The battle over climate science?

I can't open the link for some reason, it redirects me to the aussie version of the site and I get a 404. S I can't comment on the article. However it stands to reason that the denialist motivation is not to form coherent arguments, rather the spread doubt and misinform people. That is why the heartland institute is involved in climate science denial, they were among those who used this technique to deny the science which showed that tobacco smoking is harmful. The idea was not to produce a counter argument which would prove cigarettes were not harmful, it was merely to undermine the work which showed that it was so people would keep smoking for as long as possible. I think this has worked extremely well with examples of here of people who regularly deny climate science now denying that such scientists receive threatening emails. So what of it maxbushian and co? are you now also denying the existence of internet trolls?

It shows a strong sense of emotional appeal (not science|). Just how many have actually been harmed? Now that would make a case for climate scientists.

If your desire is to stiffle free speach and opinions. Get into politics or law enforcement.

As far as anyone really knows they could be doing it to eachother.

"So, there is a concerted commercial effort to marginalize the science which has led to the threat of physical harm against climate scientists and their families."

That is a completely unsubstantiated statement. On the flip side, climate skeptics have also been threatened although I'm not going give wild *** speculations as to what caused that. Probably just extremism which is unacceptable for either side of this issue.

On top of that, it's pretty clear there is a "concerted commercial effort" to support the science. Man made global warming is good business for many. It's not hard to substantiate that.

I'm all for sanity in this debate. I ask a simple question here and I can almost feel people punching at me through their keyboards. Perhaps you think that's okay because of my questioning nature and "wrong thinking"?

So, there is a concerted commercial effort to marginalize the science which has led to the threat of physical harm against climate scientists and their families.

Really? Can you give me an example of such an email?

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/201...

I know a lot of people CLAIM to get threatening emails to gain sympathy. I'm not saying that none exist, but I think a lot of people claiming "threatening" emails are just getting "rude" emails. And I'm pretty sure it happens on both sides.

"legitimate skeptical arguments have failed to coalesce into a defensible argument"

Like Global temperatures not rising as fast as predicted?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527023046...

Pretty sure most skeptics are on the same page on that one.

Thanks for the link, David.

Imhofe is indeed the belly of the beast, or the beast, or the annoying jester at the beast Chrichton's feast.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005...

I put little faith in Muller. He has his own agenda, and he depends vastly more on the science than other scientists depend on him.

Mann is an interesting outlier.

But, a useful and timely article all the same.

My thoughts: Climate change science deniers deserve to be treated with the tolerance and attention that Holocaust deniers receive. Instead, we are treating them the way Weimar Germany treated anti-semites, back-stab mythmakers and Nazis: with bewilderment, bemusement, belittlement, pandering and bandwagonning. Hitler was not a feebleminded buffoon like Imhofe, and we are a long way -though maybe not as far as most people think- from Weimar Germany. And there is no prospect on the horizon of scientists being rounded up and sent to concentration camps. But Holocaust denial is lying about a historical episode that occurred over 65 years ago. Denial of climate change science is lying about the future of humanity for many centuries to come.

Warmonism exists to promote Socialism

And Socialists jail or execute those who disagree with them.

Google 'Climate Criminal' you get 55 million hits. Here's just one.

http://www.climatecriminals.co.uk/

•Mandatory life imprisonment

•Confiscation Orders of all personal assets.

•Confiscation Orders permitting the seizure of all assets transferred/bequeathed to others.

•Retrospective legislation which permits the seizure of all assets bequeathed to others after the death of a Climate Criminal

Socialists always begin their assault on 'deniers' with the assertion that the deniers are becoming dangerous. That is what the Popular Science article is.

Hitler began his round up of the Jews with the assertion that the Jews were traitors to the motherland.

Warmonism is preparing to round up the traitors to Mother Earth.

Most 'deniers' are just hardworking folks who want idiotic Warmon taxes & anti-energy legislation out of their faces. They want Obama to stop 'vetoing pipelines' & putting moratoriums on drilling. Deniers aren't the 'radicals', Warmons are.

My thoughts... The Global Warming Cold War will go hot within 5 years, maybe sooner.

Public belief in AGW is falling, so the Socialists have a limited time to 'compel' belief.

The widespread use of the term 'denier' is part of that agenda.

You should look into the corruption of modern day science and who they have black balled. That should give you a good prospective.

Denialists are more interested in ad hominem attacks on scientists than they are in science, because they lost the scientific "debate" long ago.When they can't refute the science, which is very sound, they resort to calling scientists "liars."

which ever side wins will claim all the best sea shells. -boo

there is no "science" involved, the earth has cooled since 1998 and the people involved are intellectually corrupt, pushing their agenda to make money, they even falsified their own research when it showed they were wrong