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

I'm all for preventing climate change but isn't making death threats to make scientists pin the blame on humans going a little too far?

err...and who's doing the alleged threatening?

EDIT:
Tim Ball (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Ball).
Richard Lindzen (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Lindzen).

Hard to take climate scientists seriously when they have documented ties to the energy industry. Sure the claims might be legitimate, but their credibility is in next to nil. The comments made by Dr Myles Allen and Nigel Calder are almost red herrings. A point-by-point response to the documentary mentioned in the article can be found here (http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html).

Neither the web site that linked to the article nor the Telegraph had an answer to that one, but I think the onus is that the blame lies with the doomsayers on climate change.

Neither the web site that linked to the article nor the Telegraph had an answer to that one, but I think the onus is that the blame lies with the doomsayers on climate change.

Probrarly ELF, the Earth Liberation Front. I wouldn't be suprised if they pull a stunt like that. They are an eco-terrorist group who has, at least to my knowledge, only done bombings of SUVs and houses, though if they pull off an assaination, that would be pretty interesting.

Neither the web site that linked to the article nor the Telegraph had an answer to that one, but I think the onus is that the blame lies with the doomsayers on climate change. I think the two "experts" are looking for a little attention. :dozey:

Gotta love sensationalist journalism :)

I think the two "experts" are looking for a little attention. :dozey:

Gotta love sensationalist journalism :)

Er..."attack on the man", not on the issue? Big logical fallacy?

We don't care about their positions. They have the 1st Amendment, they can say whatever they want.

What we worry about is their claims that they could get shot for excerising said right.

@Achilles:

Wouldn't call that sensationalist journalism. I'd call it good journalism - bringing to light a story that isn't widely heard.

I don't know about you, but I rarely here any opinion voiced other than that global warming is the result of human intervention.

I'm not saying the opinion is wrong, but it is interesting that it so utterly dominates, and so little of the opposite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensationalism)

I'm all for investigative journalism, but this was not it. The headline story ("Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'") takes up two sentences (arguably three) of the actual article. This is referred to as "bait and switch" and is not a tactic used by serious journalists. The article (which is actually about global warming deniers) does not give equal time to both sides of the debate. Furthermore, it's two showcase subjects both have ties to the energy industry. I don't consider this fair and unbias journalism.

If newspapers want to run editorials that only offer commentary for one side, they are more than welcome to do so. That's what editiorals are for. Sensationalist news stories are easily spotted by critical readers and do nothing to support the causes they hope to shed light on.

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion on the matter.

EDIT: Anyone wanting to learn more about the science behind the debate should visit the forums on this (http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/Forum/) site. Both sides offer some fairly intelligent arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensationalism)

I'm all for investigative journalism, but this was not it. The headline story
("Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'") takes up two sentences (arguably three) of the actual article. This is referred to as "bait and switch" and is not a tactic used by serious journalists.

I disagree.

He sticks very much to the point that scientists who disagree with the current consensus are in some cases being threatened, and further explains that they are shunned scientifically.

The article (which is actually about global warming deniers)

Correct me if I am incorrect, but doesn't the headline "scientist threatened for climate denial" imply quite heavily that the article will contain information about 'global warming deniers', as you call them?

does not give equal time to both sides of the debate.

Something we regrettably see less and less of in the mass media. However, the article is about threats and, for want of a better phrase at hand, 'intellectual embargoes' against scientists for questioning human involvement in climate change. The other side being...? This article is not a discussion of climate change itself.

Furthermore, it's two showcase subjects both have ties to the energy industry.

Which invalidates their claims to being shunned and threatened...how?

I don't consider this fair and unbias journalism.

I would posit that there is no such thing. Fair and unbiased journalism doesn't sell newspapers- it puts people to sleep.

If newspapers want to run editorials that only offer commentary for one side, they are more than welcome to do so. That's what editiorals are for.
Quite.
Sensationalist news stories are easily spotted by critical readers and do nothing to support the causes they hope to shed light on.
...Implying that I am not a critical reader on account of disagreeing with you in regards to this article?

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion on the matter.

