UPDATE: More crow pie is served here
Paging David Appell and Nick Stokes – your crow pie is ready now.
As a follow up to yesterday’s breaking news that there were never any death threats at all, as determined by a court adjudicate, Simon Turnill writes on Australian Climate Madness that it has been confirmed that there’s a new story in the Australian saying that the police were never contacted over the alleged “death threats”, indicating that the Australian National University didn’t even take the non-existent “death threats” seriously enough to even report it! Today, ANU has “no comment” as to why.
He writes:
Following the freedom of information request story which made page 1 of The Australian yesterday, Christian Kerr and Lanai Vasek write a further story today, confirming that the Australian National University made no complaint to the police, despite alleging a vicious campaign of hatred against climate scientists.
As I said in my original post on this back in June 2011:
Last time I checked, which was about thirty seconds ago, making threats to kill in the ACT was a criminal offence, thanks to section 30 of the Crimes Act (ACT) 1900, and punishable by a maximum of ten years imprisonment. A similar provision for threats to kill via a postal service or carriage service appears in the Schedule to the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995, with a similar punishment.
So one has to ask why no action was taken by the university, given these were allegedly such serious crimes?
Full story here.
Will science writer David Appell now retract his vicious personal smears here, here, and here, plus his follow up smear yesterday when faced with fresh evidence and offer an apology and retraction of his claims? I doubt he will, as I believe he does not have the personal integrity within himself to do so. I’ll be delighted to be proven wrong though.
UPDATE: Well that didn’t take long, Appell has now published my email to him (which was part of an unsolicited email thread started by Appell) along with the email addresses of people on the cc list. I view this as completely unprofessional and completely within character for him. On the plus side, when myself and the other email addresses he published start getting hate mail, we now have a claim against Mr. Appell.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/05/fwd-dumb-and-dumber.html
An apology is unlikely. His last name in French is “to call”. So he might be a “name caller”. Ooops. Me bad. I just did it. Wrist slap.
Somehow I don’t think you are holding your breath awaiting on a reply from either one.
But Nick Stokes said the police were informed so it must be true!!!
Well, they could have called the police. But, there again, those people are notoriously difficult. There’s a good chance they might even have asked to see some ummmm, evidence, of this heinous crime!
nick, clairvoyant and visionary, most emphatically assured everybody that the police were informed, just secretive about it.
i’m always interested in watching that moment when, having fallen 99 storeys of a 100 storey building and boasting how well he can fly- the sidewalk appears. I love the splattering noises and the religious peace that follows.
Ahhhhhhh…… the boy who cried ‘wolf’!
Shouldn’t crow be served raw? I think you are confusing humble pie with eating crow, which of course would necessitate a different whine, er, wine. White with crow, but a fruity dessert wine with pie.
Buncha freakin’ crybabies. Employing the oldest trick in the book, sympathy-mongering. Oooo, look, threatened climate scientists. Should come as no surprise to claim threat, given the number of things ‘threatened’ by ‘a warming world’. Small problem: cantet crustum.
Gnomish, you made me spill my tea!
Appell? Integrity? Together in the same room/skull?
The bind moggles.
As for Nick, he’ll never stop shovelling. He enjoys it too much!
on the other hand- the warmunists ‘know who we are and where we live’ and have indicated a strong intention to ‘imprison deniers for crimes against humanity’ and ‘burn down their houses’ – that’s when the scientists themselves aren’t threatening muggings in dark alleys or beating up fellow scientists.
Oh! That pie is definitely something to be Raven about!
It is sort of funny his complaining about the email you sent him being insulting. It certainly isn’t flattering, but compared to some of his comments to and about you, pretty mild stuff.
His best case is he’s immature. Unfortunately for him it may more likely be the worst case – a lack of integrity.
I assume from the comments above that the actual emails received by the scientists has been published somewhere? I cannot find them – any help please.
Surely these comments cannot have originated as the result of hearsay?
