45 Scientists Dump Global Warming Deniers in 24 Hours

...the sun is also getting hotter, cauing the earth to be hotter as well. Argue that.
As stars die, they get hotter, till such point that they turn into one of the dwarfs (don't know as much about stars).

Oddly enough, scientists already know that and include that factor into their calculations on global warming. Normal cyclical variation in our Sun's output is not zero, but a very small factor in climate changes over the past few centuries. And you needn't worry out ol'Sol slipping into hot decadence for a few billion years, by which time our interest will have seriously attenuated.

Does the fact he says climate change and not global warming even percolate through your brain?

Is the climate changing?

Yes.

Is man responsible?

To some extent, of course, yet what you forget to mention is that every single attempt to link it to man made activities has failed.

Wanna know the biggest problem? It's this blazing thing you see in the sky during the day.

Now, can anything we do in the current climate actually change anything considering the rising nations such as China don't give a damn what you say?

Not a chance in hell. The pollution and CO2 output will be outsourced.

Welcome to reality.

Personally I think a nuclear power and hydrogen solution are all that can do much of anything to help, but we won't go into that because everyone loves biofuels.

Yaay biofuels, keep putting CO2 into the air and destroy the rainforest at record paces. Yaay. Fresh water stocks decreasing causing starvation worldwide with fertilizer shortages threatening food stocks. Yaay. Ogallalla Aquifer going dry. Yaay.

Just so you know, China made up for any change the US would have made agreeing to Kyoto in about a year. There is no solution when dealing with a Communist government and poor Third World nations that want their piece of the pie. They don't give a damn. Yes I repeated that, because it is reality and no one seems to understand it.

You must change the energy equation, but alas, we are too stupid to even try. Greenpeace finally figured it out, too bad they and their ilk destroyed an industry that is the only mass producible one whose pollution can be almost entirely contained. It will take a minimum of 50 years for the USA to even get going on a change from Coal and Oil. Thanks Greenpeace and "green" crowd. If you think everyone is going to stop using energy you guys need to stop smoking so much pot.

Look before you leap, or you will simply screw us all again, just like the biofuel craze is now.

Bend over world, you are about to take it up the you know what.

Garth - "Not only are you incorrect in your statement, but even if you were right, the Earth is very different from Mars or Saturn, and has always enjoyed a relatively stable climate."

well, you followed that up with an incorrect statement, earth has NOT always enjoyed a relatively stable climate. maybe in the last 2000 years though.

Well stated, Earl E.

John Schwartz: Not that you will likely read this...Your comment is very frustrating and shows the lack of understanding that many have of this important issue. Climate change is more than just an increase in temperature. It means more severe and unpredictable weather. So you get more and bigger hurricanes and more of them out of season. Areas formerly not known for floods and droughts start having them, those that have always had them become more severe. More wildfires. There may even be areas that have a decrease in temperature (likely Europe) because of the melting ice. Careful studies on the cost/benefit analysis have been done already. Economists are wondering what will happen when climate change creates tens of millions of environmental refuges.

The deeply frightening thing is that all these things (wildfires, melting ice, etc) create feedback loops so once it starts it may be impossible to stop. It is not only happening now, because of the feedback loops it is happening at an alarming speed which all current predictions don't take into account. We are not talking about warmer days in December. We are talking about something that has the potential to wipe out the human race. But hey, maybe you're right---maybe the world would be better off if climate change continues (which it most certainly will).

I run a global warming deniers blog and from all of the news I read on a daily basis, there is no scientific consensus on global warming. It's a power grab if you ask me, and one that raises your taxes in the process.

For those who say why don't we just be cautious and cut CO2 emissions anyway, just in case it really is man-made - the problem is that it leaves poor and undeveloped countries no way to develop. You can't go from mud houses to hydrogen fuel cells overnight - and the 'cautious' approach essentially means the rich countries get to stay rich while forcing the poor ones to stay poor (and dependent on others).

It's amazing how people can have strong opinions about things that they know nothing about.

But, then again, global warming deniers are the same people who thought that Iraq had WMDs and Saddam was partly responsible for 9/11.

Idiots.