Most gracious of you, I'm sure.

EDIT: Anyone wanting to learn more about the science behind the debate should visit the forums on this (http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/Forum/) site. Both sides offer some fairly intelligent arguments.
Thank you for the link. I will be sure to read it as soon as possible :)

I disagree.

He sticks very much to the point that scientists who disagree with the current consensus are in some cases being threatened, and further explains that they are shunned scientifically.

Ok, assuming that the thrust of the article is that these men were threatened:

Are police investigating?
What leads do they have?
If I have information about the threats, who should I contact?

Less pertinent, but still relevant to the story (as it was presented):

Did the threats start before or after the Channel 4 documentary?
If before, did they increase afterwards?
What are the title of the papers that their peers refused to review for the respective scientific journals?

Had the title of the article been, "Two scientists face problems for views on climate change", then the headline would more accurately reflect the content of the article, I wouldn't be able to accuse them of using bait-and-switch tactics, and they would only be guilty of poor journalism instead of poor and sensationalist journalism.

Try this. Re-read the article, ignoring the the headline, first sentence, third sentence, and fourth sentence. What is the article about? Make up a new headline. Do my points make more sense now?

Correct me if I am incorrect, but doesn't the headline "scientist threatened for climate denial" imply quite heavily that the article will contain information about 'global warming deniers', as you call them? I don't disagree at all. The first two words are my concern though. Bait and switch.

I took "deniers" from the article. If you would like to use another term, I would be more than happy to do so.

Something we regrettably see less and less of in the mass media. However, the article is about threats and, for want of a better phrase at hand, 'intellectual embargoes' against scientists for questioning human involvement in climate change. The other side being...? This article is not a discussion of climate change itself. No sir, the article is actually about the unsubstantiated claims of two climate scientists that have ties to the energy industry. I am not persuaded.

Which invalidates their claims to being shunned and threatened...how? It doesn't, but it surely calls their credibility into question.

I would posit that there is no such thing. Fair and unbiased journalism doesn't sell newspapers- it puts people to sleep. So you're making a case for special pleading then?

Quite. This was not an editorial.

...Implying that I am not a critical reader on account of disagreeing with you in regards to this article? Bluntly and respectfully, implying that you are not a critical reader because you do not recognize the sensationalist nature of the article. That is not a critique of your intelligence, rather an assessment of the situation. I hope you take it as such.

On the issue of humans being responsible for climate change, I thought we were breaking our back for the enviroment over the last twenty years. That's not to say these scientists are wrong, but as far as climate change goes I've only really noticed it in the past few years, and has me wondering if maybe there's another cause for it.

Nancy, I've been alive and news conscious for the last twenty years, and I don't recall seeing anything that would classify as "breaking our back" for the environment. In fairness to your point, some pretty significant things stopped happening in the interest of environmental concern, but they were mostly things that shouldn't have been happening in the first place (burning tires as a means of disposal, fast food in non-biodegradable containers, etc). For example, I live in the 6th largest metropolis in the U.S. and don't have a recycling program in my neighborhood.

On the topic of climate change, some scientists correctly point out that the Earth does undergo natural warm and cool periods. One of the holding theories is that this is based on the Sun's (and our solar system's) rotation around the center of the galaxy (galactic season! Cool!). Others say that the Sun itself oscillates its energy output. It could be some combinations of these things or something else entirely. The fact that the earth goes through these warming periods and appears to be in one now is not scientifically debated. Even the "deniers" are on board with this (homeboy from the earlier article is on record for saying that global warming is a good thing).

The concern lies in that even if this were a warming period (highly debated, but not proven either way, I believe), this is a stronger warming period than anything we have on record. On a scale of 1-10, climate records show a normal swing between, say, 3 and 7. Some fear that we're at 6.5 with 1.5 more points to go. I'm not an expert so my example might be a poor representation of the argument. This also is not debated in the scientific community.

What is debated is the amount of global warming that is directly attributable to human activity. The most vocal portion of the international scientific community is 90% sure that almost all of it is attributable to us. Others believe that our impact is negligible and that methane released by farm animals and dying plants, carbon dioxide released by sea algae, etc are primarily responsible. This is the controversy.