I suspect the whole thing was just some angry punters telling the scientists what they could do with their models. Although, to be fair, had they carried out those instructions to the letter, the outcome probably would have been fatal.
…and I have to imagine that a lawsuit will eventually end up in appellate court.
Sheesh. This guy lends to puns Much better than wille Connolly.
Damn decent of you to send him traffic…looks a bit sparse over yonder.
I get a creepy, “I’m ready for my close-up Mr. Watts,” vibe out of it though.
All the crows on Earth couldn’t make a big enough pie for the Alarmist Regime to eat in return for their cruelly saddling us with wasted trillions of dollars, poinless billions of man-hours of labor, square miles of forests destroyed to print their apocalyptic bilge, and the scabrous fuel poverty, ethanol starvation, eco-land displacement, high gas prices, and endless hours of fearing the future, as endured by the ubiquitous victims of their hellishly destructive fantasies, dispensed with maximum arrogance, condescension, and vituperation of dissenters.
Just another side effect of too much CO2 in the atmosphere. It truly is the “Devil Gas”!
“Time to fess up, you got punked. ” AW
lol nice. He’s probably going to feel this one for awhile.
I read all the ‘recent’ comments on that posting of Appell’s and not one was in support of him – on the contrary, they all condemned his actions regards not fessing up and regards publishing email addresses. Shooting himself in the foot seems to come easily to Mr. Appell.
@Mike Jowsey – yes, it is strange self destructive behavior. Maybe he doesn’t get the fact that we’d be praising him for coming clean based on facts – Anthony
I haven’t believed anything Nick Stokes says for some time. If he told me the sky was blue I’d want to check.
Didn’t Ben invoke the Santer clause and threaten to do physical violence to an unbeliever.
Oh, I forgot, he was frustrated.
That apology should include all sceptics who have had to endure the baying pack screaming about how we, the sceptics, are treating the “scientists”, the wonderful fellow travellers who all along have “believed” everything served up by the fellow travellers, most of whom are not even remotely connected with “climate science” but have been willing to peddle such false stories to serve their own feeble minded purposes.
Proves that the warmist believer pack are, the “evil dills/of the closed minds variety” in this non science nonsense.
Mirror mirror on the wall who are the stupid of them all. Hell will freeze over before they even think,………. er think about apologising.
If making a threat is a crime, why making false allegations of a threat isn’t? There should be a mechanical remedy for that, something like this:
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/fire-box-traps-pranksters/
In a post titled ‘science bullies,’ Appell write the following:” Hmm…. ridiculing, lying, name-calling, harassing (such as publishing email addresses), endless innuendos…. Remind you of anybody? “
Yep, 1984 all over again, no admission of being wrong, the climate scientists were always right. This is priceless. I just want to know how any sane and reasonable person could possibly believe anything these people say nowadays. And how can anyone possibly defend them? These people falsely put out sympathy pleas about being harrassed and otherwise threatened with death and they are all lies.
They seem to like to cry wolf quite a bit, don’t they?
Left the following comment at his blog:
Not sure where the phrase began, but “Screwed the pooch” fits here !!
WIll it show up??
The more they say and do, the more clearly they show themselves for what they are. It amazes me, though, I mean how many times can they shoot themselves in the foot before they fall over?
The simplest explanation that fits all known facts is usually true.The emails have not been released, that leaves us 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” without involving the police.
Comment in moderation at Appell’s place:
But these personal controversies just add to his web traffic.
Anthony, you made the other email addresses public when you Cc’d them on an email to him. Use Bcc if you and they want or expect privacy.
REPLY: No, they were already part of an email thread Appell started on Diviner results…- Anthony
Appell has fallen for every fabrication there is.
Like many other defective thinking alarmists Appell has zero learning curve and has developed an appetite for Crow.
Having been caught in one tall tale after another he’s been the butt of ridicule for years.
