# AGW bullies strike again **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 29, 2009, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-bullies-strike-again/501324 "2009-06-29T07:49:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-bullies-strike-again/501324/1 "2009-06-29T07:49:58Z")
If true, [this report](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html) does the AGW cause no good at all. > [@Daily Telegraph](#): > > But one of the world’s leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week’s meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group. Can’t disrupt the Consensus, can we? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-bullies-strike-again/501324/2 "2009-06-29T09:15:28Z")
Agreed. Even if your cause is the right one, do not concede the high ground. Scientists are supposed to respect those that challenge consensus, even if they think the challenges themselves have been disproven. Someone willing to challenge current scientific thinking is the one who can actually discover something new. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-bullies-strike-again/501324/3 "2009-06-29T10:06:04Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Someone willing to challenge current scientific thinking is the one who can actually discover something new. Or not. Indeed, more often than not, it’s the “or not” type. For every Einstein, there’s a bazillion outpatients on day release. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-bullies-strike-again/501324/4 "2009-06-29T11:04:47Z")
Agreed that this is poor form–if true. It’d be helpful to see the original email, to make sure that neither the scientist nor the columnist are stretching facts. If they’re not, then certainly this move should not have happened. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-bullies-strike-again/501324/5 "2009-06-29T11:24:54Z")
It would be interesting to hear the story from somebody other than Christopher Booker. > [@](#): > > Via his long-running column in the UK’s Sunday Telegraph, Booker has claimed that man-made global warming was “disproved” in 2008[1], that white asbestos is “chemically identical to talcum powder” and poses a “non-existent risk” to human health[2], that “scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people’s smoke causes cancer simply does not exist”[3] and that there is “no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans”[4]. He has also defended the theory of Intelligent Design, maintaining that Darwinians “rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions”.[5] From [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker); with references. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-bullies-strike-again/501324/6 "2009-06-29T11:25:45Z")
[I’m wondering if there’s a slightly different explanation](http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=2571): > [@](#): > > Dr. Taylor was a member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission (IUCN/SSC) Polar Bear Specialists Group and Canada’s Federal Provincial Polar Bear Technical Committee until 2008. Is it possible that the meeting is for members of the group, and that he tried to invite himself to the meeting and was declined, since he’s no longer a member? ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-bullies-strike-again/501324/7 "2009-06-29T13:02:29Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > It would be interesting to hear the story from somebody other than Christopher Booker. Thanks for that. It’s pretty much all I needed to know. That reminds me of a proposition that was on the ballot here a decade or so ago. A “yes” vote would have banned the use of cruel bear traps. Not all bear traps, mind you, just the cruel ones. The dissenting position held that if such traps were banned, bears in bandit masks would sneak in through your children’s windows at night and teach them about evolution. Or something. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-bullies-strike-again/501324/8 "2009-06-29T13:03:15Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > It would be interesting to hear the story from somebody other than Christopher Booker. Agreed. And **LHoD** , if he were excluded for not being a member, why not say so say instead of saying that his **views** were not welcome? In a way, it’s even worse. I mean, from the article you cite, he’s concerned about polar bears and the way climate change is affecting their population; he just doesn’t think that it’s due to AGW as described by the IPCC. From that cite, his own opinion of not being invited is quite reasonable: > [@Dr. Taylor](#): > > MT: No, I don’t know what it’s about. I haven’t seen the agenda. All I know for sure is that I wanted to attend but I was not on the invitation list. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-bullies-strike-again/501324/9 "2009-06-29T13:41:10Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Agreed. And **LHoD** , if he were excluded for not being a member, why not say so say instead of saying that his **views** were not welcome? In a way, it’s even worse. I mean, from the article you cite, he’s concerned about polar bears and the way climate change is affecting their population; he just doesn’t think that it’s due to AGW as described by the IPCC. > > From that cite, his own opinion of not being invited is quite reasonable: Why he didn’t say so is the big question. What we’ve got is part of a sentence devoid of context in which his views were singled out. Was there a clause that followed, saying, “…and the obnoxious way you kept harping on them no matter what we were discussing, making it impossible to carry on a coherent discussion”? We don’t know: we lack context. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-bullies-strike-again/501324/10 "2009-06-29T13:45:01Z")
