BREAKING: “Death threats” against Australian climate scientists turn out to be nothing but hype and hot air

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.s handy BS button almost broke over the claims made by David Appell and others about “death threats” against climate scientists.

UPDATE:Jo Nova has a complete and detailed summary of this farce:

Pathological exaggerators caught on “death threats”: How 11 rude emails became a media blitz

UPDATE2: 5/3/12 Simon Turnill reports that there’s a new story in the Australian saying that the police were never contacted, indicating that the ANU didn’t even take the non-existent “death threats” seriously enough to even report it! David Appell looks even dumber now.

WUWT readers may recall the uproar in the alarmosphere and media over this…well, just like Peter Gleick and Fakegate, this was another “manufactured” claim against skeptics with not a single document to back it up then. An adjudicate looking at the actual documents, has ruled they  “do not contain threats to kill”.

In Australia the ABC reported the “scare” this way in June 2011:

Death threats sent to top climate scientists

Several of Australia’s top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security.

Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research.

Vice-chancellor Professor Ian Young says the scientists have received large numbers of emails, including death threats and abusive phone calls, threatening to attack the academics in the street if they continue their research.

He says it has been happening for the past six months and the situation has worsened significantly in recent weeks. (source)

As did Nature, and The Guardian in full alarm mode bloviation.

I get word from Simon at Australian Climate Madness of this breaking development. It seems the “death threats” against climate scientists are nothing but hot air, and alarmist David Appell is now a confirmed idiot for taking me to task (and citing my deceased mother in his argument) over my not getting too excited about the whole trumped up story.

Watts Still Denying the Death Threats – Quark Soup by David Appell

This claim stunk from the beginning for lack of credible evidence, as I pointed out then when I told Appell to take his concerns elsewhere* and tossed his sorry butt off WUWT for good.

Appell has this on his website:

Rule #1: You can never ask too many questions.

But apparently Appell  didn’t follow his own advice in this incident and go to the length of FOIA questions that Simon did. Give Simon a round of applause and Appell some well deserved raspberries. – Anthony

============================================================

Simon writes:

Christian Kerr at The Australian reports on my ongoing efforts to obtain, from the Australian National University, copies of emails to climate scientists containing death threats, and a recent Privacy Commissioner ruling that shows that none of the documents produced contain such threats:

Climate scientists’ claims of email death threats go up in smoke

CLAIMS that some of Australia’s leading climate change scientists were subjected to death threats as part of a vicious and unrelenting email campaign have been debunked by the Privacy Commissioner.

Timothy Pilgrim was called in to adjudicate on a Freedom of Information application in relation to Fairfax and ABC reports last June alleging that Australian National University climate change researchers were facing the ongoing campaign and had been moved to “more secure buildings” following explicit threats.

In a six-page ruling made last week, Mr Pilgrim found that 10 of 11 documents, all emails, “do not contain threats to kill” and the other “could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat”.

Chief Scientist Ian Chubb, who was the ANU’s vice-chancellor at the time, last night admitted he did not have any recollection of reading the emails before relocating the university’s researchers. “I don’t believe I did,” Professor Chubb told The Australian.

Instead, he said he had responded “as a responsible employer”.

“I had a bunch of concerned staff and they thought they should be moved to a more secure place so I moved them,” he said.

“With hindsight, we can say nobody chased them down. What do you do?”

The FOI application was lodged by Sydney climate blogger Simon Turnill. It requested the release of “emails, transcript of telephone calls or messages that contained abuse, threats to kill and/or threats of harm to the recipient” sent to six staff members of the ANU’s Climate Change Institute. His request resulted in the discovery of the 11 documents.

The university refused to release the documents, citing a clause in the Freedom of Information Act that exempts documents that “would, or could reasonably be expected to … endanger the life or physical safety of any person” from disclosure.

Mr Turnill appealed against the decision.

In response to the appeal, Mr Pilgrim found 10 documents did not contain threats to kill or threats of harm.

Mr Pilgrim said of the 11th, a further email offering an account of an exchange that occurred at an off-campus event sponsored by members of the Climate Change Institute and other bodies: “I consider the danger to life or physical safety in this case to be only a possibility, not a real chance.”

Finally, after a long wait, on 26 April 2012, the Privacy Commissioner ruled in my favour. The decision is available here. In respect of danger to life, the Commissioner wrote:

15. The question is how release of the documents could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any person. In other words, the question is whether release of the documents could be expected to create the risk, not whether the documents reflect an existing credible threat. Even if the threats were highly credible, the question would be how release of the documents would add to the expected threat.

16. In my view, there is a risk that release of the documents could lead to further insulting or offensive communication being directed at ANU personnel or expressed through social media. However, there is no evidence to suggest disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, endanger the life or physical safety of any person.

17. Therefore I consider that the 11 documents are not exempt under s 37(1)(c).

===========================================================

Full story here: http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/05/anu-death-threat-claims-debunked-the-australian/


ADDED - Here’s Appell, calling us all demented because we aren’t alarmed:

Quarksoup

And this comment on WUWT:

David Appell
david.appell@xxxx

The death threats against climate scientists have been widely acknowledged by several of them and reported on by many journalists. The Guardian, in particular, has seen them. One scientist had a dead animal dumped on their doorstep, according to ABC News. Some of the threats have been reported to the FBI.

It is pernicious, obnoxious, and dangerous for people here, especially Anthony Watts, to claim that these threats exist do not exist. It is of a kind, and only a step from being complicit.

And here, he uses an ugly caricature of me to make his point:

http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2011/07/looks-like-watts-is-having-second.html

He writes:

Denying these threats as Watts and his minions (microWatts?) do is despicable, and it is dangerous. They have taken this discussion into a very dangerous place, and innocent people are being targeted simply because they are doing their jobs as best they can and have come to a scientific conclusion with implications that some people do not like. It’s craven, truly craven.

* I can’t publish what I really want to say about David Appell, lest I violate my own blog policy.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate ugliness and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

180 Responses to BREAKING: “Death threats” against Australian climate scientists turn out to be nothing but hype and hot air

  1. I can’t publish what I really want to say about David Appell, lest I violate my own blog policy.

    ‘Nuff said…

  2. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Yeah, Appell is a piece of work. The whole thing about “death threats” against AGW supporters, where it has been examined, has been bogus … what a shock. And Appell got sucked in by bogus claims, and went and abused other people on that basis … bad journalist, no cookies. If he had any … oranges, he’d apologize, but I’m not holding my breath. Appell, you gonna admit your mistake? The world wonders …

    w.

  3. exisle says:

    No doubt there will be porcine aerobatics well before the ABC, Grauniad, etc., retract their alarmism over this…

  4. Harpo says:

    This is part of the messiah complex that these climate activists possess. Any criticism is a direct threat to their life or credibility, however when they talk about burning houses, tattooing sceptics and suspending democracy that is just a reasonable response to the crisis. How many lives are these climate activists prepared to sacrifice in the inevitable turmoil that would follow the suspension of democracy?

  5. Kaboom says:

    “What else did you lie about in an effort to paint yourself and your work in a more favorable light in the public eye?”

  6. Tom_R says:

    Climate Scientists lied? What next? Is the Pope Catholic?

  7. Lew Skannen says:

    “Give … Appell some well deserved raspberries”

    Do you realize that that pretty much qualifies as a death threat?

    /sarc

  8. Anything is possible says:

    * I can’t publish what I really want to say about David Appell, lest I violate my own blog policy.

    =====================================================

    We’ll give you a pass on this one, Anthony. Go for it! (:-

  9. John M says:

    Oh c’mon now, you’re being unfair and expecting too much of Appell..

    This all came out in an FOIA request. When have you ever heard of a “journalist” actually using FOIA to find anything out.

    /sarc

  10. Rob Crawford says:

    Appell stopped asking questions when he got the answer he wanted.

  11. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research.
    ——————————————-
    That’s what you tell them when you move them into padded cells. You’ll be more safe here. Come on fellas.

    And can I get one of those BS buttons at Staples? Seriously I would buy one.

    Congrats to WUWT for calling these clowns out on the carpet. How many petards do they have?

  12. Mike Busby says:

    As an Australian, the release of these supposed deaths threat is only something that could have been dreamed up by some gutless mongrel in a sorry attempt to garner public sympathy and support for their own cause.

  13. Brendan says:

    Alas its just simply more from the alarmist playbook.

    Make data up
    make sensational claims based on the made up data
    get front page headlines from the alarmist press
    potray oneself as ‘pure as driven snow’ and the target of nasty (dare I say “big oil’) bullies

    Then, months afterwards, its the sceptics who track down the real data and totally debunk the original claims/ All of this is done quietly without the usual alamrist press (Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, Guardian etc) having to give prominence to the claims being disproven.

  14. Roger says:

    OT AW I know you’ve probably had enough of this ranting of mine. Have a look at the titles and you decide whether this site should be classified as Alarmist or Lukewarm
    http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/climatechange/Science
    If I may say by classifying the site as lukewarm you are giving them a respect they don’t deserve as distinct to say Lucia’s Blog which is really lukewarm and is able to put up propositions that justify this classification.

    [This should be posted in Tips & Notes. ~dbs, mod.]

  15. Roger says:

    Re Accuweather global warming centre> Probably Brett decide a long time ago that his kids are more important than any position he may have had on AGW LOL

  16. Olen says:

    Would that be more secure or more luxurious location?

  17. Otter says:

    I do believe Idiot is the correct appellation.

  18. Mike Smith says:

    The fact that the alarmists were a little alarmist should not come as a huge surprise.

    The important thing is, they may feel somewhat less alarmed in their splendid new digs!

  19. Joanna says:

    Unbelievable. I mean, completely mad. Does it occur to anyone else that maybe they (the Saint, the Hat, the Gleickenspiel and now the Martyrs) are all imposters perpetrating an elaborate hoax? Any minute now they’ll all pull off their false noses and glasses and say “Ha! We were just kidding all along! CO2…CAGW…Death threats…come on! Did you believe for a minute we were SERIOUS?”
    Otherwise awfully strange of them to autodestruct so thoroughly.

