Are Scientists who disagree with global warming alarmists being intimidated?

Question

"All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC

Answer 1

All who disagree with Gorebal Warming are trashed by the Loon Left Wing Lemmings and their bias` news` media !! As you can witness by some of the answers` from the arrogant elite on here ! I still have had no explanation on what happened to the "Coming Ice Age" that was "predicted" just 33 short years ago in TIME magazine in 1975 by this same "sky is falling cult" ?? How did " The Coming Ice Age " cease to be a world ending crisis just as this "Gorebal Warming" is now being touted ? Amazing to me that in 33 short years we can have 2 " world ending disasters`" from 2 totally different opposite factors` ; hot & cold , and they don`t even know how they "stopped" the first one ???? I know how they stopped it ; It never existed then and it doesn`t exist now !!!

Answer 2

no they are not....global warming didn't start in our lifetime, and it will not end in our lifetime.....it is a natural process that takes millions of years......God is looking out for us.

btw: I only read your question...not all the details....too long.

Answer 3

It may have happened, but it's not frequent.  And I don't see what's wrong with what your article describes.  Politicians try to convince others to support their views all the time.

Answer 4

No, they're not.

Answer 5

AGW is all about cutting down pollution to the earth and less dependancy on oil and anyone telling me otherwise will feel more than being intimidated.

Answer 6

Do you feel intimidated?  Bullied?

You seem to feel that scientists should be treated differently by politicians than  politicians treat other politicians. That is like going into a court room and expecting that lawyers for the other side sill not bully you. Bullying is just part of what politicians do as a matter of course. It is certainly what lawyers do every day.

Does that make it good to do that?

If one goes into a courtroom armed with all the facts it is difficult for anyone to bully or intimidate... but it also happens every day. It happens because the lawyers have control of how information is presented and by whom.

That is so much a part of how American political life works. It does give me cause to doubt that its democracy can survive.

Answer 7

yes, climatologists are part of an international crime syndicate bent on world domination. along with midgets and left handed people.

Answer 8

Yes, some even receive death threats. There is certainly an air of McCarthyan style bullying happening in the government, science and here on this silly little forum. Just look at all the questions and answers that say things like "if you don't believe you are ignorant" or "why won't these morons listen." "global warming is fact, there is no debate" does that sound like open and rational discussion? How about the answers to this question that indicate this bullying is OK?

No one ever expects the Science Inquisition.

Answer 9

Yes they are. Its now a political issue, and will never get a fair scientific shake.

Answer 10

So you start with "global warming alarmists".  Would you use such loaded terminology in any of your scientific papers?

I've noticed that those that disagree with climate change are the first to make this a political issue.  Most likely because the industries most closely linked to the causes of climate change (oil, coal, automotive. etc.) are fairly entrenched on the conservative side in this country.  I'm still baffled at how this issue became politicized to the degree it has.

You failed to mention the pounding dozens of scientists from the IPCC took from the right (across all media outlets) when that report was released.  If ever there was a modern day witch hunt this is very good example.  Having gone through that yourself (though on the flip side) I still think you would have been incline to try and help rein in some of those hostile, libelous and false attacks.

I guess I view what you have here as more of a polemic than an actual question.  I think both sides are guilty of very underhanded, deceptive and even practices that are a discredit to the scientific field in general.

Answer 11

(just LOVE Gengi's sarcasm)

This claim is pure projection on the part of the denialists.  Climate scientists like James Hansen were threatened with dismissal if they spoke directly to the press, and their publications were censored by political appointees to remove anything not in line with the administration's position.  Google "George Deutsch" for one example.

So no, the ones who disagree get paid gigs with propaganda groups like the Heartland Institute, while the ones who agree with the science are threatened with firing from NASA if they say what the top officials don't want said... even if it's the absolute truth.

Answer 12

Science is supposed to replace religion to become the opiate of the masses.  This needs established doctrine and you better believe there will be intimidation.  The hierarchy of the "AWG church" is less available than say the Catholic church of the middle ages.  The witch hunts will continue and power mongers will continue to use brute force where scientific method fails them.  

Whoa, is it hot in here or

is it just

Al Gore?

Answer 13

No. Because there are no scientists who "disagree with global warming."  Its a proven scientific fact--as are its human  origins. The debate is over  and has been over for years.

The so-called "skeptics" are not scientists--and they display their ignorance by trying to pretend that there is a "debate." There is not--in science, unlike politics, once the facts are in, the debate ends.