Truth be told, I am almost willing to complete dismiss the controversy as complete silliness. What I do get fired up about is the "denier's" stance which sounds something like this:

"well, since we don't know for sure, anything you guys propose just could result in making the problem worse or wasting a lot of money on something that won't work. In the mean time, we should stick to our oil economy while making almost no effort to find out what we should be doing".

No mention of conservation or investment in legitimate renewable energy sources. More on this in a moment.

The U.S. is the world's largest consumer of oil and our government's answer is hydrogen and ethanol.

"The Hydrogen Economy" is a diversionary tactic used to fool those that don't know better into thinking that we're actually doing something. Hydrogen is great idea on paper, but in application it is woefully inept. It doesn't work well in cold climates (Eastern U.S., Europe, etc). It's terribly inefficient (you only get about 40% return...or is it 60%...which is less than petrol, IIRC). The infrastructure is expensive and finally it could be just as bad if not worse for climate change than petrol (hydrogen's byproduct is water vapor. Water vapor constitutes the earth's most significant greenhouse gas: true or false?).

I'm not as familiar with ethanol as I am with hydrogen, but I do know that ethanol as an energy alternative is not sustainable without significant subsidies. This is good for farmers, but bad for staple foods in the world market. Also, keep in mind that farmers have to rotate crops to keep from drying out the top soil, so unless we want to recreate the Dustbowl, ethanol is not exactly what I would consider a renewable resource.

If the U.S. gov't were serious about alternative energy, they would slide some of those oil subsidies over the green energy column. But true to form, we just cut funding on geothermal (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070313/sc_nm/usa_geothermal_funding_dc) research. Similar viable options include solar energy (we get 340+ days of sunshine where I live every year), wind energy (think miles of windmills out in the middle of the ocean), or tidal energy (I believe this is working well in other nations).

Blah! *steps off soapbox*

DI, Achilles, please take the personal stuff to PMs and quit arguing with each other about who's better at reading things critically, since that has zip to do with the topic. Truth is, sometimes people take home different things out of an article and both could be right.

Nancy, I've been alive and news conscious for the last twenty years, and I don't recall seeing anything that would classify as "breaking our back" for the environment.

Yep, I agree with you--let's see what we've done in a major federal way in the last 30 years or so--1. got rid of DDT so we didn't make a bunch of species completely extinct, and...I think that about covers it.



In fairness to your point, some pretty significant things stopped happening in the interest of environmental concern, but they were mostly things that shouldn't have been happening in the first place (burning tires as a means of disposal, fast food in non-biodegradable containers, etc).
Banning CFCs....
I remember those styrofoam Big Mac containers fondly. :D

For example, I live in the 6th largest metropolis in the U.S. and don't have a recycling program in my neighborhood. The Phoenix powers-that-be should at least be advocating water recycling/reclamation/whatever it's supposed to be called because it's late and I'm too tired to go look it up at the moment. My little podunk WI town does some recyling. :)

(with some snippage)
On the topic of climate change, some scientists correctly point out that the Earth does undergo natural warm and cool periods.....The concern lies in that even if this were a warming period (highly debated, but not proven either way, I believe), this is a stronger warming period than anything we have on record.... What is debated is the amount of global warming that is directly attributable to human activity....This is the controversy.
Regardless of the controversy, we should be trying to take care of our planet and its resources. If we know it's warming up and that some of our activites _could_ be making it worse, then we need to find alternative activities that don't consume as much energy or put out as much pollution and other less savory by-products.



I do get fired up about is the "denier's" stance which sounds something like this:

"well, since we don't know for sure, anything you guys propose just could result in making the problem worse or wasting a lot of money on something that won't work. In the mean time, we should stick to our oil economy while making almost no effort to find out what we should be doing".
We should be looking at alternative fuels from an econ standpoint, too. I'm tired of gas prices going up because some OPEC guy passed gas the wrong direction.