  20. Dennis Kuzara says:

    Today there is this:

    ANU death threat claims debunked – The Australian Thursday, 3 May 2012

    Chief Scientist Ian Chubb, who was the ANU’s vice-chancellor at the time, last night admitted he did not have any recollection of reading the emails before relocating the university’s researchers. “I don’t believe I did,” Professor Chubb told The Australian.

    About a year ago there was this:

    Death threats sent to top climate scientists -ABC News June 04, 2011

    Vice-chancellor Professor Ian Young says the scientists have received large numbers of emails, including death threats and abusive phone calls, threatening to attack the academics in the street if they continue their research.

    He says it has been happening for the past six months and the situation has worsened significantly in recent weeks.

    So who was the vice chancellor when this happened? Ian Chubb or Ian Young?

  21. LdB says:

    Careful I count at least 8-10 death threats above you just need to adjust the data the the death threat adjust factor

  22. Nick Stokes says:

    “with not a single document to back it up then”

    Well, not exactly.

    “In a six-page ruling made last week, Mr Pilgrim found that 10 of 11 documents, all emails, “do not contain threats to kill” and the other “could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat”.”

  23. Pointman says:

    All the lies are coming back to haunt them. After years of trench warfare, they’re crumbling. You’re not supposed to enjoy being a winner nowadays, but quite frankly, I think it’s great. Enjoy these days, we’ve earnt them.

    Pointman

  24. James Sexton says:

    LMAO! So, the ecowhimps lied…… again! Another commenter from Simon’s used the term whimpgate…….. I like it!

  25. James Sexton says:

    I’d like to see that “one” threat which almost maybe kinda sorta could be a threat……. prolly something like “I’m going to slap you so hard your ancestors will feel it!”

  26. John M says:

    Nick,

    You must have averted your eyes with respect to this comment about the 11th “threat”.

    Mr Pilgrim said of the 11th, a further email offering an account of an exchange that occurred at an off-campus event sponsored by members of the Climate Change Institute and other bodies: “I consider the danger to life or physical safety in this case to be only a possibility, not a real chance.”

    Although given some of the hurdles we’ve seen for “significant” findings in climate science, I suppose this could pass the “97% consensus test” by those standards.

  27. mfo says:

    “Watts and his minions (microWatts?)”
    And each microwatt is 1,000,000 picowatts.
    Appell zum Handeln: Rio+20 UN-Klimakonferenz gestartet… :o)

    [Moderator's Note: the quick and dirty translation is Call to action: Rio +20 UN Conference on Climate Change launched... is there any way you could have been more cryptic? -REP]

  28. pouncer says:

    An extremely widely-read blogger, Glenn Reynolds, frequently calls upon citizens to respond to public officials engaged in outrageous behavior, such as outright lying, by “bringing back tar and feathers.”

    I wonder if a chain of logic is at work here. Calling a man a liar on a blog, leads to calling for “tar and feathers” on a different blog, which, if literally and physically rather than figuratively deployed, might wind up in serious injury, perhaps even death …

    Is calling a man like Appell a liar logically extensible to calling for a man like Appell to be assassinated?

    Uhm….

    I think not. But I’d be willing to hear argument to the contrary.

    As long as the people making such an argument aren’t well-known liars, of course…

  29. artwest says:

    “I had a bunch of concerned staff and they thought they should be moved to a more secure place so I moved them,” he [Ian Chubb] said.
    “With hindsight, we can say nobody chased them down. What do you do?”
    ——————
    Well, you could have looked at the emails in question for a start, not least because if they really were death threats then serious protection and calling the police might be necessary.
    Then, if the emails seemed to be as mild as suggested, tell your whimpering employees not to be such big girl’s blouses and there is no way you are going to spend University money on moving them.
    How about that?

  30. juanslayton says:

    Nick Stokes :

    Surely the point survives the exaggeration.

  31. rossbrisbane says:

    Calm down, Anthony. This is not doing your heart any good at all

    You incited your own mob to spam the ABC web site in Australia. Not directly – yes – but you still got a poll corrupted meant for Australian opinion. Unethical?

    You will never admit that verbal abuse and email abuse can be quite intimidating no matter how much you like to make it seem reasonable.

    REPLY: Oh puhleeze. You can’t even bring yourself to address the issue at hand, instead erecting a straw man the size of Paul Bunyan to deflect the argument into something else. Sorry, but your attempt fails miserably. Don’t tell me how I should feel about abuse unless you’ve walked a mile in my shoes. And, if writing a news item about a poll that anyone is allowed to participate in is “unethical” then you are your brethen are guilty too. Bottom line, I really don’t give a damn what you think about this situation. Either stick to the topic at hand or get off the thread.- Anthony

  32. These guys have so little trust among the public now (although still beloved of politicians) that my favourite quote on this issue is from James Delingpole:

    “Speaking for myself, if Phil Jones released a report claiming that grass is green I’d feel compelled to go outside just to double check.”

  33. u.k.(us) says:

    pouncer says:
    May 2, 2012 at 5:24 pm
    =================
    I don’t know the definition of circular logic, but it seems to me you are 83.2 % of the way there.

  34. Sean McHugh says:

    I wonder if Appell will leave his testament to stupidity on the Net.

  35. Rick Bradford says:

    Of course they hyped up the death threats.

    Victimhood is an integral part of the mental make-up of the Green/Left, and once you have made yourself into a ‘victim’, you can easily identify and demonise the ‘oppressors’.

  36. Leo G says:

    Australia’s present Chief Scientist Ian Chubb, who was then the Australian National University’s vice-chancellor, had concerned staff asking for more security after claiming that they had received death threats and says he responded “as a responsible employer”- which did not include examining the evidence of the death threats nor even reporting the matter to police.

  37. rossbrisbane says: May 2, 2012 at 5:33 pm

    You incited your own mob to spam the ABC reporting on something is “inciting”, hmmmm? And of course, no right thinking Australian would have been “dismissive”, so it must have been that dastardly Watts inciting his foreign hordes of oil-funded minions…

    Ross, if that stupid ABC poll was intended to be of any value they would have done the job right: Verification of codes, matching of original responses to mind-changed responses,…. The imbeciles did nothing like that because they expected, stupidly, an overwhelming response that would crush the “stupid deniers”, just like that British Museum poll two years ago. My freshman sociology students would have done a better job.

    Anthony, by the way, has never suggested that abuse is reasonable. Given some of the vile stuff that the moderators here have let through, it is quite apparent that consensus supporters are not the only ones receiving abuse. They are just the ones whining about it and making absurd claims of death threats without filing police complaints or releasing the contents to show just how abusive those e-mails are.

  38. Nick Stokes says:

    juanslayton says: May 2, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    “Surely the point survives the exaggeration.”

    No, I don’t think so. The point seems to be that ANU baselessly sought security for their scientists. Well, I think even just one threat, even if possibly veiled, demands a precautionary response.

    And this is an FOI application which relates only to written threats that entered ANU’s official system. We don’t know what else there may have been. The hearing was just about whether those documents could be released – not a factual finding about the totality of threats.

  39. Skiphil says:

    This loathsome episode cannot surprise anyone who has reviewed some of the CG1 and CG2 emails. Fervent “climate scientists” willing to wildly exaggerate and defame for “the cause.” Michael Mann recklessly smearing Steve McIntyre for merely asking questions that should have been addressed before a single article had been submitted. Phil Jones celebrating the death of critic John Daly as “cheering news.”

    The “war room” mentality of climate scientist heroes (sic) made it all too easy to try to defame all critics by concocting a fake scenario of “death threats”…. and the ever supine major media couldn’t even ask for any evidence…. what a surprise.

  40. Alex says:

    Deat threats? Like blowing up people and kids in videos and threatening to burn down their houses. sounds serious. Who would ever do such a thing? /sarc

  41. Anthony Watts says:

    (facepalm) Nick Stokes should team up with Appell, they both speak the same language of feckless ineptitude when confronted with the blindingly obvious.

  42. Nick Stokes says:
    Well, I think even just one threat, even if possibly veiled, demands a precautionary response.

    Good. Nick, if we ever meet, I may, just possibly, wring your neck. I think your employer should certainly take adequate precautions. Who knows, that nut in America might just fly over and do it!

    Don’t you EVER get tired of being a tool?

  43. u.k.(us) says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    May 2, 2012 at 6:08 pm
    ============
    So, you are saying, it could have been worse if it ever happened ?

  44. But you do have to marvel at Nick’s spin doctoring attempts. Argumentation in the face of the irrefutable.

  45. k scott denison says:

    Mr. Stokes,

    If indeed these 11 documents don’t represent the totality of the threats, then why not release the totality of the threats and put an end to this?

    What logic is therein withholding them?

    Doesn’t the fact that the Vice Chancellor admits to never reading any threats raise any curiosity in you?

    Or the fact that there seem to be no other witnesses to the threats who have stepped forward?

    Or that your refusal to even ask for proof speaks more to a religious devotion than to a scientific inquiry?

  46. Mike says:

    The allegation is that the death threats and threats of physical attack were made by phone and in person. The scientists may be thinned skinned and the issue over hyped, but that does not mean there was no basis for the concern. I remember one time when you were upset that someone came to your house to confront you on your views. You were right to be concerned. So were these scientists.

  47. ferd berple says:

    Somewhere in Australia:

    Climate Scientist #1 – Hey Nigel, how about I call you and make a death threat, then you call me and make a death threat.

    Climate Scientist #2 – hey sounds great, then we can go to the dean and tell him we’ve received death threats and ask for a new, more secure lab and danger pay.

    Climate Scientist #1 – and they won’t be able to refuse us because if they did and something actually happened, they’d have to pay compensation from here ’till doomsday.

    Climate Scientist #2 – too true, Bruce.

  48. Nick Stokes says:

    Anthony Watts says: May 2, 2012 at 6:17 pm

    Anthony,
    The ANU received documentation of what the Commissioner said was: “In my view, the exchange as described in the email could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat.”