He was all caught up in the “weather is not climate” chant until he got caught calling weather climate himself. First he denied he ever did it. When showed his own words he spun it. But later he denied it again and denied he had been given his own words. It was asinine. It took repeated calls on the carpet before he stopped denying everything.
He’s a simpleton pretending to be authoritative who’s been on the merry-go-round with all the usual chants, bromides & red herrings for years.
His defaults are usually the most elementary of statements parroted as if no one had ever heard or considered such wisdom.
Such as his chronic habit of referring people to the IPCC AR4 as if he was informing people of it’s existence. He’s said countless times “CO2 is a greenhouse gas” .
To provide scientific defense of Lubchenco’s baseless fabrication of Oregon’s AGW=Ocean Dead Zones he posted links to periodicals covering her claims as if they were peer review studies.
Like some RealClimate regulars he just insisted the link was “established science” without any science whatsoever.
He can’t focus, can’t have normal conversations, refuses to acknowledge anything and is woefully far behind and unable to keep up to speed.
Exhibit A: Appel vs Willis
http://judithcurry.com/2012/04/28/climate-change-and-moral-judgement/#comments
David Appell | April 28, 2012 at 8:00 pm | Reply
Who lied? And what was their lie, specifically?
Willis Eschenbach | April 28, 2012 at 9:55 pm | Reply
David, if you haven’t noticed any lies after the release of two tranches of climategate emails,
David Appell | April 28, 2012 at 10:24 pm | Reply
Willis, I see a lot of selective interpretation on your part. Just give me one documented “lie.”
David Appell | April 29, 2012 at 12:04 am |
How do you know it is a lie? It seems to me it is M&M’s word against Mann’s.
Willis Eschenbach | April 29, 2012 at 12:47 am |
Sure, glad to. Michael Mann lied [etc],,,,,Phil Jones lied [etc],,,,…
I can provide more, David. You are on a fools errand trying to prove these guys were honest scientists. They weren’t, and now the whole field is paying the price.
and
David Appell | April 29, 2012 at 12:13 am | Reply
Roger: That the same hockey stick shape has been calculated by completely different mathematical methods (Tingley and Huybers) provides support against claims there are substantial mathematical errors in the Mann et al analysis.
David Appell | April 29, 2012 at 12:46 am | Reply
It might be convincing for people who find a blog post more substantial than a peer reviewed paper. I don’t.
Anything is possible says: “I suspect the whole thing was just some angry punters telling the scientists what they could do with their models. Although, to be fair, had they carried out those instructions to the letter, the outcome probably would have been fatal.”
Not at all, Any. Consider the source of the models. I’m absolutely sure they’ll fit.
Gene says:
May 3, 2012 at 4:16 pm
If making a threat is a crime, why making false allegations of a threat isn’t?
—
It can be — ‘wasting police time’ is one offence, but as we now know, they didn’t even call the cops, so that one won’t stick.
Other charges such as: crying ‘wolf’ in a public place; pleading victimhood without due care and attention, or using the word ‘outrageous’ in a built-up area, are not yet on the statute books.
Unfortunately, we all know what will happen next. They will fabricate evidence. We will now see a bunch of climate scientists taking out anonymous gmail accounts and emailing themselves death threats and then holding those email up as “evidence” that the deniers are threatening them. The tip-off will be that they look like they were “written from the secret villain lair in a Batman comic. By an intern”.
Here’s what I imagine the death threat will look like that Micheal Mann will send to himself:
The press, of course, will eat it up.
/political parody
Big shout out to David Appell!! We go waaaay back. How ya doin’ there Davey me boy ?
What about the Aussie Climate Scientists who created the original death threat scare out of thin air? Maybe the death threat authority Nick Stokes can tell us who they are.
Surely these guys deserve to have some light shone upon them.
“Time to fess up, you got punked. What you do now Mr. Appell, will forever define you henceforth. I predict that rather than apologizing for your own ineptitude and hatred, you’ll write yet another smear.”
