consensus is the province of politicans - not scientists. Demonizing one's opponents in an attempt to squelch dissent is a political tactic.

When scientists began acting like politicians, we're in big trouble, because it sets a precedent. If you can reach a consensus about global debate through "soft-science" reasoning, while merely using the tools of science, and using "consensus scientists" as mouthpieces to give a proposition an appearance of respectability that it does not deserve, then you can continue to do the same in the future with almost any matter, and the agenda need not be for the public good, but could be for personal and political gain. It could also be wrong, with potentially disastrous consequences depending on the the kind of "technological toys" and policies it advocates:

I watched a program on the History Channel tonight which dealt with various scenarios on "the end of the world as we know it." It painted various scenarios on disaster: asteroid impact, global warming, nuclear war, global warming. Global warming was represented as the single most significant threat facing the human race.

There's something wrong with that picture. A computer or human error could breach the failsafe system in an already destablized and decentralized former Soviet Union, and a nuke could get launched. Retalitory strike, and bingo, we're history.

Asteroidal impact: No uncertainty about that. There's an asteroid with our name on it, waiting for the 2800s to roll around. Newtonian classical mechanics are indisputable. We can predict events hundreds of years in the future practically to the second.

Pandemic: That's only a matter of time, too. With long distance travel anywhere in the world a reality, a bad bug could kill us off by the billions. But no one is suggesting global travel should be curtailed or stopped for the purpose of inhibiting the spread of a future pandemic that is almost certain to happen.

What struck me most, though, was one of the "experts" that was interview on this program, who compared those who dissent against global warming with those who state the Holocaust never took place. This isn't science. This is a mind-f**k.

"The simplest form of stupi... (Below threshold)

"The simplest form of stupidity - the mumbling, nose-picking, stolid incomprehension - can be detected by anyone. But the stupidity which disguises itself as thought, and which talks so glibly and eloquently, indeed never stops talking, in every walk of life is not so easy to identify, because it marches under a formidable name, which few dare attack. It is called Popular Opinion..."

-Robertson Davies (1913-1995),Canadian novelist, playwright, critic, journalist, and professor. "Can a Doctor Be a Humanist?"






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy