From a letter written July 13 by Michael T. Eckhart, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) that was sent to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).
"It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar," Mr. Eckhart wrote. "If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070727/NATION02/107270089
2007-07-27 03:33:11 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment ➔ Global Warming
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
I'd probably guess that greater than 95% of the politics that goes on never sees the light of day. It's not just the politics of global warming, but the politics of scientific research to begin with (I'm sure you'd find proportionate political wrangling for funds to study the mating habits of western Australian grasshoppers, but that never makes the news.) The fact that we hear how much this is going on suggests an even more widespread political bent to suppress debate on global climate change.
2007-07-27 04:56:56 · answer #1 · answered by 3DM 5 · 4⤊ 4⤋
There are extremists on both sides of the argument which is a shame because global warming and climate change are both serious issues which need to be openly diuscussed by responsible and mature people.
I can't comment on the individuals concerned (I'm not in the US so I'm only vaguely familar with them) but if the media reporting is accurate (and often it's selectively edited) then people like that have no place in what is a serious scientific forum.
I firmly beleive in global warming and climate change and have attended and chaired various meetings. If someone behaved like that in one of my meetings they would be removed, even if they were on my 'side'. Scientific debate has no room for playground spats.
However, do keep an open mind and take anything you read in the media with a pich of salt.
2007-07-27 13:57:22 · answer #2 · answered by Trevor 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I was with you until I saw the name James Inhofe. I am ashamed that man represents my home state.
This is a little quote from Mr. Inhofe, "My wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I'm really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we've never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship."
Shows you what genius he is, doesn't it? Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that Eckhart said that. This just sounds like another case of two extremist idiots going at each other.
2007-07-27 07:26:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i'm no longer a scientist, neither am I a stupid person. Do I truly hit upon an unlucky slant interior the heading of the question as though purely sceptics are no longer likely to have the capacity to information all this extraordinarily complicated stuff on an analogous time as people who've 'considered the sunshine' (yet who're additionally no longer scientists) will discover this techie chat as sparkling as crystal? To the 'believers':- you may gown it up in as lots of the Emperor's new clothing and use as lots technical jargon as you like yet you're no longer any extra convincing that any of the others earlier you who've paraded approximately with 'the conclusion is nigh' written on a placard. and no-one desires to be a scientist to understand that.
2016-11-10 09:20:14 · answer #4 · answered by blaylock 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Destroying someone's career is not much of a threat. Career destruction deserves to happen to some people. They then move on to other positions for which they are better suited, and everyone is better off.
In this case, the likelihood of this occurring through withdrawal of supporting funds from the CEI is pretty small, in my estimation, as positive an outcome as that might be.
2007-07-27 04:14:42 · answer #5 · answered by cosmo 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Threats have been made on both sides. I've mainly heard of the scientists who were threatened, mainly by the Bush Administration to force them to change or water down their conclusions. That's why what they admit is happening (like the glaciers and ice caps melting) is decades, if not centuries ahead of schedule. As soon as people do figure out what's going on most of them will stop obeying laws, paying taxes, and that sort of things, and it will be every man for himself. Except in the United States, global warming has been accepted as a fact for years. "Climate change" is a euphemism.
2007-07-27 07:01:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Oh wow, one "climate skeptic" is "threatened" by a non-"climate skeptic". Stop the presses! Let's now make a gross generalization about how climate skeptics are all being threatened. Nicely done!
For the record:
"Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $2,005,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998"
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=2
More than likely Lewis was spreading lies regarding global warming. Eckhart got pissed and told him to stop spreading lies or he'd "destroy your career as a liar". Yeah, that's just mind-blowing.
By the way, unless you can name a second "climate skeptic" who's being "threatened", then your question is not valid. You can ask "why is this climate skeptic being threatened?", but one example does not make plurality.
2007-07-27 05:08:52 · answer #7 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
This almost proves that they are lying about global warming, would threats be made to someone against a scheme that wasn't all about making money and scaring the public?
2007-07-27 06:07:47 · answer #8 · answered by willow 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Galileo was threatened too - but there's no similarity at all between what the AGW crowd (funded by governments who are keen on taxing more, spending more, and controlling the lives and livelihoods of their people) and the Academic and Theological Authorities of his time!
2007-07-27 05:29:49 · answer #9 · answered by jbtascam 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The majority of AGW skeptics on this site are liars. These ones refuse to give sources, or engage in meaningful debate, and do engage in misleading statements. They resort to disinformation. Saying that the 'other' side is engaging in these tactics is just a way for the person doing it getting the discussion in to a more manageable area, instead of the scientific one. Every other post I see on here has "Al Gore" in it. The history of this site clearly shows who has indulged in these behaviors, probably in lack of evidence. I welcome those skeptics who bring evidence, and honest discussion. There are this type of individuals here too.
I do hold yahoo answers responsible for the state of discussion in here.
2007-07-27 05:18:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anders 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