Anthony, I know it felt good to write this. (If my understanding is correct the above is from a personal email from you to him.) But should we hold ourselves to a higher standard? I think restraint is almost always a good idea. Why sink to their level?
Sure makes the prostate exam easier. Being able to describe to the doctor exactly what he is seeing, ….
pokerguy says:
May 3, 2012 at 6:57 pm
C’mon, if they can dish it out, they should be able to take it. Good for the goose, heat in the kitchen, and all those other appropriate canards, ….
Mike Smith says:
May 3, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Well, they could have called the police.
_________________________________
At least in the USA a call to the police is always logged.
Nick Stokes says: @ May 2, 2012 at 7:53 pm (on the thread http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/breaking-death-threats-against-australian-climate-scientists-turn-out-to-be-nothing-but-hype-and-hot-air/ )
“C’mon, if they can dish it out, they should be able to take it. Good for the goose, heat in the kitchen, and all those other appropriate canards, ….”
I think you’re missing the point. Or my point anyway. It’s not a question of fairness, but a question of tactics. I cringed when I read Anthony’s email. In my view it diminishes him, and that ain’t good. Just my opinion naturally. Reasonable folks can and no doubt will disagree.
REPLY: Maybe it is cringeworthy, but Appell has crossed the line of decency several times in this issue with his public and hateful attacks on me, and I’ve bit my tongue on many occasions in public commentary. Today he posted my private email without permission, putting the email addresses out there as well. If I did that, I’d be vilified, and yet for some strange reason you are painting me as the one who’s done something wrong. – Anthony
These climate scientists are just trying to validate their so called research as being dangerous to others, and they are appealing by the way.
Look, I am involved in a shameful misuse of university pressure. A blog site run by an adjunct lecturer with her senior lecturer in history at UNE, did not like the letters I and others wrote concerning their conflict of interests over a point of history. To confirm how bad I was and ignorant she relayed that I had written terrible letters regarding climate change and as a denier I couldn’t be trusted and was ignorant and illiterate. Fair dinkum! It followed a pod cast by this pair at the Sydney Institute that accused me and others of being like holocaust and climate change deniers and JFK assassination disbelievers. (I wonder they did not add Elvis Presley is still alive believers). And one of my friends as being guilty of fisty cuffs in the street because of his beliefs. Completely untrue, he is 78. I and him complained to the university, who so far haven’t done anything to reprimand this pair. Academics live in Ivory towers they think they can say anything, but don’t realise when they say things publicly or in writing they are open to criticism. I was refused a supervisor when I applied to write a post graduate paper that would have shown up their research as a sham. I was using primary sources too, not like theirs using secondary sources. So God help those that strive to be heard and offer a more scientific explanation in contrast to theirs. Just because they are academic they think they are beyond criticism and should automatically think they are above the law and be presumed correct. Elitists eh? When the truth comes out, I wonder if they will return all their grants.
pokerguy,
I thought Anthony’s email was appropriate. Did you read the comments [all 3 of them] on Appell’s link? None are supportive of Appell.
As a postscript to my above comment, It’s people like Anthony, Joanne Nova and Tory Aardvark that have done so much to uncover the lies these people and others are relaying universally.
Keep at it all of you.
Gail Combs says: May 3, 2012 at 7:13 pm
“The cops could be aware of the issue because they read about it in the newspaper”
No, that quote, and the more complete statement in the Canberra Times, are from the very first reports on 4 June, 2011. They didn’t read about it in the newspaper. In the CT they said “they were aware that threats had been made”, which, since police are careful about using “alleged”, suggests that they had done enough investigation to verify that much.
REPLY: Or one or more of whiners that created this fabricated story called the police, and the police laughed at them, which is more likely than any investigation by the police, especially since there’s no complaint. Here’s a super Nick-o-cranial exercise for you, call up the police and ask them if they’ll investigate something for you without you filing a complaint first. – Anthony
Anthony,
I have to say that calling me out in a post and then putting me on troll moderation which makes replying difficult, is hardly playing fair.