Federal Farm subsidies are mostly distributed to Big AgriBusiness such as ConAgra, ADM, MONSANTO, etc. The average family farm in Iowa sees very little in ag subsidies, if any at all. In fact over 200 very wealthy families from Manhattan are recipients of federal farm subsidy dollars each and every year. I've never been to New Your City, but I don't think there are any farms on Manhattan Island.

Big Oil is financing most of your environmental groups, and have no problem if a "carbon tax" is instituted, and can probably be shown that they are lobbying for more environmental legislation.

...especially one from bloody England.

There's all kinds of stupid in these comments, but this one caught my eye. So someone is less qualified to comment on climate change because they come from England than, say, Arkansas? Great logic, Sherlock.

Looking at the comments on Digg and Reddit (where I found this story), it looks like the usual collection of xian, evangelical Republicans are the only people denying the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This seems to be a constant - almost the only people who deny the mountain of evidence and expert testimony are bible belt USA conservatives. It seems to go hand-in-hand with denial of evolution.

Folks, don't blindly believe what you're told at your church, or down at the local sports bar or at the Republican monthly meeting. Don't accept as gospel what you read on your favorite 'family values' blog.

Do your own research. Look at a variety of sources. See if the experts have a consensus. Short answer = they do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

To Garrett J Reed: Your comment is one of the rudest, most arrogant and offensive I've read in a long while. Do you want to start a verbal war against the department across the courtyard or are you just in for slinging some mud? The kind of chauvinism you express is extremely disheartening as it shows that there are morons, even on department chairs.

Regardless as to whether the post is accurate about geography being relevant in this particular context, before you bash us non-natural scientists, make sure you don't come off as a total jerk!

Apparently I'm the only one to notice that the list had 400 distinguished scientists name on it. 44 complained. So isn't that 366 distinguished scientists that did believe it wasn't man made.
Weathermen do know a certain amount about the climate BTW since they study weather trends.

AWESOME!!!! Well said.

How exactly can you say “Global warming is man made…period”, When the eruption of Mt. St. Helens released as much greenhouse gas as humans have in total since the industrial revolution? It is ignorant idiots like you that that allow self admitted Liars like Al Gore to start green tech investment funds and make false alarmist documentaries to sell his shares.

Here is your answers. Oil may end, but it is not likely to happen anytime soon. There are billions of barrels of oil in ANWAR and right off our coasts, but you liberal envirowackos won't let us touch it.

Yes fresh water will always be in supply. It is a renewable resource. It falls out of the sky. It's called rain. There are billions of gallons of it underground. It's cleaner and fresher now than 20 years ago since dumping nasty things into the ground has decreased. That's right, the situation is better than before, but you won't ever hear that on the news.

What "it" is, is common sense. The earth has been sustaining life for millions of years.

I am at a loss for why it is so important for some people to believe that man cannot have an impact on the Earth. Why do some people need to believe that oil will never end, that the Earth will always stay perfect for humans and that fresh water will always be in endless supply? What is it? Is it money, ignorance, righteousness, religion, what? Should we just keep consuming resources until they are all gone? They aren’t infinite, you know. The Earth won’t just ‘make more’.

Dude, you do realize that university departments in the UK are not organized in the same way as in the US. Way to show your ignorance. In the UK, Geography is quite often where atmospheric and earth sciences, particularly climatology and geomorphology, are taught.

Something on your post rubbed me the wrong way. As a geology instructor at San Diego State University I feel inclined to point out that geography is not a science. Your post quoted “Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh,” his opinion on global climate change, the now preferred title, is as irrelevant as the 44 TV weathermen. Maybe less so as they have most likely studied meteorology, an actual science. If we begin to take heed to the opinons of social “scientists” on matters of actual science we might as well ask a sociologist or map wright. As those people know as much about hard science as a Professor of Geography, especially one from bloody England

Global warming is so true it hurts.

Why can't people connect the dots?

I'm sorry, if you're going to say natural occurring phenomena as a scientific explanation, why is is hard to believe that pumping green house gasses in to the atmosphere causes green house effect? Especially it's been peer reviewed many, many times by people much, much more intelligent than you and I?

Yes, I can play this game too. Don't you just love the internet?

---------------------
Jesse Llyed
Phd Environmental Engineering, Harvard University
MEng Engineering Sciences, Oxford University

Icecaps are melting on mars, temperatures are COOLING on earth, its all a scam to create a global tax by the oil cartels themselves

a meeting of global warming proponents
ok hey guys. we're global warming supporters. let's come up with a list of people who oppose global warming, but let's include a bunch of people who actually support it, and then tell them about it right after we release the list. that'll really help us gain support for our cause. the brain dead average joe will hear of it and think whole groups or organizations that deny global warming are utilizing shady tactics and are full of shit! sound good? hell yeah!

_______________________
*i dont deny global warming

Just like Y2K, global cooling in the 1970s and WMDs in Iraq... spreading fear is a great tool for getting a herd of lemmings to follow.

@earl e.. logic only works if you deny that anything exists beyond physical matter. But is it that illogical to think that people are comprised of something more than just atoms?

I am firmly in the camp that believes “Global Warming” is just political fear propaganda. Through fear people cry for help so that their government will come and save, them which is exactly what they want.
Soon they will be proclaiming “water shortages” which will just be another way for them to impose more control over us. By controlling the water we drink.
Even if the world is heating up, it is from natural Earth cycles, not this man-made farse.
Every planet in our solar system is experiencing extraordinary phenomena. Mars is experiencing the SAME amount of global warming as we are. I suppose that can be explained away by all the Martians and their damn Hummers.

I do not think that the carbon link is causing global warming. Or at least, I do not think there is conclusive evidence linking the earths warming to the greenhouse effect. Unfortunately, however, the upcoming water shortages are very real. Wars are already being fought over water in other countries, and as the population increases our freshwater reserves remain the same. We all die without fresh water, and even with desalination plants those who do not live next to the source will be hard pressed to have desalinated water delivered to them. This is a very real and wide spread problem.

Now they need to check and make some calls for the ones on the do agree on global warming list.

Re: Global warming is man made…period.

Earth's climate has been warming and cooling for 4 billion years, but this time it's caused by man. Yeah, right. And the sky is falling.

John > I wouldn't think a court case would be possible. Scientists are always saying that this or that study supports their theory. They are entitled to say so, just as the original authors are entitled to say their research doesn't support it. If people could not say so then science would suffer.

Something on your post rubbed me the wrong way. As a geology instructor at San Diego State University I feel inclined to point out that geography is not a science. Your post quoted “Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh,” his opinion on global climate change, the now preferred title, is as irrelevant as the 44 TV weathermen. Maybe less so as they have most likely studied meteorology, an actual science. If we begin to take heed to the opinons of social “scientists” on matters of actual science we might as well ask a sociologist or map wright. As those people know as much about hard science as a Professor of Geography, especially one from bloody England.
But besides that I did find it interesting and amusing. I like the blog and will continue reading.
Garrett J Reed
MS Geological Sciences, San Diego State University
BA International Business, San Diego State University
BS Hydrology, California Poly-technical University, San Luis Obispo

I would have thought Sociology would have a lot to contribute to this debate. For example, how different social groups interact, believe what they do, and try to influence society. For instance many people, including my self trust their gut instinct at seeing the weather change, the ice caps melt, the pollution in the air and the consensus of scientists. I've read a lot about global warming, but I can not pretend to know it all, and neither I would suggest can the vast majority of commentators and scientists. On the other hand, there are many groups that stand to profit from a negative view. There are also many others, including myself, that are immensely skeptical of power and the majority. How to tease apart and expose this Sociology seems to be at the heart of this issue.

In reply to "The earth has always enjoyed a relatively stable climate." I'd have to ask, are you NOT including the ice age?

You guys are dumb and brainwashed. Global warming is happening but it's not man made. The sun goes through cycles of cooling and warming. It's been much hotter here on Earth when there weren't even humans let alone cars.

How exactly can you say “Global warming is man made…period”, When the eruption of Mt. St. Helens released as much greenhouse gas as humans have in total since the industrial revolution?

Brian, please provide us with a source for this. I'd like to see it, and so would others.

FooMan said: "I am firmly in the camp that believes “Global Warming” is just political fear propaganda."

"Don't confuse me with the facts; my mind is made up!" I haven't seen that one in a while.

"Through fear people cry for help so that their government will come and save, them which is exactly what they want." Of course, we can count on our government to come to our aid in a crisis, which is, after all, why we HAVE governments. That certainly worked for the folks down around Katrina way. No, the government - in a democracy, which is what this used to be - only reacts to public pressure, and professional obfuscators have manage to confuse the gullible, which is not a difficult task and requires a much smaller work force than 500. As Galileo put it, "very great is the number of the stupid."

"Soon they will be proclaiming 'water shortages' which will just be another way for them to impose more control over us. By controlling the water we drink."

PROCLAIMING water shortages? Don't you mean REPORTING water shortages? And that's not "soon;" that's last year. And again this year. The Southeast, where I live, is now struggling for what little water remains here, where we're in the worst drought in our history. The lake that serves as Atlanta's reservoir, despite recent heavy rains, is 14 feet below normal. Alabama and Mississippi are demanding that Georgia impound less water before it reaches them, as they are, also, in crisis. Georgia is now trying to claim an extra mile or so of Tennessee land so they will have access to the Tennessee River. Of course the Ogalala has been drying up for decades; last I heard it was two-thirds gone. That's the watering can for the nation's breadbasket.

But keep on smirking. You're living in a Foo's paradise.

Weather is chaotic--that is a mathematical theorem.

That climate is not, is a claim of the computer modelers, because
their whole research would go out the window if it were. However, there is no proof--no matter how much they invoke " averaging" and "computer sims"
that climate is not chaotic. In fact, the SAME mathematical theorem shows that climate is also chaotic.

I repeat: climate, like weather is chaotic.

So, even it is warming, it could still produce an ice age--which has happened at least TWICE--once twelve thousand years ago, and once in the
13th century--the latter, a "little ice age" that lasted for hundreds of years.

In a proved chaotic system, computer models are proved WORTHLESS.

THEOREMS!!

p.s. The man who proved that weather and climate models have chaotic solutions died last week --do a search on Lorentz.

At least the IPCC wouldn't revert to these kind of tactics would they?

To JLW,
no, these same scientists were not predicting an ice age in 1970. There was an article published at one point saying we are due for another ice age, there was no scientific consensus. If you need to rely on dishonesty as the foundation of you AGW skepticism, then perhaps you need to reconsider taking a stance either way for the time being.
To FooMan,
Some planetary bodies are experiencing warming, some are experiencing cooling and it seems to even itself out. However, these planetary bodies don’t have our rich atmosphere or large oceans. Not only are you incorrect in your statement, but even if you were right, the Earth is very different from Mars or Saturn, and has always enjoyed a relatively stable climate.

That is ironic..since it is Venus that most scientist quote as the "worse case scenario".

Earl E, I totally agree, but I think you mean 2 millenia ago.

When entire nations of environmental refugees start appearing on the headlines because we failed to act, will this discussion still be so unnecessarily politicized?

World socialist conspiracy?!? Please tell me how you got there from here? Or did you just go off of your medication?
A journalist reports the news, does not draw conclusions from it.

Global warming and the eco movement go hand in hand. The logical end conclusion of this pair is that man is the enemy of earth. It's already been said by the "extremeists" of these movements many times over. Population control, etc. The only other option is a global carbon tax. Who might enforce this tax? What globalist organization like the UN, ICC, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, EU, etc might step up to the plate? The first step towards globalization is creating an oversight organization. The second step is establishing that organization's authority. The third step is economic integration. The fourth step is military integration. The fifth step is currency integration. The sixth step is the dissolution of the now powerless sub-governments.

It's practically a formula.

You people who think government is good need to wake up and go read some history. There are evil people on earth. Evil people continually strive for power. Sometimes they attain it.

Attention of Mr Garrett Reed

All those geology and scientific qualifications! I must remember to teach my kids that the capital city of Scotland, Edinburgh, has now moved from Scotland to England. Garrett the geologist said so...

"But besides that I did find it interesting and amusing. I like the blog and will continue reading."

San Diego Uni must be so proud of you.

<>

Something on your post rubbed me the wrong way. As a geology instructor at San Diego State University I feel inclined to point out that geography is not a science. Your post quoted “Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh,” his opinion on global climate change, the now preferred title, is as irrelevant as the 44 TV weathermen. Maybe less so as they have most likely studied meteorology, an actual science. If we begin to take heed to the opinons of social “scientists” on matters of actual science we might as well ask a sociologist or map wright. As those people know as much about hard science as a Professor of Geography, especially one from bloody England.
But besides that I did find it interesting and amusing. I like the blog and will continue reading.
Garrett J Reed
MS Geological Sciences, San Diego State University
BA International Business, San Diego State University
BS Hydrology, California Poly-technical University, San Luis Obispo

How exactly can you say “Global warming is man made…period”, When the eruption of Mt. St. Helens released as much greenhouse gas as humans have in total since the industrial revolution?

Brian, please provide us with a source for this. I’d like to see it, and so would others.

Myths never have sources. They spring up spontaneously in the shadows, like mold. All you need is the Keeling Curve to prove the vulcanism theory wrong. Click if you dare:

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/images/graphics_gallery/original/mlo_record.pdf

Mt. St. Helens erupted in 1980, and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere didn't jump at all. It's counterintuitive, but the numbers don't lie. My guess is that for a big enough sustained eruption can measurably increase atmospheric CO2, but a one-off explosion like St. Helens cannot.

How can anyone deny global warming exists? It is an easily observed phenomenon. All you have to do is place a thermometer outside your house, and record the maximum daily temp. over one year. When you then analyze the data, you will observe an increase in temperature (warming) from winter into summer.

Also, there is general worldwide agreement that 10,000 years ago (aprox.) the earth was in the grips of an ice age(one of many). Glaciers covered something like 70% of the world's land-mass. That requires extremely low worldwide temperatures. Much lower than today. So, over the last 100 centuries the earth has gotten warmer, hence the term "Global Warming".

Only a fool would deny this simple reality.

Now try to imagine the amount of STUPID required to deduce that human activity is the major force driving the planet's climate.

Global warming is a FUCKING HOAX !!!

You know you don't have to believe that global warming is man induced to believe in global warming. I believe in global cooling too. I also believe that current rates of warming are not unprecedented, current temperatures are not unprecedented, current sea level and its rate of rising are not unprecedented, CO2 levels are not unprecedented. So tell me...what exactly is radically different from the same old climate cycle that's been in place for billions of years?

The most effective thing you can do to fight climate change is to go and take on a AGW denial propagandist, on their own astroturf.

There sure is a lot of BS written in these comments. Its comical to here how much conspiracy is out there and how little of it makes sense. Let's start with Global Warming is political propaganda. First off, the government (Bush Jr's) refused to acknowledge that global warming even existed for his first 6 years in office. Instead, for the most part, it was pushed by science! NOT science being paid for (for the most part) by government. And while I will admit, there are some scientists who like the limelight, most of are the opposite light, and prefer to remain relatively anonymous. In fact, they tend not to be the most socially adept. Second, it is triggering a phenomenal amount of creativity from just about every sector of the world to deliver solutions. And this is occurring in a constructive manner unlike probably anything we have ever seen before. We are talking not only about technology revolutions but the social ideas that coincide with them. AND most of the technologies that are coming out of this DEcentralize power. Meaning, they are renewable sources that don't require 'fuel' as we know but use what nature already supplies all of us. So for MR. & MRS. conspiracy, let me ask you the first of my questions: WHY WOULD THOSE WHO CONTROL A LOT WANT THIS TO HAPPEN? The answer is plain - THEY DON'T. But wait, the FEAR! What about the fear? There are only a few things that trigger people to make real changes in their lives. The most common is pain. The second most common is the fear of pain. And the third, and far less common, is LOVE. Again, the messages for the most part have been coming from science and not involving fear - or at least most not intending to. But human's natural response to 'shit hitting the fan scenarios' is fear. FOR CHRISTS SAKE, THAT'S WHAT FEAR IS FOR - to move us into action; to tell us there is danger and prepare. So the fear that comes with the messages is only natural. Do some people take advantage of this? Sure. That's human nature too. Does it mean this is a huge conspiracy being pulled off by a small group of ill-intentioned people? No. You always have to look down the road to see the result first. Will some people try to re-direct the road? Sure. That is also in human nature. Will it happen? Doubt it with something of this scale. Wake up people and be smart. Do something they didn't teach you to do in school and actually think things through thoroughly before opening your mouth. Stop just jumping to the conclusion that everything you see in movies is based on reality. Yes, some of it is. But no, most of it isn't. That's why we acknowledge movies as being fictional when thats what they are.