"The Hydrogen Economy" is a diversionary tactic used to fool those that don't know better into thinking that we're actually doing something. Hydrogen is great idea on paper, Can't confirm anything about it, except it doesn't produce carbon dioxide. :)


I'm not as familiar with ethanol as I am with hydrogen, but I do know that ethanol as an energy alternative is not sustainable without significant subsidies. This is good for farmers, but bad for staple foods in the world market. OK, I live relatively close to big farmlands, and on Saturdays during the spring and summer, I end up catching the farm reports on WGN while I'm waiting for the Cubs to come on. So I've absorbed some totally useless agriculture information.
There is a corn crisis going on right now because of corn being converted to ethanol, and it's not much discussed here because we don't use nearly as much corn products per person as some other countries. It's apparently a topic of discussion in Mexico, because apparently the price of tortillas has doubled and this is causing great concern for the poor there. There's some research going on at one of the IL universities I believe, that is looking at different plants as an ethanol source. I believe there's a grass (the name of which escapes me) that they're experimenting with because it can be converted into more ethanol per acre than corn.


Also, keep in mind that farmers have to rotate crops to keep from drying out the top soil, so unless we want to recreate the Dustbowl, ethanol is not exactly what I would consider a renewable resource.More useless agriculture trivia--it was actually the type of tilling used during the Dustbowl days that was the biggest problem, and not lack of crop rotation. Converting over to no-till farming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-till_farming) has helped to reduce the topsoil erosion problem to a significant degree. Rotating crops is still important--you want to rotate around plants (such as beans) that fix nitrogen back into the soil to replace what other types of plants take.


If the U.S. gov't were serious about alternative energy, they would slide some of those oil subsidies over the green energy column.
Yes, Exxon surely needs those oil subsidies, since their $20 billion profit per _quarter_ is apparently not enough. :roleyess:
I'd like to see more investigation of wind, solar,and geothermal energy, among other earthy-friendly kinds of energy production.

Yes, Exxon surely needs those oil subsidies, since their $20 billion profit per _quarter_ is apparently not enough.

In defense of big oil companies:

1) Oil companies have profit, but it is due to high oil prices. However, you know what is needed to run oil mines? That's right...oil! Oil companies have to pay for processed gasoline in order to actually mine for Oil. So, oil companies make a lot of money selling oil...but lose that money when they have to buy that oil back. So, oil companies don't like high oil prices as well. They prefer "stable prices". (Too high...people won't be able to buy. Too low...and companies won't make money.)

2) Seaking of which, the profits are inflated...due to high oil prices. Since there is high oil prices, it will encourge people not to use oil (hah!)...and it will encourge more people to SELL oil.

With more producers selling oil, the price for oil goes down. Exxon's profits will go down when prices goes down.

3) Exxon reinvests most of its profits to find new oil fields, so that it can make more money. However, the more oil it finds, it is more likely to decrease the price of oil.

4) You DON'T just use oil to power cars.

Oil is far more important than as an energy source for cars. It is used to make plastics, like my laptop and the plastic bags in grocercy stores. It is used to make clothes...like the clothes I am wearing. It is even used to package frozen food, and lubricants. The world may be a better place if cars do not use oil...but that does not mean that we won't need oil ever again.

Another thing: It seems unlikely that we would reduce our dependency on Oil, even just for using it as a power source for cars. But, what if we reduce our dependency on oil from other countries? Those subsidies can help to make sure that Exxon produces oil near USA's territory, so that if relations break down between USA and Oil Superpowers (Saudi Arabaia, Russia), we still got some oil.

5) Oil companies want money. That's their main purpose...they are "companies". If we all switch to some green- and enviromentally-friendly energy source...well, there will be companies that will be selling it to us at an over-inflated price. In fact, I think these oil companies actually want to branch into these sort of markets...the more ways they can sell energy, the more money they make. :)

Regardless of the controversy, we should be trying to take care of our planet and its resources. If we know it's warming up and that some of our activites _could_ be making it worse, then we need to find alternative activities that don't consume as much energy or put out as much pollution and other less savory by-products. Right. I think I meant to get around saying that in my last post.

