A brief interlude from the spectral dispersion series to post a response to Death Threats for man-made-global-warming-doesn’t-exist scientist found via AccuWeather: Death to Skeptics.

While there are plenty of climate scientists that would wish Dr. Ball would quit his anti-anthropogenic global warming talk, I hope none would stoop so low as to issue death threats. Though there are always a few nutjobs in any large group; or even in a relatively small group, as we saw with the diapered astronaut. My bet would be it’s an “environmentalist”. (Note the quotations. I’m not directing this at environmentalists. I had more here about the type of person I would suspect, but removed it. Use your imagination.)

Scientific discourse must take place within the proper framework, and currently that is the peer-reviewed system. By publishing new work and ideas in a scholarly journal, it documents who did what and when it occured. It also filters out the obviously-not-true material. That’s not saying that everything published in a peer-reviewed journal is 100% true. In fact, one of the conclusions in the paper I’m reading right now I don’t believe is correct. Journals do allow contrary opinions to be published as long as they are supported by logical arguments and non-fabricated data. Newpaper editorials and press conferences are not the correct place for scientific discussion. Though they are important for informing the public about new scientific advances. Don’t misunderstand me, anyone can say anything they want wherever they want (as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others). Censorship leads to a constriction on the exchange of ideas. This exchange is essential for science to work. If scientists cannot tells others effectively about their new discovery, then no one will hear about it, naturally. Being rejected for publication is not the same as censorship. Scientific journals needs to publish papers that present original ideas, and above all, they need to publish articles that are not wrong. That is the work of the editors and referees, to publish the good papers and trash the bad ones.

Desmogblog.com: Timothy F. Ball says that “Ball has published 4 pieces of original research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change. Ball has not published any new research in the last 11 years.” I could not find four peer-reviewed journal articles by Ball (I found 2), but it’s sometimes harder to find older articles. An example of his work comes from a paper written in 1983 in the journal Climatic Change: The migration of geese as an indicator of climate change in the southern Hudson Bay region between 1715 and 1851. Based on his contribution to the peer-reviewed scientific literature, I would argue that Dr. Ball is not well-informed about recent advances in climate science. If Dr. Ball wishes to add to the climate discussion, he should secure funding (from any source), and submit his findings to a journal. Actually, if he’s willing to show he’s more worried about scientific integrity than making money, he could work on climate science using his own funds.

Death threats made against someone for saying something (no matter how many people disagree with it, as long as it doesn’t “hurt” anyone) is the equivalent of censorship. If Dr. Ball does not feel he can express his opinions on anthropogenic global warming, he is effectively being censored. This is wrong. Even if Dr. Ball is 100% wrong, it is not right to censor him through threat of death. In fact, if he were in the United States, it’s likely the offenders could be prosecuted under 18 USC 875 section (c) (or similar codes, I’m not a lawyer).

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Related Posts:

Trackback URI |