"Yes fresh water will always be in supply. It is a renewable resource. It falls out of the sky. It’s called rain. There are billions of gallons of it underground."

Tell that to Africa. Too far away for you to care about? Go look at the depletion of the Ogallalla Aquifer, even after stringent cuts to use it still supplies 1/5 of US agricultural water, and it is going. Oh yes fresh water is a "renewable" resource. What will you be saying when it costs $4 dollars a gallon?

And for the comment on volcanoes, it is true we have experienced a massive decrease in volcanic activity during recorded human history. Long before us volcanoes were one major portion of climate change.

"Recorded human history."

We are fleas on an elephant.

I know climate change is reality, it is a scientific fact.

You believe in man made global warming and offer up conclusions with no basis in reality, and solutions that are even further from reality.

Does the author even realize the words of the man he quoted?

You equate climate change with global warming?

That is a simplistic generalization that ignores all forms of reality.

First we need to change our energy equation, then we GIVE it to the Third World because they sure as hell aren't going to stop polluting otherwise.

I am for clean energy simply because it is smart to do.

I am not for crippling our economy and outsourcing even more pollution to the Third World which HAS ABSOLUTELY NO ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS.

THAT SOLVES NOTHING, IN FACT IT MAKES IT WORSE.

We live in a market economy, Wal-Mart proves people are going to buy the cheaper version from Asia. That is reality.

This is very similar to the book published "Of Pandas and People," by the wonderful folks down south in the USA who were pushing "Intelligent Design." The book was later found to be a complete fraud and word salad of cut-and-paste variety that tried to confuse the less educated among us.

I'm sorry, but does this 'think tank' actually think they can fool educated countries? Please...

I've sent this story to the Canadian Broadcast Corporation for further exposition.

Cheers friends!

CO2 destroying our rain forests? They LIVE on CO2 and emit O2 during the daytime. Reverse at night. You are apt to get more planetary warming from concrete or blacktop than any gases. Didn't any of you even take HS biology, let alone any college classes. Just 'party 101' or ethics classes. If you did I'll bet it was on the "mymommypaysplan". Get a life contribute instead of whinnnnninnnng.

Michael J.:

I’ve sent this story to the Canadian Broadcast Corporation for further exposition.

Cool! I hope this story gets into the mainstream media soon. Any word from the CBC?

In the meantime, Heartland has come back with a hilarious reply. Summary: how dare the researchers even harbour the idea that they know more about their own research than some think-tank! :)

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.xml

Galileo:1

Goracle:0

30000 scientists are taking Al Gore to court over anthropological global warming.

Many scientists believe global warming is not occurring or has ceased, other scientists believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable, still others believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes, more believe cause of global warming is unknown, some believe global warming will not be significantly negative and even beneficial.

The consensus scientists obviously have an ulterior motive.

The article "Mick" refers to says this:
Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Kiel, Germany, said: "The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C warming over the next decade. Our prediction is that there will be no warming until 2015 but it will pick up after that."
advertisement

He stressed that the results were just the initial findings from a new computer model of how the oceans behave over decades and it would be wholly misleading to infer that global warming, in the sense of the enhanced greenhouse effect from increased carbon emissions, had gone away."
This shows that Mick needs a remedial reading course.

Global warming is man made...period. With that, I absolutely love how you took that fact and paired it with a statement made by an think-tank that has an agenda and created one of your own.

"Yeah. Game, set and match, to people that don’t think that global warming is a cover for the world socialist conspiracy."

World socialist conspiracy?!? Please tell me how you got there from here? Or did you just go off of your medication?

A journalist reports the news, does not draw conclusions from it.

These same scientists were predicting we were going into an ice age in the 1970's.

Let's begin the witch hunt for any scientist that does not support the grand global warming theory. We can start off by letting them deny it. If they refuse, other punishments shall be forthcoming from the great elite that protects the "truth".