    What do you think ANU should have done? Say, “oh well, there’s a low view that says it isn’t a threat”? Or, “wait until you get a few more”?

    John M says: May 2, 2012 at 5:13 pm

    You must have averted your eyes with respect to this comment about the 11th “threat”.

    Mr Pilgrim said of the 11th, a further email offering an account of an exchange that occurred at an off-campus event sponsored by members of the Climate Change Institute and other bodies: “I consider the danger to life or physical safety in this case to be only a possibility, not a real chance.”

    No, you didn’t read it properly. He’s not saying the email threat wasn’t a real chance. He described exactly what he is finding:
    “In other words, the question is whether release of the documents could be expected to create the risk, not whether the documents reflect an existing credible threat.”

    He is finding that release of the doc would create only a possibility. He’s not talking about the threat itself.

    REPLY:
    Sorry, in your interpretation of his words, rewritten from your viewpoint, I just don’t see it. Besides, you’ve missed all the other lack of death threat evidence. Plus they never even bother to do an investigation at ANU, and that speaks volumes to credibility of any threat. If they don’t take it seriously enough to lift a finger to investigate, why should we take it seriously?. Whatever it is you are smoking, you need to stop. Your reasoning and reading comprehension skills are being affected. – Anthony

  49. Reg Nelson says:

    Mike says:

    The allegation is that the death threats and threats of physical attack were made by phone and in person.
    ***************************
    Where is the proof of that? So they lied about the emails, but told the truth about the phone calls? Is that your argument?

    Why didn’t they contact the police? It doesn’t make any sense. If they are “thin skinned”, wouldn’t that be the first thing they would do.

  50. thingadonta says:

    Yeah, but they get a better, greener, more sustainable office…now they just need to get their models wrong so they can get bigger computers.

  51. Layne Blanchard says:

    Dead Animals? A horse’s head?… or did a bird decide to expire on the porch?

  52. Mike says: May 2, 2012 at 6:29 pm

    Vice-chancellor Professor Ian Young says the scientists have received large numbers of emails, including death threats and abusive phone calls, threatening to attack the academics in the street if they continue their research.

    He says it has been happening for the past six months and the situation has worsened significantly in recent weeks.

    You know, there is no indication that death threats came in person…. Nor is there evidence something came at all, and there were no police complaints…just a press release. Eleven e-mails in six months? That really sounds like a truly “worsening situation”. Hell, I get six or seven e-mails from students each semester suggesting that if I don’t give them an extension on their term papers they’ll beat up in the parking lot and give me a bad review on ratemyprofesor.com. OOOhhhh!!!!

  53. ferd berple says:

    After telling so many lies, what is another one more or less?

    Once a liar, always a liar.

    .

  54. connolly says:

    Its the beginning of the end of climate alarmism as a political force in Australia. The Australian Labor Party now has a full blown revolt in its parliamentary ranks over the greatest public policy folly in the history opf the Commonwealth – the carbon tax. The present Prime Minister Gillard will be replaced within four weeks and the climate alarmism policy will be either abandoned or emasculated. This revolt in the Labor Party was led by coal miners, steelworkers and the ignored people who have voted ALP all their lives. The elitist labour aristocracy and their green allies who imposed this policy from above are being exposed every day for the lying, dishonourable scum they are. I dont apologise for the use of that word. They lied, intimidated and threatened the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of hard working Australians on their path to imposing a scientifically flawed and politically corrupt policy. It wont save them at the next election. Too little too late. But my god its bracing to see the rats jumping the sinking ship..

  55. Peter Laux says:

    It appears hyperbole and being easily spooked in all things and not just climate ‘projections’, aka prophesy, are the prerequisites, or the pathology for being a Climate scientist of the AGW faith!

  56. Jake says:

    Nick’s comments are illuminating.
    I just wish that he had the same “zeal” in questioning some of the claims made about CAGW.
    And totally OT, but has anyone been reading Keith Kloor’s site recently? Honestly if he keeps this up AW may have to promote him to lukewarmer.

  57. Smokey says:

    And then there are the real threats carried out in the name of climate alarmism:

    http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2012/04/and-we-climate-skeptics-get-called-evil.html

  58. u.k.(us) says:

    Mike says:
    May 2, 2012 at 6:29 pm

    ” I remember one time when you were upset that someone came to your house to confront you on your views. You were right to be concerned.”
    ==============
    Yep, and you never know what might be waiting for you:

  59. Jimmy Haigh /sarc says:

    connolly says:
    May 2, 2012 at 7:00 pm

    I have a lot of good Aussie mates. I’ll be joining them for a celebratory beer or three the day Gillard gets her just desserts.

  60. Socratease says:

    The death threats against climate scientists have been widely acknowledged by several of them and reported on by many journalists. The Guardian, in particular, has seen them.

    In other words: It’s true because a consensus of experts say it is.

  61. Whenever people claim to have received threats of violence by mail, email, phone, etc. I ask if they’ve reported the matter to police. Only the police are able to lawfully deal with such matters.

    If no such report has been made or is about to be made, then I dismiss the claim as hype.

    People will make claims in conversation, but putting the claims into an official report presents the hurdle of possible repercussions for false reports which few dare to leap if their claims cannot be substantiated.

  62. JJB MKI says:

    Nick Stokes, come on, be honest with yourself. Don’t you think that if there were any serious, credible death threats, those of the CAGW cabal wouldn’t have been falling over each other to release them? So desperate are they to discredit sceptics, they will quite happily manufacture smears (Gliek), yet they become all coy when supposedly in possession of hard evidence of intimidation by us semi literate, right-wing, creationist, science-hating denialist nut jobs? Right. Though I’d miss them if they stopped, the defences of manipulative, self serving and hubristic liars you spin here are becoming more half hearted every time. One might imagine you were paid by an NGO to post here, but have little faith in your own words. If so, please step it up a bit, I’d like to see my money used to better effect.

    J Burns

  63. DirkH says:

    Mike says:
    May 2, 2012 at 6:29 pm
    “The allegation is that the death threats and threats of physical attack were made by phone and in person. ”

    Any source to back up your allegation?

  64. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Jimmy Haigh says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    May 2, 2012 at 7:26 pm

    Oops. I’ve just realised that some may read my last comment as a threat. It is not.

  65. Jim G says:

    >> “could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat”.

    One such strongly worded letter was found to contain this threatening insult….

    “Your mother is a hampster and your father smelt of elderberries!”

    Oh, the horror!

  66. Nick Stokes says:

    Anthony,
    “Plus they never even bother to do an investigation at ANU”
    How do you know? It’s a large university, and has a security staff. The fact that the V-C didn’t personally read the emails doesn’t mean they weren’t investigated.

    REPLY: Because it is a fact.
    The Australian Federal Police says it is aware of the issue, but there is no investigation underway.

    last line here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-04/death-threats-sent-to-top-climate-scientists/2745536

    And this was confirmed by Simon in his independent investigation:

    I contacted the ACT police media office about this matter and they confirmed no complaint had been received and therefore no action in respect of the alleged threats had been taken.

    Really Nick, stop smoking whatever it is that’s rotting your reading comprehension and cognitive abilities. – Anthony

  67. kim2ooo says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    “Well, I think even just one threat, even if possibly veiled, demands a precautionary response.”

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    I agree. Send me monies for a pair of shoes, I just have to have, OR I’LL HOLD MY BREATH TILL I TURN BLUE.

  68. AndrewS says:

    I find it interesting that Nick Stokes would defend something like this. He’s lost a lot of credibility on this one.

    If any one of my employees came to me with death threats, my first call would be to the police. Apparently this didn’t happen.

    If any one of my employees came to me with death threats I would at least want to evaulate the level of threat before I went to the expense and trouble of relocating them. I wouldn’t just do it on hearsay. Apparently this didn’t happen.

    If the threat is real, then release the emails. (What is it with the warmists and releasing information?)

    Nick, you’ve done yourself a disservice, I’m afraid. If you’ll stick up for this with dodgy reasoning, I wonder what dodgy science you’d stick up for?

  69. mpaul says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    May 2, 2012 at 6:08 pm
    Well, I think even just one threat, even if possibly veiled, demands a precautionary response.

    It depend on the definition of a threat. When Ben Santer wrote:

    “Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very Tempted”,

    I don’t see this as a threat that would warrant whisking Pat Michaels away to a secure location. (Although I think this this comment contributes to a hostile work environment and should have resulted in actions against Santer). Had Santer said,

    “Next time I see Pat Michaels I will beat the crap out of him for this. Mark my words.”,

    that would rise (in my mind) to the level of a specific and credible threat that should be turned over to the police.

    It seems that we will now get to see the emails that the ANU classified as threats. Lets agree ahead of time to evaluate them against the Santer standard. You in?

    Nick Stokes says:
    May 2, 2012 at 6:40 pm

    What do you think ANU should have done?

    When someone receives a threat, they should call the police. My understanding is that the university did not do this, rather, they issued a press release. That seems like a strange way to deal with the situation.

  70. RockyRoad says:

    It isn’t logical to send death threats to people that are shooting themselves in the foot, screaming their brains out about little or nothing, being chased by the law and voted out of office, chaining themselves to lies and foolhardy behavior, and making contradictory comments and publishing books and papers that would easily kill the most accomplished professional’s credibility.

    I say let these misguided people continue their nefarious charade and let’s all cheer them on as they run off the CAGW cliff like lemmings into the sea. Bon voyage….

  71. DirkH says:

    AndrewS says:
    May 2, 2012 at 8:07 pm
    “If the threat is real, then release the emails. (What is it with the warmists and releasing information?)”

    No no no – an e-mail is easily faked. If the threat was real, then RELEASE THE RECORDS OF THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.