We should be looking at alternative fuels from an econ standpoint, too. I'm tired of gas prices going up because some OPEC guy passed gas the wrong direction. Not OPEC's fault. World crude production peaked in 2005.

OPEC was supposed to vary production to keep oil prices between $22 and $28 per barrel. They can't do that anymore. Not their fault.

And before anyone tells me that they said that in the 70's, that was U.S. (only) production which peaked in '75 or '76, IIRC :D

Can't confirm anything about it, except it doesn't produce carbon dioxide. See earlier comments about water vapor.

<snip>It's apparently a topic of discussion in Mexico, because apparently the price of tortillas has doubled and this is causing great concern for the poor there. Yep.

There's some research going on at one of the IL universities I believe, that is looking at different plants as an ethanol source. I believe there's a grass (the name of which escapes me) that they're experimenting with because it can be converted into more ethanol per acre than corn. Switchgrass.

More useless agriculture trivia Thanks for the correction.

Yes, Exxon surely needs those oil subsidies, since their $20 billion profit per _quarter_ is apparently not enough. :roleyess:
I'd like to see more investigation of wind, solar,and geothermal energy, among other earthy-friendly kinds of energy production. Agreed.

So, oil companies make a lot of money selling oil...but lose that money when they have to buy that oil back. So, oil companies don't like high oil prices as well. They prefer "stable prices". (Too high...people won't be able to buy. Too low...and companies won't make money.)
I was speaking about the $20 billion _profit_, which is what they take home after operating expenses are accounted for.

2) Seaking of which, the profits are inflated...due to high oil prices. Since there is high oil prices, it will encourge people not to use oil (hah!)...and it will encourge more people to SELL oil.
The profits are inflated because Exxon can get away with charging us through the nose at the gas pumps.
There is a high demand which is driving oil prices up, but there's a tremendous amount of profit-taking going on. As soon as we had that cold snap in February, my gas prices went up a good 50 cents a gallon, supposedly because there was more demand for heating oil in the Northeast. Well, heating oil and and gasoline are entirely different, even if they are both petroleum products.

With more producers selling oil, the price for oil goes down. Exxon's profits will go down when prices goes down.They'll go down when someone finally decides that ripping off the average American is not a good thing.

3) Exxon reinvests most of its profits to find new oil fields, so that it can make more money. However, the more oil it finds, it is more likely to decrease the price of oil.Personally, I think Exxon is using that as a smoke screen. Income-expenses=profit (to put it very simply). Searching for new oil fields is part of their research/development and operating expenses--it already is accounted for as expenses (or should be) against the income because they want to limit their tax liability as much as possible. The fact is gas prices went up, and Exxon and other oil companies started making obscene profits.

4) You DON'T just use oil to power cars.

Oil is far more important than as an energy source for cars. It is used to make plastics, like my laptop and the plastic bags in grocercy stores. It is used to make clothes...like the clothes I am wearing. It is even used to package frozen food, and lubricants. The world may be a better place if cars do not use oil...but that does not mean that we won't need oil ever again.
Any oil can be converted into a plastics and such. Soybeans are being used to create bio-diesel.

Another thing: It seems unlikely that we would reduce our dependency on Oil, even just for using it as a power source for cars. But, what if we reduce our dependency on oil from other countries? Those subsidies can help to make sure that Exxon produces oil near USA's territory, so that if relations break down between USA and Oil Superpowers (Saudi Arabaia, Russia), we still got some oil.
We should be decreasing our dependence on oil, period. It's not going to last forever.

5) Oil companies want money. That's their main purpose...they are "companies".
"Greed--for lack of a better word--is good...." --Gordon Gekko


If we all switch to some green- and enviromentally-friendly energy source...well, there will be companies that will be selling it to us at an over-inflated price. In fact, I think these oil companies actually want to branch into these sort of markets...the more ways they can sell energy, the more money they make. :)
They don't want to convert, because it's going to cost them a ton of money up front to get to that point. They don't want to take the financial hit.

Of course, I think the powers-that-be in government aren't too interested in making any changes, either. That would cut off their perks from the oil companies....