REPLY: You were put on troll moderation YESTERDAY, not after I made this post, and you know this. Both you and Appell can’t seem to embrace humility, or to even admit you’ve been wrong, try it sometime. Until then, you get the slow lane. – Anthony
I made a comment earlier, which doesn’t seem to have appeared. Being on troll moderation, I don’t get an acknowledgement of whether my post is received and awaiting moderation. Anyway, it was just to note that the report in the Australian is lazy recycling – their own report of June 4 2011 said exactly this, as (noted here) did the Canberra Times.
If you’re paging me, you could make it easier to respond.
REPLY: So what? It proves nothing. You’re still wrong on this issue. There’s no death threats, no sworn complaint, and no investigation. All we have are a few rude emails over 6 months and delusional thinking that you and others have elevated for the purpose of smearing people. As for your being stuck in the slow lane, be as upset as you wish. – Anthony
Keep the faith, Nick. It’s all you’ve left.
Consensus agrees that David Appell is a coulrophiliac coprophagic proctocranial, and thass a fact.
Nick Stokes says:
“I have to say that calling me out in a post and then putting me on troll moderation which makes replying difficult, is hardly playing fair.”
At least your comments get posted, maybe with a little delay. I used to post comments at RealClimate. Not one of them ever made it out of moderation. See the difference?
Ally E. says, on May 3, 2012 at 4:39 pm:
“…how many times can they shoot themselves in the foot before they fall over?”
Is this OT ( from http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/joke/foot.htm )?
===
How to Shoot Yourself In the Foot
Developer’s Insight, December 1991 (approx version)
The proliferation of modern programming languages (all of which seem to have stolen countless features from one another) sometimes makes it difficult to remember what language you’re currently using. This guide is offered as a public service to help programmers who find themselves in such dilemmas.
C
You shoot yourself in the foot.
C++
You accidently create a dozen instances of yourself and shoot them all in the foot. Providing emergency medical assistance is impossible since you can’t tell which are bitwise copies and which are just pointing at others and saying “That’s me, over there.”
FORTRAN
You shoot yourself in each toe, iteratively, until you run out of toes, then you read in the next foot and repeat. If you run out of bullets, you continue anyway because you have no exception-handling facility.
Modula-2
After realizing that you can’t actually accomplish anything in this language, you shoot yourself in the head.
COBOL
USEing a COLT 45 HANDGUN, AIM gun at LEG.FOOT, THEN place ARM.HAND.FINGER on HANDGUN.TRIGGER and SQUEEZE. THEN return HANDGUN to HOLSTER. CHECK whether shoelace needs to be retied.
Lisp
You shoot yourself in the appendage which holds the gun with which you shoot yourself in the appendage which holds the gun with which you shoot yourself in the appendage which holds…
BASIC
Shoot yourself in the foot with a water pistol. On big systems, continue until entire lower body is waterlogged.
Forth
Foot yourself in the shoot.
APL
You shoot yourself in the foot; then spend all day figuring out how to do it in fewer characters.
Pascal
The compiler won’t let you shoot yourself in the foot.
Snobol
If you succeed, shoot yourself in the left foot. If you fail, shoot yourself in the right foot.
HyperTalk
Put the first bullet of the gun into foot left of leg of you. Answer the result.
Prolog
You tell your program you want to be shot in the foot. The program figures out how to do it, but the syntax doesn’t allow it to explain.
370 JCL
You send your foot down to MIS with a 4000-page document explaining how you want it to be shot. Three years later, your foot comes back deep-fried.
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. Claiming that they were “aware” of it is truly clutching at straws.
Yep, Smokey is right. I’ve never gotten any comments posted there either.