    What? There never was one? So the warmist scientist stand-ins got a barrage of death threats but obviously didn’t take them seriously enough to even once call the police? Now that must have been a life-or-death situation, I see…

    Maybe they modelled the threat situation and extrapolated it. And the model was just as right as their climate models are. (Makes you wonder whether they even consider conservation of energy)

    And the measured threats were adjusted post facto to get them in line with the model hindcasting…

  72. Wellington says:

    Now, hold it. David Appell did not say that specific skeptical individuals issued death threats against identifiable climate scientists. He claims that a composite climate scientist received death threats from a composite climate skeptic.

  73. Nick Stokes says:

    mpaul says: May 2, 2012 at 8:10 pm
    “When someone receives a threat, they should call the police.”

    The very first report, Canberra Times, 4 June 2011 said:
    “The Australian Federal Police says it has not been contacted by the university although it is aware that threats have been made.”

    Clearly someone had reported it. Probably the people who received the threats.

  74. Nick Stokes says:

    Anthony,
    “And this was confirmed by Simon in his independent investigation:
    I contacted the ACT police media office…”

    You should be aware that there are two police forces involved here. The AFP has responsibility for Federal property security, and clearly someone had reported it to them. The ACT police does local policing in Canberra. The fact that the AFP was not investigating at that time does not say that ANU had not investigated.

    REPLY: So what? Two different agencies have done nothing, launched no investigation, because there is NO CREDIBLE THREAT. The police didn’t escalate into an investigation, provide proof of one or shut up, your defense of this is beyond ridiculous. You’ve earned troll bin moderation status me thinks because you’d rather believe this fantasy you’ve concocted than facts of the matter at hand. And, the facts are, that there’s no death threats. Game over. – Anthony

  75. Gunga Din says:

    No problem. Just give each of the “threatened” a hockey stick to beat off their attackers.
    Then again, if I followed this, the proof of the death threats proved there were no death threats.
    Can we hope that the “threatened” will give up on the hockey stick?

  76. Reg Nelson says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    The very first report, Canberra Times, 4 June 2011 said:
    “The Australian Federal Police says it has not been contacted by the university although it is aware that threats have been made.”

    Clearly someone had reported it. Probably the people who received the threats.

    *******

    Great, let’s see the AFP reports then. Clearly you, or the Canberra Times must have it. Right?

    REPLY: Having been in the news business and seen all sorts of this sort of thing at our TV and radio station, the fact that the police haven’t bothered to do anything but take a report (they’ll do that if somebody calls about a cat stuck on a telephone pole, so its of no consequence) really blows Stokes weak arguments out of the water. He’d rather believe this fantasy that the facts in front of him today – Anthony

  77. Bill Tuttle says:

    “I had a bunch of concerned staff and they thought they should be moved to a more secure place so I moved them,” he said.

    “Please, sir, there’s a blogger who says we’ve been receiving threatening e-mails and phone calls and we think we should be moved to a more secure location.”
    “Good heavens, Trembley — have you been receiving threatening e-mails and phone calls?”
    “Not personally, sir, but three days ago, Shivvers got a spam message on his cellphone.”
    “That’s settled, then. Pack up.”

    “With hindsight, we can say nobody chased them down. What do you do?”

    Uhhhhhh — actually take a look at the e-mails, maybe?

  78. brc says:

    Really- when all your model output is completely wrong, angling for a better office by way of merit isn’t going to work. So they came up with the idea that a couple of old emails could be leveraged to get themselves into a new building.

    Any normal scammer would have signed up for an anonymous email account in an internet cafe and sent themselves some threats to lend it a credible (and essentially untraceable) air.

    But – as we know – these guys are so incompetent they can’t even fake a death threat properly.

    Truly an own goal of Gleikian proportions. They all essentially have zero credibility after this.

  79. Bill Illis says:

    Is it that hard to just tell the truth for once.

    Climate science is all “spin” and no fact and that even extends to making up threats now (well, that has been going on for awhile now, this is not the first case). There is a reason we don’t feel like we should trust them. Because they have already shown a long history of spin and distorting the truth.

    And then we have Michael Mann calling up Deans and Vice-Chancellors and Editorial Boards trying to get people fired. Now that is doing real harm because many of those people were actually removed. But what does he get? More Medals as in just last week.

  80. Patrick says:

    As far as I recall, the Australian Federal Police didn’t investigate this issue any further and no charges were laid against anyone (If there were we would have seen no end to articles on ABC etc etc about it). This suggests the whole issue of death threats was untrue.

  81. Ally E. says:

    kim2ooo says:

    May 2, 2012 at 8:01 pm

    Nick Stokes says:
    “Well, I think even just one threat, even if possibly veiled, demands a precautionary response.”

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    I agree. Send me monies for a pair of shoes, I just have to have, OR I’LL HOLD MY BREATH TILL I TURN BLUE.

    *

    NO, Kim! Let that CO2 out! It’s good for the plants! :)

    * * *

    On the threats, are you kidding? If they were real they would be plastered all over the news in glorious detail. If they had real data they wouldn’t need to make any up.

    * * *

    On Gillard. Hey, Connolly, I’m an Aussie, too. I’ve been watching the collapse of Gillard also. What a glorious sight it is. My guess is she’s not getting a lot of sleep at night. I don’t think she will go easily, though, even to “save” the Party. So what happens then? Will they carry her out in a straight jacket? I’m waiting to find out. Could be fun viewing. Cheers!

  82. Ian Hoder says:

    You mean climate scientists may have exaggerated the truth? Why that’s shocking.
    /sarc

  83. Nick Stokes says:

    Reg Nelson says: May 2, 2012 at 8:46 pm
    “Great, let’s see the AFP reports then. Clearly you, or the Canberra Times must have it. Right?”

    No, very unlikely. In Australia, such reports are not usually released outside court proceedings. Particularly with the AFP, which is rather secretive. And it would be exempt from FOI.

  84. hunter says:

    Wow,
    So I am unreasonable for asking to see actual proof. AGW promoters rely on lying to their true believers in a drearily dependable fashion. The believers seem to have an endless appetite for the recycled cow food Appell, Gleick, Zwick, Hansen, Gore, Mann, etc. faithfully produce.
    Appell,
    You are a wanker, a coward and a kook.
    And I was right to call you out.

  85. davidmhoffer says:

    It should come as no surprise that a group of climate “scientists” were able to draw conclusions suggesting impending catastrophic events which, upon investigation, appear to have no merit in fact. They’ve gotten into a habit you see….

    My other theory is that the emails contained valid factual criticisms which brought the “scientists” face to face with their life long failures to produce any evidence to justify their theories. The constant of reminder of said failure gave them a sense of hopeleness and thoughts of suicide. Alarmed that they might kill themselves, they were removed to a secure facility where doctors in white coats could monitor them closely, and they wouldn’t have to read anymore emails pointing out their mistakes.

    kim2000 and her turning blue remark get the LOL of the day!

  86. LamontT says:

    No no Nick doesn’t need to look for the reports. They modeled the reports therefore the reports existence is confirmed by the death threat report model.

  87. Anthony Watts says:

    Predictably, David Appell beclowns himself even further, he’s spinning so fast he’s got stuff in orbit around him. No scruples with this guy, totally bereft.

    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/05/gloating-over-australian-report-on.html

    As one commenter put it, he’s been punked, but rather than admit this, he just creates more lies wrapped in old ones. He doesn’t realize that nobody is going to hire him anymore (except maybe Grist, DeSmog and Climate Progress, where they live in alternate universes) after writing stuff like that.

    And he and his buddy in delusion, Nick Stokes, still can’t produce anything other than discredited news reports.

  88. Reg Nelson says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    May 2, 2012 at 9:00 pm
    Reg Nelson says: May 2, 2012 at 8:46 pm
    “Great, let’s see the AFP reports then. Clearly you, or the Canberra Times must have it. Right?”

    No, very unlikely. In Australia, such reports are not usually released outside court proceedings. Particularly with the AFP, which is rather secretive. And it would be exempt from FOI.
    ******

    So I can equally say the AFP is aware you are a nutter, but don’t have to back it up with any facts?

  89. Venter says:

    One surprise here is that why is anybody even expecting Nick Stokes to have any credibility. He has always been a shameless defender of lies and fraud and part of that pond slime cabal. He needs to be sent back to whichever rock from under which he crawled out.

  90. Rob Dawg says:

    Haven’t the climate alarmists been threatening the deaths of billions if we don’t do what they want for years?

  91. Nick Stokes says:

    Reg Nelson says: May 2, 2012 at 9:16 pm

    “So I can equally say the AFP is aware you are a nutter, but don’t have to back it up with any facts?”

    Why is the obligation so one-sided? Several people here have said that it wasn’t reported to police. Why not ask for some evidence there?

    The fact is that the AFP have said that they are aware of it. That’s all they are ever going to say. That’s the practice – I can’t change it.

  92. RockyRoad says:

    Is anybody surprised that people who see death threats when there are none also see catastrophic global warming when there is none?

    Gotta say this–At least they’re consistent!

    (Maybe it’s the water they’re drinking; maybe they’re smoking a peculiar brand of weed; or perhaps the grant enticement is just too much to turn down.)

  93. connolly says:

    Alley E
    The Queen of Climate Alarmism Julia the Last wont have to be carried out kicking and squealing. Her support has already collapsed. She will be gone by the second week of June. And for all our friends across the Pacific you will probably hear the cheering from the miners and steelworkers of the steel and coal regions of Australia. She came in as a back stabber and she will be taken out the same way. The most despised “leader ” of the labor party in history will be put out with the putrifying garbage of global warming policy. Great days friends. Great days.

  94. Nick Stokes says:

    If you want a sample of what some Australian climate scientists were receiving during this period (not the ANU ones), Graham Readfern has some. They can be threatening. Not safe for a family blog.