I was speaking about the $20 billion _profit_, which is what they take home after operating expenses are accounted for.

Still, profit is not high considering they still have to pay money.

The profits are inflated because Exxon can get away with charging us through the nose at the gas pumps.
There is a high demand which is driving oil prices up, but there's a tremendous amount of profit-taking going on. As soon as we had that cold snap in February, my gas prices went up a good 50 cents a gallon, supposedly because there was more demand for heating oil in the Northeast. Well, heating oil and and gasoline are entirely different, even if they are both petroleum products.

Profit-taking is an inherent part of a corporation. But it is differnet from ripping off. Remember, prices goes up and down regardless. Companies want to make money, but nobody wants to rip the consumers off. It's poor business sense. If the consumers can't afford oil, they'll HAVE to cut back, and this is bad.

Heating oil and gasoline are entirely different products, but they are both pertorleum products...and who sell the pertorleum products? The oil producing companies and countries. They knew there would be high demand for heating oil, and due to that, they have to increase prices for the pertorleum to account for the fact that heating oil companies will purchase more. Indirectly..this leads to higher prices on the pumps.

There is no ripping off going on.

Personally, I think Exxon is using that as a smoke screen. Income-expenses=profit (to put it very simply). Searching for new oil fields is part of their research/development and operating expenses--it already is accounted for as expenses (or should be) against the income because they want to limit their tax liability as much as possible. The fact is gas prices went up, and Exxon and other oil companies started making obscene profits.

Personally, I see what you are saying as a smokescreen. Profit is income-operational expenses to run it. The profit is what the companies do with it, and for the most part, they can give it out to shareholders, or they can "reinvest" it back into the company, to help that company prosper. This reinvestment includes R&D and finding new oil.

Any oil can be converted into a plastics and such. Soybeans are being used to create bio-diesel.

Ah, but then why aren't you screaming about bio-diesel producers ripping you off and making obscene profits? ;) If they become the wave of the future, that may be what will happen.

And, I do think that currently, extracting oil from the ground is cheaper. If bio-disel can become more effiecnt, everyone will prefer it. Until then...the old-faishioned way is okay.

We should be decreasing our dependence on oil, period. It's not going to last forever.

Maybe. It's obivous that the current oil deposits won't last forever. But how long they will last, that's the main question? 100 years? 1000 years? 10,000 years? 100,000 years? Prehaps, by that time, we'd all be dead from the Apoc, and then, we won't be dependent on oil. :)

And if it turns out we do run out of oil, or run dangerously close to running out of oil, oil prices will grow so high (due to its scarcity) that we will wean ourselves out from oil dependency.

And what about oil producing nations? Shouldn't they wean themselves out of oil as well? Why in the world are you worried about the USA, and not about, say, Saudi Arabia, who is suffering as well from oil addiction (it's an addiction of selling oil, not buying oil)? Most of their income comes from selling oil...if we switch, the whole Middle East would have little way of suriving in this cold world? Poverty may result...and poverty may result in an Islamic revolution.

They don't want to convert, because it's going to cost them a ton of money up front to get to that point. They don't want to take the financial hit.

But they'll have to if they want to remain competitive.

Exxon has stopped supporting "global warming"-deniers and is trying to remake itself as green to remain competitive. They know the future, and they want to be a part of it.

I don't get it: To you, they got obscene profits already. They can afford to take the financial hit, and still pay for bonsues, and such.

Of course, I think the powers-that-be in government aren't too interested in making any changes, either. That would cut off their perks from the oil companies....

Well, remember who has the reins of powers. Not the powers-that-be, but the people that contorl who the powers-that-be are. You can always sponser a movement to move away from oil dependency, or actually, focus on talking to Exxon, see their views, and encourge them.
---
Note: Techincally, anyone can buy stock in Exxon. If you are so upset about obscene profits, why not go and obscenely grab more money from Exxon, via dividens and rising stock prices? :) That should help you at the pump.

EDIT: This article (http://www.theonion.com/2056-06-22/news/6/) summarizes my viewpoints concering finding alternative energy sources quite well.