(ed) Death threats for former climatology professor

[Skeptic]

This (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml) is just odd:

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 doesn't have to agree with the professor's "scientific community is closed-minded" stance to realize that something is very wrong here.

[Darat]

Not too sure what you mean "something is very wrong here" - beyond the obvious of course that no one should receive death threats.

[TragicMonkey]

The weirdness is that someone should take climate change so personally as to utter death threats. I mean, normal people only issue death threats for insults to their religion, or to hot celebrities, or to neighbors for playing loud music, or to people they get rejected by, or to people who owe them drug money. But climate change? It's a serious issue (to some), but on a personal level? Weird.

[Darat]

You missed out guinea pig breeders being targeted... there they are not satisfied with death threats - they make (and carry out) post-death threats!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4176094.stm

[TragicMonkey]

You missed out guinea pig breeders being targeted... there they are not satisfied with death threats - they make (and carry out) post-death threats!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4176094.stm

Guinea pigs should mate for love, not because they're forced to pair off!

[Merko]

So, is there another source for these threats than mr 'I think I was a climatology professor' Ball?

I've had some nasty e-mails and some that I would classify as very close to death threats, although not specific enough to make me feel really uncomfortable. But I also know from experience that some people are prone to classify anything that is rude and expresses something that can be interpreted as a wish that one's health should deteriorate, as a 'death threat'. Just the other month I got such a mail from a prominent Swedish comedian who was very angry because I didn't believe his warnings about the dangers of cell phone radiation. But even though it was creepy and it was clear he wanted me to die from cell phone radiation, I don't think it would qualify as a 'death threat'. I mean, I don't really think he will actually do anything to me.

[Beerina]

The weirdness is that someone should take climate change so personally as to utter death threats. I mean, normal people only issue death threats for insults to their religion, or to hot celebrities, or to neighbors for playing loud music, or to people they get rejected by, or to people who owe them drug money. But climate change? It's a serious issue (to some), but on a personal level? Weird.


The cynical libertarian notes that both religion and politics derive their power from power-seekers promising all kinds of sweet stuff to the masses. In eschange, "the majority of" the masses elevate them into power over everyone, not just those particular masses. And thus all people, including, not coincidentally, people who own businesses or otherwise have money, must kowtow to the "leaders".

Has environmentalism reached a stage where some people are believing in it with the force of religion, such that doubters must literally be killed? That the far left were the first to adopt environmentalism in the late '60's as a method to control capitalism when flat-out socialist rhetoric was starting to wane has long been noted and studied. Anti-capitalist rhetoric, the modern pseudo-religion that moved masses to murder doubters in the past, should not be surprised to continue to generate such hatred for this exact reason as the same mindset finds a reason to control using environmental damage.

No, that's not it. I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

[gumboot]

Has environmentalism reached a stage where some people are believing in it with the force of religion, such that doubters must literally be killed?



Most people need religion. They need something they can blindly and unquestionably follow. They can't handle the notion that nothing is certain or absolute.

Science has done a good job of demolishing religion for many rationally minded people in the west. Religious association is decreasing rapidly amongst non-immigrant western populations.

The people have turned to anything else that they can in any way turn into their new religion, and they dedicate themselves to it as heartily as their ancestors did to God.

Climate Change, Party Politics, Abortion, anything you care to name... there will always be those who treat the matter like a religion.

It doesn't matter how scientific, reasoned, skeptical, and careful the process was by which the leaders of a given movement attained their point of view. It doesn't matter if their point of view has limits. Many in the populous, the "followers" follow as blindly as a medieval peasant, and extend the movement in defiance of their exalted leaders.

Religion did the same thing. Jesus Christ, son of God or not, would be appalled at the actions of many of his "followers" over the last 2000 years.

Likewise I suspect key scientists of Climate Change, leaders of Political Parties, spokespeople in the Abortion debate, and many others would be appalled at the actions of some of their "followers".

-Gumboot

[Schneibster]

I guess I object most to the OP's implicit assertion that because idiots threaten a charlatan, global warming must be wrong.

[a_unique_person]

Dr Tim Ball, barefaced liar.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/dear_tim_ball_sue_me.php



The deathless and - in many specific respects - completely fictional meanderings of Dr. Tim Ball have begun appearing again on right-wing blogs all over the net. At City Troll (http://thecitytroll.blogspot.com/2007/02/global-warming-is-not-due-to-human.html), at Convenient Untruth (http://climatevaries.blogspot.com/index.html) and at New Orleans Lady (http://www.hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=8187766#post8187766), the same tired and retreaded old climate rant paints Dr. Ball as the courageous victim of a plot to silence a well-meaning skeptic.
But Ball can't even tell the truth about his own resume. His claim to be the first Climatology Ph.D. in Canada is a total falsehood; his degree was in historical geography - not climatology - and it was nowhere near the first ever granted to someone writing vaguely in the field. It also was granted by the university as a doctor of philosophy, not the more prestigious "doctor of science" that Ball claims in these articles.
He claims as well to have been a professor (again of climatology) at the University of Winnipeg for 32 years, while he confirmed in his own Statement of Claim in a pending lawsuit (look here (http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-lawsuit-documents) ) that he was a professor (of geography, never climatology) for just eight years.

[Schneibster]

Oh, my. So now it turns out the "death threats" are fake too? Gee, that's real surprising. Not.

[steverino]

I guess I object most to the OP's implicit assertion that because idiots threaten a charlatan, global warming must be wrong.

Well the later posts suggest that Ball is the idiot, and so imply that therefore global warming must be "right.";)

[ImaginalDisc]

The weirdness is that someone should take climate change so personally as to utter death threats. I mean, normal people only issue death threats for insults to their religion, or to hot celebrities, or to neighbors for playing loud music, or to people they get rejected by, or to people who owe them drug money. But climate change? It's a serious issue (to some), but on a personal level? Weird.

Hey, I'll have you know that a climate scientist once played loud music while banging Jennifer Lopez next door after rejecting my advances, refusing to pay me for a dime bag, and insulting my religion!