    REPLY:
    So what? There are no explicit death threats there, and I get this kind of mail from anonymous cowards every week. Again, you’ve got nothing of substance, and the adjudicant agreed that there were no death threats, the police don’t see enough to start an investigation, and the university isn’t doing any followup. You lost. Stop whining. Very telling that you run over to Appells blog and say you’ve been banned when you haven’t. But, you have been given an extra level of moderation for post approval because you’ve clearly lost your sense of rational thought in this thread. – Anthony

  95. Alex Heyworth says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    May 2, 2012 at 3:37 pm
    … If he had any … oranges, he’d apologize

    Willis, I think you meant avocados :)

  96. Jonathan Smith says:

    connolly says:
    May 2, 2012 at 7:00 pm

    A brilliant piece of prose that sums up the situation perfectly. The same could be applied to every country where CAGW mumbo-jumbo has been allowed to take hold.
    I am looking forward to the Aussie elections

  97. Geoff Sherrington says:

    I was a reasonably public figure in Oz at the height of anti-nuclear activism. I worked for the company that discovered the Ranger Uranium Mines and I was for some years visiting V-P or Pres of the NT Chamber of Mines. In that position I interfaced with NT police, put some on the payroll to form a gold squad, when 2 people had gone missing presumed dead in unexplained but suggestive circumstances. So a few people saw me on TV and in the newspapers.

    Back home, I would leave a wife and 2 sons, both of school age. My wife reported a number of incidents to police in my absence and at times was given security of police patrols. There was a device that resembled a bomb put on an outdoor table. My car was released to roll down a driveway and smash into the home. All reported.

    It is particularly concerning to hear the type of phone calls that we withstood. It was taxing to feel the violation of our space and property. It was frustrating to know that we never caught an offender, but not through lack of trying. All abuse was in the cause of zealotry.

    With this post, I am putting a line under what could be called a threat. I have never done this type of thing to another. Those who cry foul at something less need to get a bit of stiffening of resolve and stop sucking at the teat.

  98. Keith Minto says:

    From Stokes

    You should be aware that there are two police forces involved here.

    Reality :

    ACT Policing is the portfolio of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) responsible for providing policing services to the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The
    Australian Capital Territory Police was an independent police force responsible for policing the ACT until 19 October 1979, when it was merged with the Commonwealth Police to form the AFP.

    One force, the AFP, and, I live here.

  99. John Whitman says:

    Two points:

    First – I would like to read the 11 emails before engaging in any analysis. I will wait to comment until I see them.

    Second – Appell has not served his cause well. It is the displeasure at his shortcomings by his ideological superiors in the cause that he should be more concerned about; not critical skeptics.

    John

  100. Aynsley Kellow says:

    Nick Stokes:
    ‘You should be aware that there are two police forces involved here. The AFP has responsibility for Federal property security, and clearly someone had reported it to them. The ACT police does local policing in Canberra. The fact that the AFP was not investigating at that time does not say that ANU had not investigated.’

    Actually, Nick, ACT Police ARE the AFP. As it states on their website (on the ACT Policing part):
    ‘ACT Policing is a business unit of the AFP and was created for the purpose of providing policing services to the ACT under the auspices of a Policing Arrangement between the Commonwealth and ACT Governments.’

    There is no separate police force called ‘ACT Police’.

    Red herring, really — doesn’t affect the veracity of the claims.

  101. gnomish says:

    that’s awesome. but mann still loves to claim that no climate scientist has ever been convicted of any improper behavior, having been totally exonerated by ever so many investigations.
    we still need a head on a post – via criminal prosecution.
    they lost their poley bears, glaciers, sinking islands – and they need to lose that last talking point about ‘pure hearted innocence’.

  102. Arthur Dent says:

    Nick Stokes points out that the AFP have said that “they are aware of it” as if this is somhow cogent to the story. Well the AFP would be unlikely not to be “aware of it” since the University issued a press release. There is no evidence that anyone “reported” it to the AFP.

  103. Peter Miller says:

    At the end of the day most of today’s ‘climate science’ boils down to grant addiction.

    The need to preserve, or increase, these grants to preserve comfortable lifestyles is the paramount consideration.

    Perhaps we need to be a little sympathetic – who on Earth will employ a ‘climate scientist’ once there is general acceptance that CAGW is just an elaborate hoax?

    So grant addiction means routinely fixing data and twisting conclusions to make them more scary, thus demonstrating more ‘research’ etc is needed. An additional strategy, this time to try and gain public sympathy, is to keep repeating the big lies, such as:

    1. Climate sceptics are well-funded.
    2. Climate sceptics serve the interests of, and are paid by, Big Oil.
    3. Climate sceptics don’t understand science.
    4. Climate sceptics are ignorant of the facts and not worth debating.
    5. Climate sceptics are death threat issuing nutters.
    6. The polar bears are dying out.
    7. The ice caps are disappearing.
    8. Carbon dioxide is an evil gas which will kill hundreds of millions of people.
    9. Sea levels are rising at a catastrophic rate.
    10. Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and tornadoes are becoming increasingly common.

    The big lies are regularly rolled out by the ABC, BBC, the Guardian and other left-leaning media organisations. In fact, the situation has now become so bad that all employees of these organisations know their jobs are under very real threat if they accurately report sceptical arguments or fail to actively promote the beliefs of climate alarmists.

  104. Nick Stokes says:

    Keith Minto says: May 2, 2012 at 11:51 pm
    “One force, the AFP, and, I live here.”

    Thanks for bringing me up to date. I’m an ANU alumnus myself, but alas, it was pre-1979. However, I see that the ACT Policing still functions as an entity under the Chief Police Officer of the Australian Capital Territory. And it’s still true that “The AFP provides protective security for (and on behalf of) the Australian Government”, and that’s distinct from ACT Policing. So I’m not surprised that when Simon went to the “ACT police media office” he got an answer different from what the AFP said.

  105. benfrommo says:

    Wow, this article sure made my day. Now all we need before RIO is to have Mann’s emails released as well. We all know because of the huge expense and huge amount of time and effort put into not releasing them that there is something in there that they don’t want us to see.

    Christmas would come early from that with truth winning in the end. Maybe this time the New York Times will actually publish these emails since they were released through FOIA like Sarah Palin’s were. Or will that newspaper be hypocritical and not publish them? I won’t be holding my breath.

    But I think by now most of us sceptics only believe what warmists can prove to us. They have earned the Missouri State motto with their behavior.

    Show me the proof, or shut up in other words. That goes for you Mr. Stokes as well. I trust you as well as any warmist zero without proof. [snip] defending them like this for so long kind of gives reasonable people that kind of hang-up about trusting your word. Trust has to be earned.

  106. atheok says:

    “Nick Stokes says:
    May 2, 2012 at 6:08 pm

    No, I don’t think so. The point seems to be that ANU baselessly sought security for their scientists. Well, I think even just one threat, even if possibly veiled, demands a precautionary response.

    And this is an FOI application which relates only to written threats that entered ANU’s official system. We don’t know what else there may have been. The hearing was just about whether those documents could be released – not a factual finding about the totality of threats.”

    Ah yes, the infinity argument. “If this will save one life, prevent one injustice… it is a justified response” Unless of course, the insults and threats are really aimed at the poor folks trying to follow good science and ask questions. Then it goes completely ignored by the Stokes of the world.

    And the reason this “death threat” syndrome was blasted all through every media that would listen and publish was? To save even one life or prevent one injury or death? Or to try and frame CAGW questioners as evil?

    Sorry, but that argument doesn’t even rate a bag of dog doo-doo at the discounted dog park. That fluff has got to be the sorriest argument any truely pitiful CAGW internet troll has managed to drop into a thread.

    Mr Pilgrim said of the 11th, a further email offering an account of an exchange that occurred at an off-campus event sponsored by members of the Climate Change Institute and other bodies: “I consider the danger to life or physical safety in this case to be only a possibility, not a real chance.”

    “An account of an exchange at an off-campus event…” In other words a third hand email description after the fact by who? Describing what? in their own words?

    Of course we can expect this person describing this “…danger to life or physical safety in this case to be only a possibility…” event to have been absolutely honest and didn’t inflate or exaggerate any of the event or individual actions? Before they went crying to their boss about security and calling the press about “death threats”.

    They deserve to share your bag of dog doo-doo with you.

  107. JPeden says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    May 2, 2012 at 6:08 pm

    Well, I think even just one threat, even if possibly veiled, demands a precautionary response

    Agreed, Nick, this does indeed look like a classic Post Normal Science “might-could” threat which finally provides perfect grist for your own Precautionary Principle’s mighty mill! Therefore, according to its precept, let us further demand together that all mainstream Climate Scientists be safely sealed away from this possible threat forever, and likewise the rest of the World from them! “Before it’s too late!”

  108. D. King says:

    So, the police were aware of the emails but, the emails were untraceable or something?
    This just gets dumber and dumber. I have come to the conclusion that these people are not smart enough to stop lying. This is like an episode of “Bait Car”.

  109. Galvanize says:

    Sounds like Apellgate, or to use the Cockney vernacular, David Apell has done a “Christina”.

  110. Myrrh says:

    “I had a bunch of concerned staff and they thought they should be moved to a more secure place so I moved them,” he said.

    When this came out earlier I’m sure I read that this wasn’t true – that these people had been moved in a general reorganisation which included something like scanned cards for security.

  111. AngusPangus says:

    Dear Nick,

    there was once a time, as I recall, when I would read your comments here and, I believe, at Lucia’s with some interest. Whilst I rarely found myself nodding in agreement with anything you said, I did often find your comments thought provoking, which would lead me on to other reading.

    For some time now, however, there has been an air of desperation about your contributions. You will go to any lengths, invoke infinite epicycles and squirm through twisted contortions to support “The Cause”.

    You, like your Cause, haemorrhage credibility with every utterance.

    The more you say, the more you lose.

    Keep it up!

  112. son of mulder says:

    If I were a vice-chancellor and several of my staff lied to me about receiving death threats, I’d be pretty quick to ensure appropriate disciplinary procedures were actioned. Has anyone been sacked yet?

    But if I was a member of staff and decided to tell my boss I’d received death threats, even though i hadn’t, I’d have been pretty worried that he/she would want to see them. If several others also did the same they must have been pretty sure they wouldn’t have asked to show them. Why would they have been so confident?