At WUWT we embrace comments from people with opposing views, unless or until they make themselves intolerable with policy violations. This can be fast (using the f-word to insult somebody here for example) or slow, like William Connolley, who had hundreds of comments here until we learned his real serially mendacious purpose. David Appell used to post here, I didn’t have that much of an issue with him, but his own behavior on this very issue forced me to boot him out of my home on the Internet.
If Nick wants to redeem himself, he should try fessing up for being totally wrong on this issue from the get go. But like Appell, I don’t think he has the personal integrity to do so. So he’ll get the slow lane from now on, especially since he pulled that stunt last night on Appell’s blog in comments.
It’s a strange complaint for Stokes to make since Appell is himself monitoring comments right now.
Pokerguy, I must inform you that Appell called Anthony into the ring a long time ago. Not the other way around. It was he that started this whole dance, and in a sneaky way to boot. Anthony merely stood up for himself. His email the result of a lot of building frustration dealing with an obfuscatorial opponent for a long period of time, would be my guess. Mr. Appell fights dirty, or so it appears to me..
“At WUWT we embrace comments from people with opposing views,”
“If Nick wants to redeem himself, he should try fessing up for being totally wrong on this issue from the get go.”
Opposing views are fine, as long as you see it our way.
REPLY: And every one of your comments on this issue, wrong as they are, have been posted, but they do get an extra level of attention now. Is your pride of choosing to believe that death threats were launched by skeptics against climate scientists so important to you that it blinds you to the point of not accepting overwhelming evidence to the contrary? It would seem so. To use your twisted logic, “opposing data are fine, as long as you see it Stokes way”. – Anthony
It’s not your private email… You post it on your own website… All the others are easily found on line too… Stop ballin…
REPLY: OK then, put your full name and private email up in your next comment, so that we can post it in full here as Appell did, or stop whinin….
Pokerguy, I do understand what you are saying. Fight with pigs and you will get dirty, if I’m not mistaken. Cheers,….
PiperPaul… I’ve never laughed so long in a long time! Thanks for the relief !!
Assembly
You are dealing with atoms so forget the concept of guns, bullets, and feet!
David, I think the cliche is ‘sleep with dogs and you get fleas’ LOL.
I heard the Fed Government in Oz is about to cut public service jobs. The ANU has just axed 100 academics for reasons not fully disclosed. Recently the Dept of Climate change, and CSIRO released a paper saying that oceans were warming and we should expect more rain. “OH NO!”
Flannery will be proven wrong again (chuckle). But this mob added that they needed more funding to extend their research, into what I may ask, we all know that evaporation coming from oceans and land based water sources create clouds, plus those sneeky little cosmic rays. Lots of rain, creates more rain. That means clouds and lots of them. If people build on flood plains then it causes great problems for them in the future. But building levies has saved one town from flooding recently when nearby towns got swampted. Didn’t cost all that much really, wouldn’t that be less expensive in the long run that paying billions to these pseudo scientists to produce nothing but humbug. And introduce a carbon tax that will do nothing to change the weather?
Despite what my above comment might imply, I am not a programmer. I work in the world of process plant design. At the moment, I work as a checker – I “reality check” the output of 3D software and the work of designers to help make sure mistakes are found so that things don’t go wrong in the field. In this engineering field, things are pretty good, the software actually works, and only needs the occasional fixing. I am paid by “big oil”.
RE
David Ball says:
@ May 3, 2012 at 7:01 pm
Sure makes the prostate exam easier. Being able to describe to the doctor exactly what he is seeing, ….
——-
Brilliant! Thanks David. I’m still laughing…
I reckon he has mistaken his tonsils for his prostate. Or do you think this unpleasant head-burying behaviour might be a cry for help? Perhaps for him consoling to have a dark, warm membranous texture surrounding his head – like a foetal mimicry kinda thing… But he really should pull his head out of there before sounding-off so much…he’s barely audible.