I can only assume Mr Booker has sources other than Dr Taylor to make his claim. Or is in error. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-bullies-strike-again/501324/11 "2009-06-29T14:40:10Z")
From my reading, it’s a meeting of polar bear experts. If there’s a thousand\* polar bear experts and they all think this one guy is nuts, I can’t say that I’m in any position to naysay them. - Random value ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-bullies-strike-again/501324/12 "2009-06-29T14:51:54Z")
My experience has been that deniers love to make reports that omit important points so as to make scientists to be more at odds than what they really are. Or to ignore important bits like the researcher not being invited for the pedantic reason of no longer being a member of the group. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-bullies-strike-again/501324/13 "2009-06-29T14:57:10Z")
Reading through the [2004 report by the Polar Bear Specialist Group](http://pbsg.npolar.no/export/sites/pbsg/en/docs/PBSG14proc.pdf) (PDF), here’s what they say: > [@PBSG 2004](#): > > **Threats and uncertainties** > Anthropogenic and natural changes in arctic > environments, as well as new recognition of the > shortcomings of our knowledge of polar bear ecology, > are increasing the uncertainties of polar bear > management. Higher temperatures and erratic weather > fluctuations, symptoms of global climate change, are > increasing across the range of polar bears. Following the > predictions of climate modellers, such changes have been > most prevalent in arctic regions (Stirling and Derocher > 1993, Stirling and Lunn 1997, Stirling et al. 1999, > Derocher et al. 2004), and have already altered local and > global sea-ice conditions (Gloersen and Campbell 1991, > Vinnikov et al. 1999, Serreze et al. 2000, Parkinson and > Calvalieri 2002, Comiso 2002, 2003, Gough et al. 2004). > Because changes in sea-ice are known to alter polar bear > numbers and productivity (Stirling and Lunn 1997, > Stirling et al. 1999, Derocher et al. 2004), effects of global > climate warming can only increase future uncertainty and > may increase risks to the welfare of polar bear > subpopulations. Uncertainty about effects of climate > change on polar bears must be included in future > management and conservation plans. In the face of > climate change, the need for rigorous scientific > information will increase. Or to summarize: We don’t know how many polar bears there are, but we’re gonna need to start figuring it out more clearly 'cause of this. Whether the warming will be a negative or a positive (for polar bears), who can say? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-bullies-strike-again/501324/14 "2009-06-29T15:15:21Z")
When, exactly, did the AGW bullies strike the first time? ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-bullies-strike-again/501324/15 "2009-06-29T15:22:08Z")
1. Fourth grade. Mean old Billy Ardsburger gave me a wedgie while saying, “The polar caps are too melting, you sissy!” ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-bullies-strike-again/501324/16 "2009-06-29T16:25:50Z")
It’s just the latest in a series of violent science gang-related incidents, following similar donnybrooks caused by the Germ Theory Goons and the Relativity Ruffians. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-bullies-strike-again/501324/17 "2009-06-29T16:32:44Z")
Real scientists get their grad students to fight for them. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-bullies-strike-again/501324/18 "2009-06-29T16:33:45Z")
_Really_ real scientists get their grad students to build semi-autonomous robots to fight for them. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-bullies-strike-again/501324/19 "2009-06-29T17:56:30Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > _Really_ real scientists get their grad students to build semi-autonomous robots to fight for them. No. That’s real **engineers** that get their grad students to build robots to fight for them. ---
**Author:** ![MN\_Maenad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e95f7d/32.png) [@MN\_Maenad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MN_Maenad)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-bullies-strike-again/501324/20 "2009-06-29T18:43:27Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > No. That’s real **engineers** that get their grad students to build robots to fight for them. Or, if they’re even more nefarious (dare I say it, “mad”), real scientists get the engineering grad students to build their robots for them. They must be stopped! [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agw-bullies-strike-again/501324.md?page=2)