  113. John says:

    Layne Blanchard says:
    May 2, 2012 at 6:51 pm

    Dead Animals? A horse’s head?… or did a bird decide to expire on the porch?
    —————————————————————————————————–

    Did anyone chase it up with the faculty cat?
    Those moggies have got a climate agenda of their own, they always want the warmest spot.

  114. Barry Woods says:

    (FYI to David Appell – I’m not anyones ‘minion’, your attitude is also part of the problem)

    I agree I’ve yet to see any ‘actual, credible death threats’

    even Stan Lippermanns (rude, crude, abusive and vile) to Katie, would not qualify… (he even Rang Peter Gleick up)

    BUT. My point, is lets just acknowledge there are nutter out there, ANY issue, in the media, especially controversial ones, results in rude, crude, abusive, emails being sent to people.
    People experienced in the media allready, ie Morano, Anthony Watts shrug shoulders, and just deal with it.. And as we have seen other use them, and conflate them into ‘nasty sceptics’ etc..

    YET, my point why can we not just disassociate ourselve, from rude, crude and abusive emails.. I want to have an adult civil conversation with climate scientsits, or anybody, including Leo Hickmann, Katie Hayhoe and even Peter Glieck, Roger Harrabin, Mark Lynas (had lunch with him last week) to get to know them and try to dispell pre-conceptions with each other..

    Any environemnt where abuse is being thrown around (even if not actual death threats – does that make merly rude, vile, crude abusive ok?) make it very difficult to do so. And I can even see why Peter Gleick was so grumpy(very wrong, misguided that he is ), it’s a vicious polarisation cycle of disengagement.

    So why is it so hard to condemm any abuse, and say we just want a civil conversation..
    Because ‘some’ on the other side are abusive, or manipulate the media.. does that justify it..

    Why not expect and emand civility, and the people that can’t be civil will be shown for the extremist they are, whoever they are, whatever side, they are on..

    People can change their minds , if they respect you and get to know you..

    I’ve spoken to BOTH Leo Hickman and James Delingpole, and BOTH were concerned about abuse they had recieved… (from a personal and family perspective) I’ve also disagreed with Morano about his style (and JAmes) , but I do understand it, as they are operating in a medi/political environment, which is very robust, and people just expect and deal with the nutters..

    Most scientists, would hide away than get their name in the media (and I don’t blame them)
    Don’t use this as a story to beat scientists up with, what has any scientist in the UK, or USA got to do with this story, or even the majority of scientists in Aus.. making out that no-ones gets rude emails or condoning them by silence, just makes sceptics look very partisan in the eyes of scientist, and why wouldn’t they think, well i get rude nasty emails, these guys won’t say it isn’t on, why should I talk to any sceptics at all. Human Nature..

    I don’t want anyone I know (even a little) to get any abuse. (and they do)And that is speaking as some one who has a very good friend with hundreds of mentions (non controversial) in the climategate emails and they get silly stuff, from ‘sceptics’, ‘environmentalists’ alike.

  115. Joe says:

    The death threats against climate scientists have been widely acknowledged by several of them and reported on by many journalists. The Guardian, in particular, has seen them. One scientist had a dead animal dumped on their doorstep, according to ABC News. Some of the threats have been reported to the FBI.

    So the threats were proved real by consensus. Nothing new there, then!

  116. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Do the Warmistas ever stop lying?

  117. Rich says:

    I like “microWatts” though. I might get a T-shirt.

  118. Latimer Alder says:

    I had a bunch of concerned staff and they thought they should be moved to a more secure place so I moved them

    Wow. I wish I had a boss like that. You get an office move to better accommodation by saying that you’re scared of death threats? And he doesn’t even want to see them? Or ask the relevant security and/or cops for their opinion and advice?

    You can make many locations more secure by simple cheap measures, like badge locks on doors, better lighting in the car parsk, buddy system for those working late, increased vigilance among all present on site etc etc etc..

    But to authorise an office move is a tremendous upheaval for such flimsy (non-existent) evidence. It takes day to organise and a long tome to settle down afterwards.

    I hope (but don’t expect) that the guy in question looks at more compelling evidence before issuing his opinion about matters within his own academic field.

    If not, I have this great bridge I’d like to sell him….London -based, only one careful owner, never used for racing or rallying, buyer collects, great discount for quick cash sale.

  119. Robertvdl says:

    Who is threatening whom

    The Rise of Eco Fascism
    http://www.energytribune.com//articles.cfm/10465/The-Rise-of-Eco-Fascism

    We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.

  120. Shevva says:

    Anthony, I hope when summer finally arrives and the warmth (much wanted here in wet blighty), you walk down the street with a skip in your step and a whistle on your lips, head held high.

    As for the warmistas it’s just lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after……………they really are useful idiots aren’t they.

  121. mycroft says:

    Anthony,
    you should demand a public apology from the fool,you have been found to be telling the truth and he’s been caught lying or omitting the truth, would suggest you email him with your thoughts and suugest he could come on your site and say sorry…..yeah i know the last bit is a dreamers dream but?
    keep up the good work,yet another lie exposed.perhaps you could have a climate lyers page for all the untruths that are exposed, a bit like the climate fail page

    REPLY: I did, I sent him an email yesterday, which my server log shows was received. He of course ignored it, much like he ignores the lack of death threat evidence. – Anthony

  122. André van Delft says:

    At the Nature blog post http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.html I commented:

    @Brian Owens, James Mitchell Crow: you should retract this story in a new blog post. See “BREAKING: “Death threats” against Australian climate scientists turn out to be nothing but hype and hot air”
    I also gave the URL and 23 lines quoted from The Australian.

    After about 12 hours, my comment was removed from Nature.

  123. peter laux says:

    @ Nick Stokes, aka “The Black Knight”, mate keep it up, Anthony hasn’t defeated you, ” Its just a flesh wound.”

  124. NotSoGullible says:

    “I had a bunch of concerned staff and they thought they should be moved to a more secure place so I moved them,” he [Ian Chubb] said.
    “With hindsight, we can say nobody chased them down. What do you do?”

    1) Demand the resignations of the ‘leading climate change scientists’ who lied to you – (This is necessary to protect the integrity of climate science)
    2) Make public announcement to the effect that these scientists are prone to gross exaggeration and their work cannot be relied upon.
    3) Submit your own resignation for gross incompetence. (Most employers would immediately investigate and contact police when advised by employees that they had received death threats. At the very least they would recall reading emails relating to such threats)

    ANU please note: The saying any publicity is good publicity does not necessarily apply to universities.

  125. MartinGAtkins says:

    “Who knew it was such a tough and dangerous job being a climate scientist?”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzMAM7231Ow feature=player_embedded

  126. John Barrett says:

    As someone has already made a joke about the cat leaving dead animals on the porch, I’ll turn to a Tony Hancock radio sketch from the 1950s.

    Tony has been receiving threatening letters and is discussing them with Bill, a dim-witted Australian.

    Bill: My uncle used to get this sort of letter. He never let them bother him. He just ignored them and went on as usual.

    Tony: There are you see ! Nothing to worry about. What happened ?

    Bill: Oh they got him ! He was found with his head caved in just outside Wagga Wagga.

    Tony: Fat lot of help you are !

  127. Bruce Cobb says:

    Clearly, it’s a classic case of psychological projection on the part of the Alarmists. Time and again, they have proven themselves to be the side wishing harm upon those whom they refer to as “deniers”, an obvious allusion to the phrase “holocaust deniers”. Deep down, they know this, which creates anxiety. By ascribing their own emotions onto those they really wish harm to befall themselves, they can, at least temporarily diminish that anxiety, as well as put their opponents in a bad light.

  128. Bill Tuttle says:

    Myrrh says:
    May 3, 2012 at 1:43 am
    “I had a bunch of concerned staff and they thought they should be moved to a more secure place so I moved them,” he said.
    When this came out earlier I’m sure I read that this wasn’t true – that these people had been moved in a general reorganisation which included something like scanned cards for security.

    Professor Chubb may have found it necessary to adjust the account of his actions.

  129. Latimer Alder says:

    @galvanize

    Sounds like Apellgate, or to use the Cockney vernacular, David Apell has done a “Christina”

    Forgive my ignorance, but as a London(ish) resident for 90% of my life and with a reasonably extensive knowledge of rhyming slang, I have never heard the expression ‘to do a Christina’.

    Please can you translate? Who is the Christina mentioned?

  130. philjourdan says:

    Nick Stokes threatened to kill me! Since there is no proof he never did, I demand protection from the threat! It is conceivable and possible he will exact a revenge on me before my natural demise, and that requires it to be taken as a credible threat!

    That about summerizes Nick’s argument. And his facts.

  131. Peter in MD says:

    Anthony, yesterday you posted this link:
    Anthony Watts says:
    May 2, 2012 at 9:15 pm
    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/05/gloating-over-australian-report-on.html

    I went and read the blog and noticed this:

    “But that’s the state of some in the blogosphere these days, where many like Watts have no hesitation about using such threats, including death threats, as more ammunition for whatever they think their cause is.”

    So Appell is accusing you of using “such threats”? Or is he accusing you of inciting the use of such threats? Defamation? Slander?

    Peter

    REPLY:
    Yes, all of the above. It’s rather hard to argue with someone so possessed with self certainty that I’m evil, all I can do is point it out when they start speaking in tongues. – Anthony

  132. Gail Combs says:

    AndrewS says:
    May 2, 2012 at 8:07 pm

    I find it interesting that Nick Stokes would defend something like this. He’s lost a lot of credibility on this one.

    If any one of my employees came to me with death threats, my first call would be to the police. Apparently this didn’t happen.
    ____________________________
    Yes, When they closed down a plant I was working at the very much hated Plant Manager received ONE (1) death threat. The police were called in to investigate, he was removed to an unknown location and an acting manager everyone knew and liked installed.

    That is how death threats are normally handled.

    This was nothing but a PR stunt. Note that it followed a few years after the bad press in 2008 [when] NASA’s Hansen was calling for trials of climate skeptics for “high crimes against humanity.” and other similar attacks.