David at 3 – Yes you are right. Those critics of climate change alarmists have been attacked and called names for challenging uninformed opinion and they think we are pussys who will sit there and roll over. For every action there is a reaction. It reminds me of a domestic abuser I once knew. His wife half his size was the recipient of drunken abuse and physical attacks. When he started one of his tirades, she was washing up and picked up a cast iron frying pan. She threatened him with it and he backed off in a hurry, then went down to pub. The story he told his mates was ‘She tried to murder me with a cast iron frying pan’. The publican one of her friends, replied, ‘If it had been me mate, you wouldn’t be standing here swilling down more beer”. I now wish I had hit the B with it and claimed self defence.
PiperPaul says:
May 3, 2012 at 9:57 pm
My gosh! An honest-to-goodness recipient of cash from Big Oil!
And what do WE get from that? We get gas for the car, that’s what. Thanks, PiperPaul!
(So next time anybody in the CAGW crowd complains about “Big Oil”, remember those that get paid by “Big Oil” are a LOT more useful than ALL the CAGW crowd.)
Political movement that several times have stated that it is what people have been lead to believe that matters, not facts?
OT: Talk about ‘Big Oil’ My garage is the only one left in town delivering and supplying full strength non leaded petrol. The rest are supplying stuff composed of part ethanol. Because my garage was closed I went to a 24 hr one, and only got enough 9 liters to keep me going. It lasted only 38 km! Almost half of the distance I get from full strength petrol or gas as you call it in US. I have a six cylinder Mitsubishi station wagon, that normally does around town – 8 kms per liter. No overdrive though so less on longer and faster drives.
Anthony, hope you don’t mid if I stay on the porch with my banjo on this one as you seem to have it covered nicely.
Do give a shout if more cattle rustlers turn up though.
*Starts singing*
He rode a blazing saddle
He wore a shining star
His job to offer battle to bad men near and far
He conquered fear and he conquered hate
He turned dark night into day
He made his blazing saddle a torch to light the way
When outlaws ruled the west
And fear filled the land
A cry went out for a man with guts to take the west in hand
They needed a man who was brave and true with justice for all as his aim
Then out of the sun rode a man with a gun
And Bart was his name
Yes Bart was his name
He rode a blazing saddle
He wore a shining star
His job to offer battle to bad men near and far
He conquered fear and he conquered hate
He turned dark night into day
He made his blazing saddle a torch to light the way
People shouldn’t underestimate the pressure politically that the alarmists are under in Australia. They have been steadily losing public credibility and support for about two years now. The death threat lie was part of a political campaign to try to turn the tide. Many of us who have opposed the warmiing alarmists politically, who are on the left of Australian politics, have been physically threatened ( I can document this for Stokes et al if they are interested), abused, defamed and generally denigrated. The jig is up. At the next election as I have posted previously the alarmist parties are facing electoral oblivion. The death threat lie was part of a bigger dishonest and devious political campaign to try to win back a steadily eroding public support. They have failed. All we need now is a ballot box and its all over politically for the most dishonest, corrupt and disgraceful political campaign in our country since the racist white australia policy was run many years ago. Just give us a vote.
“Nick Stokes says:
May 3, 2012 at 8:27 pm”
The complete quote is “The Australian Federal Police says it has not been contacted by the university although it is aware that threats have been made.”
How else would the AFP be “aware threats have been made” if the university had not, and as such I assume no other affected staff either, contacted the AFP? I’d say the AFP didnt investigate this at any level as no complaint was made Which we now know to be true). The Canberra Times is part of the FairFax media group, just like the Sydney Morning Herrald and are known to be economical with the truth and accuracy in reporting stories.
I have offered my thoughts to David Appell at his site. These I append below. Whether they pass moderation is another matter. We shall see!
“Unless you do the honourable thing and apologise unreservedly to Anthony Watts, [snip – perhaps the rest does go a tad too far ~ac].”
