Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Scientists hit back amid fresh death threats


Persia

Recommended Posts

 
  • Replies 19
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • oly

    7

  • aquatus1

    5

  • Doug1029

    3

  • Little Fish

    2

Defend credibility? What credibility? Their support for gm & making black holes on earth demonstrates that they are insane & dangerous. Sorry to generalise!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet, you do it anyway.

You condemn Climatologists because you dislike Agriculturalists and Physicists. How well-balanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It dead set sounds like the ideal of the *ahem* open minded. Some people seem to fear what science will reveal. Death threats? For scientific process? Those are the ones who be dangerous. Lets hope they are identified and locked up appropriately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet, you do it anyway.

You condemn Climatologists because you dislike Agriculturalists and Physicists. How well-balanced.

Are you replying to me? Who said I was condeming climatologists? They're not all GW extremists. I was condeming the general attitude prevalent & propagated in academia. I think you're generalising too, but do you realise it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Death threats? For scientific process? Those are the ones who be dangerous. Lets hope they are identified and locked up appropriately.

I'm not defending anyone crazy enough to make death threats, but it would be stupid not to try to understand their grievances. Mainstream scientific institutions go along with inhumane & immoral political policy, at the extreme risk & expense of the public. No democracy or caution, just reckless insanity spouted from these idiots. Maybe that's what they're annoyed about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you replying to me?

Commenting, more than replying, but yes.

Who said I was condeming climatologists?

You referred to them as "insane & dangerous". That is considered a condemnation.

They're not all GW extremists. I was condeming the general attitude prevalent & propagated in academia.

Yes, hence the comment regarding the irony of someone claiming to hate to generalise, yet doing so anyway.

I think you're generalising too, but do you realise it?

Actually, when I generalize, I tend to point it out, as I usually engage in arguments of a rather specific nature. As far as this specific thread goes...where exactly am I generalizing about anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironic too how the more scientifically advanced we get, the more potential for catastrophe.

Every label is a generalisation.

You assume a lot too. & I didn't claim to hate anything either!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironic too how the more scientifically advanced we get, the more potential for catastrophe.

...that's not irony.

Actually, that's pretty predictable.

Every label is a generalisation.

Most labels are pretty specific. When one doesn't use labels, and one just refers to an entire swath, that is when it becomes generalizations.

You assume a lot too. & I didn't claim to hate anything either!

Well, you claimed I was generalizing, and when asked to show where, you did not answer. Now you are claiming that I am assuming, but again, you are not showing where I am assuming anything.

Additionally, you are implying that you have been accused of hating something. No one here has even come close to accusing you of anything like that.

Are you having the same discussion as we are? Frankly, it sounds like you have already decided what others are going to say, rather than respond to what they are actually saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...that's not irony.

Actually, that's pretty predictable.

Most labels are pretty specific. When one doesn't use labels, and one just refers to an entire swath, that is when it becomes generalizations.

Well, you claimed I was generalizing, and when asked to show where, you did not answer. Now you are claiming that I am assuming, but again, you are not showing where I am assuming anything.

Additionally, you are implying that you have been accused of hating something. No one here has even come close to accusing you of anything like that.

Are you having the same discussion as we are? Frankly, it sounds like you have already decided what others are going to say, rather than respond to what they are actually saying.

Is this a "scientist hitting back"? Except no death threat!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a manner of speaking, yes. Except for the death threat part, of course.

I believe one of the biggest mistakes that scientists make is allowing the media to have free reign with reporting research. They really need to get out there and strong-arm the media to start publishing accurate news, not sensationalist news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I believe one of the biggest mistakes that scientists make is allowing the media to have free reign with reporting research. They really need to get out there and strong-arm the media to start publishing accurate news, not sensationalist news.

Scientists have authority over mass media? I thought mass media was the propaganda wing of certain controlling forces.

Publish accurate news? Why would they want to do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they had authority, they wouldn't need to strongarm them. And the mass media is not the propaganda wing of anything beyond making a buck.

The key to a scientists success is in finding a way to make accurate news as exciting as sensationalist news. Since that may not be possible, they will have to settle for making sensationalist news more painful for the mass media to publish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key to a scientists success is in finding a way to make accurate news as exciting as sensationalist news. Since that may not be possible, they will have to settle for making sensationalist news more painful for the mass media to publish.

the media will always spin things the way they want to portray something, and the way something is portrayed is dictated by who controls the media. anyone in the media knows this is true.

I seriously doubt these death threats are anything real at all. just made up or exaggerated to slur those with opposing views as dangerous.

" an email threatening my life."

not only does this sound unlikely, but why has no-one been arrested or identified?

are emails anonymous all of a sudden?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

"CLAIMS prominent climate change scientists had recently received death threats have been revealed as an opportunistic ploy, with the Australian National University admitting that they occurred up to five years ago.

Only two of ANU's climate change scientists allegedly received death threats, the first in a letter posted in 2006-2007 and the other an offhand remark made in person 12 months ago.

Neither was officially reported to ACT Police or Australian Federal Police, despite such crimes carrying a 10-year prison sentence."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/carbon-death-threats-go-cold/story-e6freuzr-1226071996499

maybe it should be a crime to lie about a crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mainstream scientific institutions go along with inhumane & immoral political policy, at the extreme risk & expense of the public. No democracy or caution, just reckless insanity spouted from these idiots. Maybe that's what they're annoyed about.

????? What the ... are you talking about?

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt these death threats are anything real at all. just made up or exaggerated to slur those with opposing views as dangerous.

The wing-nuts murdered an abortion doctor up in Wichita. You never know what some politically-motivated psycho will do, so you better take it seriously.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe it should be a crime to lie about a crime.

Maybe it should be a crime to publish stuff you can't verify. The article you're quoting is an editorial - not even a news item. Editorials don't have to be actual; they're just somebody's opinion.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.