    Their PR types realized they just made climate skeptics martyrs and had to do damage control. This was damage control.

  133. sunsettommy says:

    Jo Nova has blogged about this with more details to ponder over.

    Pathological exaggerators caught on death threats: How 11 rude emails became a media blitz

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/pathological-exaggerators-caught-on-death-threats-how-11-rude-emails-became-a-media-blitz/

  134. Pointman says:

    Yes, they’ve been lying to you. And now you’re most likely out here in the blogosphere because the mainstream media in the country you live in is either not mentioning them at all or have relegated it to a small-print footnote at the bottom of page ninety-nine, with a blatant propaganda spin that would be an egregious insult to the intelligence of a retarded chimp with other things on its mind.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/climategate-2-yes-theyve-been-lying-to-you/

    Pointman

  135. Gail Combs says:

    Venter says:
    May 2, 2012 at 9:19 pm

    One surprise here is that why is anybody even expecting Nick Stokes to have any credibility. He has always been a shameless defender of lies and fraud and part of that pond slime cabal. He needs to be sent back to whichever rock from under which he crawled out.
    ____________________________
    Nah, you keep him around as an excellent example of the Alinsky method of argumentation. Just book mark this page to use as a pointer

  136. aaron says:

    Is it possible that no one was shocked because, well, they’re used to it themselves.

  137. David Ball says:

    My model, projected to 2100, shows without a doubt that by then National Geographic will try to hide the fact that they were associated to David Appell in any way.

  138. Wellington says:

    Nick Stokes:

    You have a profound talent that could have made you one of the distinguished editors at Radio Yerevan, as in:

    Radio Yerevan was asked: “Is it true that Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov from Moscow won a car in a lottery?”

    Radio Yerevan answers: “In principle, yes, it happened. Only it wasn’t Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov but Nikolas Nikolajevich Stokesarijev, he is not from Moscow but from Leningrad, it was not a car but his bicycle and he didn’t win it but it was stolen from him.”

  139. LamontT says:

    So Nick from what I’m seeing here you think it is perfectly reasonable for climate scientists to lie about receiving death threats. And you appear to be perfectly comfortable with AGW supporters making death threats to people who oppose them. CF the 10/10 exploding kids video, the article on Forbes calling for the burning of skeptics homes, and many similar behaviors we have seen from the AGW crowd.

  140. David Ball says:

    Latimer Alder says:
    May 3, 2012 at 5:58 am
    I think the reference was to Christina Applegate (an American actress), an approximation of “Appell-gate”.

  141. Bill Tuttle says:

    Peter in MD says:
    May 3, 2012 at 6:21 am
    “But that’s the state of some in the blogosphere these days, where many like Watts have no hesitation about using such threats, including death threats, as more ammunition for whatever they think their cause is.”
    So Appell is accusing you of using “such threats”? Or is he accusing you of inciting the use of such threats? Defamation? Slander?

    Appell considers being flagged from WUWT as slow death — it’s the only place more than a handful of people are aware of his existence…

  142. Gail Combs says:

    Rich says:
    May 3, 2012 at 3:23 am

    I like “microWatts” though. I might get a T-shirt.
    _________________________
    “microWatts” ??? Isn’t that what windmills generate?

  143. Gail Combs says:

    André van Delft says: @ May 3, 2012 at 4:52 am

    At the Nature blog … I commented:
    …. you should retract this story in a new blog post. See “BREAKING: “Death threats” against Australian climate scientists turn out to be nothing but hype and hot air”
    I also gave the URL and 23 lines quoted from The Australian.

    After about 12 hours, my comment was removed from Nature.
    ______________________________________
    Very telling. Shows they are not scientists (scientists value truth) but paid propagandists.

  144. Gail Combs says:

    André van Delft says:
    May 3, 2012 at 4:52 am

    At the Nature blog….

    After about 12 hours, my comment was removed from Nature.
    ________________________________
    Now your comment is back -up! WUWT strikes again.

  145. drobin9999 says:

    Nick,

    These statements:

    “scientists have received large numbers of emails, including death threats and abusive phone calls, threatening to attack the academics in the street”
    “campaign of death threats”
    “after receiving death threats, in a further escalation”
    “scientists had been threatened with assault if they were identified in the street.”

    Cannot be reconciled with this:
    “10 of 11 documents, all emails, ‘do not contain threats to kill’ and the other ‘could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat’ ”

    It’s a complete farce to even try to justify the news reports and blog comments but VERY nice work on your part going over to Appell’s blog and toning them down to “abusive e-mails”. Or do you actually believe that after a six month ‘campaign of death threats’ the only physical evidence is 10 abusive emails and one that ‘could be’ considered threatening? How you continually bury your head in the sand with regards to the juvenile, duplicitous, self-aggrandizing behavior of some climate scientists is beyond me.

  146. André van Delft says:

    @Gaile “Now your comment is back -up! WUWT strikes again.”
    Maybe I was wrong, there may have been a technical cause for the apparent deletion, so my statement was premature. Namely I saw my comment at the blog last night, after I had posted it. Maybe the comment still required approval by a moderator, but meanwhile it was included when looking from the submitter’s IP adress. This afternoon I was checking from another location.
    Anyway, Nature should retract the earlier post with at least the same amount of noise.

  147. André van Delft says:

    @Gaile: Back home, I now see that I have missed the annotation “Your comment is awaiting moderation” above my comment at the Nature blog. Please excuse me for the confusion I have caused.

  148. timg56 says:

    rossbrisbane,

    “You will never admit that verbal abuse and email abuse can be quite intimidating no matter how much you like to make it seem reasonable.”

    Correct. If you are a 4 year old. After that you pretty much have to be a thin skinned wuss, with seriously low self esteem to let comments bother you. But then maybe it was your upbringing. Perhaps your parents forgot to teach you the one about “Sticks & Stones”.

  149. timg56 says:

    Nick,

    So, what are planning on doing with all those straws you are grasping at?

    What makes you think there are other documents or “threat” material?

  150. RobRoy says:

    This week while commenting on Yahoo News, when I suggested some healthy skepticism. The shrill scream of “denier” came out.
    Now I’m a minion, (a microwatt?). This just kills me. (oh no, I threatened myself)
    It’s true though. I love being part of a group.
    Keep on pushing Mr. Watts.

  151. jayhd says:

    Given that the garbage “science” performed by pro-CAGW “scientists” has resulted in laws and regulations that have done immeasurable damage to the economies of Australia, Great Britain, the U. S. and all the other industrialized countries of the world, and caused human suffering almost everywhere, I find it miraculous there weren’t real death threats against these fraudsters.

    Jay Davis

  152. Latimer Alder says:

    BOOOOO!

    HISSSSS!!

    I just wanted to frighten any climate scientists reading this blog.

    No death threat intended. No climatologists were harmed in this production. Any resemblance to living feardicats or lilylivered academics is entirely coincidental. Latimer Associates is an ethical and responsible employer.

  153. Eric Simpson says:

    The Bullshit Button
    A businessman has an Easy Button they’d like to press, especially in these hard times. A climate scam artists seems to have some kind of Bullshit Button. I call them bs artists, Mumbo Jumbo Specialists, prophets of doom… When ever the Chicken Littles say or write anything it seems they’ve pressed the bs button beforehand, sending glaringly obvious bullshit into the stratosphere, overdrive. Of note: ALL their models have failed, and ALL their predictions of doom have flopped, no exceptions! Tell them to stop constantly regurgitating the same old baloney. End the never ending laughable predictions of disaster. It seems that these miserable liars are just trying to make all our lives miserable with baseless worry. Insane. Criminal, if you ask me.
    Their clearly debunked theory would have fallen by now if it weren’t for the liberal media sustaining it. The LSM continually takes the Chicken Littles’ press releases verbatim without question, and in so many insidious ways works in (false!) references to “climate change” in stories about other things. I implore the media to try to be critical when it’s called for, to strive to be impartial on this issue.

  154. Latimer Alder says:

    My late father always spoke very highly of the Australian soldiers he had served alongside in WW2. He especially admired their courage, their good humour, their resourcefulness and their fortitude in adversity. They were ‘bloody good blokes’.

    It seems that those qualities are neither admired nor expected in Australian science today. It is difficult to be persuaded that this change of attitude is an improvement.

  155. curious george says:

    The emails have not been released, that leaves me free to speculate. Let’s assume that the “off-campus event” resulted in a bar brawl, and one slighted party sent an email describing in some detail what (s)he would do to the behind(s) of one or more climate scientists. Naturally, they wanted to be “moved to safer locations”.

    The simplest explanation is usually true.

  156. timg56 says:

    Latimer,

    Don’t let a few poor examples taint your view. In the whole, those scientists pushing CAGW or making statements to support policy decisions may not even be a majority among scientists doing climate related work, let alone all scientists in Australia.

  157. drobin9999 says:

    Re: Latimer Alder says:
    May 3, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    BOOOOO!

    HISSSSS!!

    Well I’m afraid you’ve made a huge tactical error. Having posted the words IN BOLD, you’ve clearly and unrepentantly run afoul of the “How to talk to a climate scientist” guidelines posted on on the UEA website. At this moment the same crack squad of police that raided the nefarious tallbloke’s lair and confiscated his Cray supercomputer are doubtless on their way to your place with a restraining order.

  158. Peter Miller says:
    May 3, 2012 at 12:11 am
    … So grant addiction means routinely fixing…

    Worth an article here, if anyone feels like writing it. Plus something on the Twelve-steps modified for Climate Science:

    1. Climate sceptics We admit we are well-funded.
    2. We came to believe that Climate sceptics serve the interests of, and are paid by, Big Oil could help us.
    3. We made a decision to turn our beliefs over to Climate sceptics who do don’t understand science.
    4. Climate sceptics We made a searching inventory of our ignorance are ignorant of the facts and the fact that we are not worth debating.
    5. We admitted… the nature of our wrongs, like our shrill and economically damaging lies that Climate sceptics are death threat issuing nutters (they’re not); 6. The polar bears are dying out.(they’re not); 7. The ice caps are disappearing.(they’re not); 8. Carbon dioxide is an evil gas which will kill hundreds of millions of people.(it’s not); 9. Sea levels are rising at a catastrophic rate.(it’s not); 10. Extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and tornadoes are becoming increasingly common.(they’re not)
    11. We resolved to make amends to true climate scientists we had hurt wherever possible
    12. We resolved to carry the message out to other grant addicts.

  159. stevenlibby says:

    Rich says:
    I like “microWatts” though. I might get a T-shirt.

    I think I would go for a T-shirt with a picture of Anthony and “1 mega Watt!”

    Of course, Petawatt is much larger but I like the sound of megaWatt better.

  160. Anthony Watts says:

    Simon Turnill reports that there’s a new story in the Australian saying that the police were never contacted, indicating that the ANU didn’t even take the non-existent “death threats” seriously enough to even report it! David Appell looks even dumber now, as does Nick Stokes.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/police-not-told-of-threats-to-anu-climate-scientists/story-e6frg6nf-1226346268884

    Time to fess up, you got punked.

  161. Nick Stokes says:

    Anthony,
    That’s not news – it’s exactly what was said before, in the very first reports. ANU did not itself contact the police, but someone told AFP about it. ANU may well have been aware that it had been reported.

  162. PennDragon says:

    Some years ago I worked as a solicitor in a major university and had to advise on a problem where a student made seemingly serious death threats to a senior academic. We took precautions, but the strong police advice was that death threats are made frequently to people and 99.9% of the time amount to nothing. Apparently the critical thing is not the threat but if the person making the threat takes any actual action to implement the threat. He did take some action but it was more of a defamatory gesture than anything to become alarmed about. We kept it all secret to try to contain it.

    As a lawyer on a pro bono matter I was once threatened by a successful businessman I had never met or heard of that I would never get another job again if I did not withdraw from providing free legal services to my client. For many in the legal profession threats like this are something of a “right of passage”. It comes with the territory and yes, his threat was ignored, so I passed that test of my professionalism. I gave a few minutes thought about what I could do, decided I could not even prove it had been made, moved on and told very few people about it.

    Many years later I met a relation of an author of one of the books pointing out the fakery of the warmist religion and was able to reassure that relation that they should not worry and why and what to look out for. The interesting contrast was that their reaction was to avoid trouble by not making a big public deal of it.

    Consequently I have, for a long time now, suspected that these academics might be “crying wolf” for the cause.

  163. Nick Stokes says:

    Dave N says: May 3, 2012 at 9:14 pm
    I’m wondering which part of:

    “The Australian Federal Police division responsible for law enforcement in Canberra, ACT Policing, said it was not contacted by the university over the matter. “As no complaint has been received, no investigation has taken place,” a spokesman said.”

    Nick doesn’t understand.

    Which part of “The Australian Federal Police says…it is aware that threats have been made” do you not understand. The fact is that there is one section of the AFP, ACT Policing, responsible for law enforcement in the ACT community, and another responsible for Federal Government security. The newspapers last year contacted the right section; they had been notified.

    REPLY:
    And again, your opinion makes no difference, there’s still no death threats, no sworn complaint, and no investigation. It’s all vapor claims. But don’t let that stop you defending this smear, we are enjoying watching you make a fool of yourself – Anthony

  164. Jeef says:

    Nick Stokes: if I said to you “I know where you live” in a thick Irish accent, would you move house?

    No. So shut up and stop being a ninnie.

  165. Latimer Alder says:

    @nick stokes

    Clutching at straws, mon brave, just clutching at straws.

    Your story is as dead as the Monty Python’s Norwegian Blue nailed to its perch. It has expired. It is no more. It has gone to Meet its Maker. It has joined the Choir Invisible. It had no substance. It was vapourware and it has vapourised.

    And your suicidal defence of the undefendable has done your credibility no good at all.

  166. DaveW says:

    Chubb responded “as a responsible employer”.

    Who’s he kidding? His behavoir was about as irresponsible as it could be. In a situation as serious as this, the first thing you do is ask for the emails and review them. Whether you do or not has nothing to do with trust, or lack thereof — it’s obvious “responsible” protocol.

    We still have a major uphill battle to turn the world to the truth.

  167. themrkia says:

    I think you guys are being slightly unfair to Nick. There was indeed one email that appeared somewhat threatening. Of course, I suspect it was sent by Gleick…but that’s beside the point.

  168. Wellington says:

    Professor Chubb’s children told him in 2011 they were facing a hostile campaign at the playground and had to be moved to a “more secure country”.

    Professor Chubb admitted last night he did not have any recollection of trying to find out what actually happened at the playground in 2011 before relocating his family to a safer place in Transylvania. “I don’t believe I did,” he said.

    Instead, he said he had responded “as a responsible parent”.

    “I had a bunch of concerned children and they thought they should be moved to a more secure place so I moved them,” he said.

  169. Hugh K says:

    I really appreciate this post Anthony.
    All this time I thought the CAGW team was driven by some wierd neo-spiritual devotion to the cause. But now I realize I was wrong. I think there is some merit to the grant/funding theory driving some alarmists that I agree should be pursued.
    However, after reading both Nick, David and a few others continued silly defense of the proven innacurate claim of supposedly ‘life-threatentening’ emails, I have reached a new conclusion. It isn’t blind devotion that drives them. CAGW team members are INCAPABLE of admitting they were/are wrong (at least not without a caveat – see Gleick). No doubt some interpret this trait as necessary to qualify one as an expert but should never be perceived as a desirable trait of a scientist. Of course, the team would never admit they were/are wrong about this simple fact either….not without a caveat.
    In hindsight, I reckon this revelation doesn’t really matter. It is no easier to have a rational scientific discussion with someone who is incapable of admitting they were wrong than with a neo-spiritual zealot. Or maybe you can’t be one without the other? Regardless of motivation – trick the numbers, hide the method, tamper with historical data or play the victim card, the greatest scientific fraud in history stumbles on monotonously championed by the Nicks and Davids of the world.

  170. Meyer says:

    An email purporting to invite a climate scientist over for a beer to discuss the climate was found to be a reliable proxy for death threats. The threat signal was isolated by our super-secret, undocumented and untested statistical AlGorithm.

  171. Brian H says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    May 2, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    And Appell got sucked in by bogus claims…

    Got sucked in? More like “gleefully embraced and parrotted”, doncha think?

  172. Eli Rabett says:

    Most universities have their own police force. Folks are often instructed to contact them first and they (a judgment call) decide whether to involve other police forces. In the case of ANU their policy is that for theft call the police and ANU Security but for Emails:
    =================
    Someone has sent me an offensive email?

    Do not delete the email or send it on to anyone; contact your local IT support officer, DOI (x59666) help desk and notify your supervisor.
    ==================

    There is a separate IT security office. In this case notifying the supervisor who would work with IT security is the proper procedure

    Note this is current policy, Eli has no idea what the policy was a year ago. Also, at national or state universities, security tends to be an armed sworn force with powers of arrest and investigation (see UCDavis pepper spray for example).

    Finally, Nick is a good guy, takes a lot to rile him. Eli suspects he knows some of those who were threatened and had heard about it from them. Australia is a small place peoplewise

    REPLY: Reporting annoying emails to IT/university police is one thing, making a national/international media blitz over non-existent death threats is something else entirely. You and Nick seem to want to believe inflated facts not in evidence, which are now dis-proven. This suggests you aren’t very good scientists, but rather, slaves to emotional issues. – Anthony

  173. Goldie says:

    Perhaps the gruniard would like to prove that it had seen the death threats or were they simply lying for effect?

    Makes you wonder why these scientists throught their lives were under threat or was there some other agenda.

  174. CTL says:

    Eli suspects he knows some of those who were threatened and had heard about it from them.

    rofl

    Nick Stokes makes up fantasy scenarios which are contrary to all evidence to try to prop up the debunked “death threats” nonsense, and now Eli Rabett rolls onto the scene spinning fantasy scenarios which are contrary to all evidence to try to prop up the debunked Nick Stokes’s nonsense.

    Looks like it’s turtles liars all the way down.

  175. kim2ooo says:

    So a Grownup…that pretends to be a bunny can’t follow what this article is about.
    The Australian articles were specifically about the reporting of death threats at the ANU by the Canberra Times and ABC.

    There were no death threats found on investigation of those 11 emails.
    The person mentioned in the “11th email” has been [ was ] defamed.

    Mediawatch glosses over this and instead introduces a straw man by saying the Australian should have investigated death threats across the country. AND the bunnies’ mind skitters.

    We dissected a bunny’s mind once…not much bigger than a toad’s, we found.

    If those abusive emails are the worst the scientists got, no wonder police have not investigated further. Abusive yes, threatening no.

    Skitter little bunny.

  176. gnomish says:

    heh. funny, Kim.
    i don’t know what kind of role playing it is when a person refers to himself in the 3rd person as ‘fluffy bunny’, but i sure hope it doesn’t show up anywhere around children. it just has an unwholesome nature. maybe it’s a ‘furry’ thing.

  177. Gail Combs says:

    Yes Skitter little bunny.

    Very vague “treats” => Panic =>Mass (Media) Hysteria.

    HMMmm Sounds like a sure symptom of a paranoia from a guilty conscience does it not?

  178. kim2ooo says:

    gnomish says:
    May 22, 2012 at 1:16 pm

    [" i don’t know what kind of role playing it is when a person refers to himself in the 3rd person']

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Can we say……Goolum? :)

  179. Wellington says:

    Meanwhile, as this Australian story went to dogs and bunnies, the German warmists escalated their scientific critique of the book Die kalte Sonne to a point where its co-author Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt was provided “personal security” (Personenschutz, aka bodyguards).

    http://notrickszone.com/2012/05/21/jackboot-warmists-climate-dissenter-vahrenholt-now-has-to-use-personal-security-for-his-safety

Comments are closed.