It astonishes me that somebody can be so wrong, be proven to be so wrong, be told by so many people that they are wrong and yet go on proudly proclaiming how right they are.
“Appell has now published my email to him (which was part of an unsolicited email thread started by Appell) along with the email addresses of people on the cc list.”
————————————————————————————
This is the Gleick mentality. Publish names and contact details deliberately creating the opportunity for fools to send stupid messages to them. But as tech savvy readers of WUWT will know, the cagw acolytes of Appell and Gleick (are there people so daft?) should be aware:
http://www.necn.com/07/28/11/Do-you-know-about-your-digital-fingerpri/landing.html?blockID=544286&feedID=4213
https://www.eff.org/
Link should be:
http://www.necn.com/07/28/11/Do-you-know-about-your-digital-fingerpri/landing.html?blockID=544286&feedID=4213
[fixed ~ac]
Appell has now published my email to him (which was part of an unsolicited email thread started by Appell) along with the email addresses of people on the cc list. I view this as completely unprofessional…
One of the more annoying denizens in the Internet Bestiary is the spambot. By publishing people’s e-addys in open sight, Appell has fed them — which opens him up to a valid complaint to his internet provider that he is a spam facilitator, which is only one step removed from being a spammer.
RockyRoad says:
May 3, 2012 at 10:51 pm
My gosh! An honest-to-goodness recipient of cash from Big Oil!
And what do WE get from that? We get gas for the car, that’s what. Thanks, PiperPaul!
(So next time anybody in the CAGW crowd complains about “Big Oil”, remember those that get paid by “Big Oil” are a LOT more useful than ALL the CAGW crowd.)
They’re not only more useful, their models actually *work*!
David Ball says:
May 3, 2012 at 9:31 pm
Pokerguy, I do understand what you are saying. Fight with pigs and you will get dirty, if I’m not mistaken. Cheers,….
When the pig’s loose in the garden, you’re not going to get him back where he belongs using sweet reason. First, you have to whack him with a two-by-four to get his attention…
PiperPaul says:
May 3, 2012 at 9:08 pm
In UNIX shell scripting one might do the following…
> Gun | Shoot | Foot | Screaming> /dev/null
IN UNIX no one can hear you scream…
Of course, there is one dish that is famously “best served cold”.
And I think it shall be.
🙂
Still only 3 comments on his page?
I’d be curious to see how his traffic stacks up to WUWT.
The pettiness in showing email address’s is typical of the”cultists” mentality, Appell is nothing more than a school ground bully who when on the recieving end plays dirtier,
Anthony keep the moral high ground and don’t play into this liar,fools hands he want you to loose your cool.
Loving that the only comments on his post that publishes Anthony’s email are taking David to task over his immature and dishonest behaviour. I wonder how long they’ll stay around before they’re deleted…
Bill Tuttle:
Thankyou for your post at May 4, 2012 at 2:43 am. I laughed out loud.
But then I thought, “Oh dear, that constitutes a death threat against ‘climate scientists’ in Australia”.
Richard
“If I did that, I’d be vilified, and yet for some strange reason you are painting me as the one who’s done something wrong. – Anthony”
You’re misunderstanding me Anthony, and I’m sorry for that. I hold you and other leading skeptics to a higher standard. Again ,I understand the appeal of kicking him when he’s down. Which is what he’d have done to you. But you’re smarter than that.
I will not click any of those Appell links, as that would up his traffic numbers.
Even when they cry wolf no one listens. Appell is denser than a bag of diamonds.
just a thought here…. he titles his post ‘dumb and dumber’…. seems like he is referring to himself and stokes, if you ask me.
“Rule #1: You can never ask too many questions.”
/snort
I’m curious about what has Nike Stokes so fired up about this that he’s oblivious to his looking like an ass.
How does the saying go? Better to keep silent and look like a fool than speak up and confirm it.
“Is your pride of choosing to believe that death threats were launched by skeptics against climate scientists so important to you that it blinds you to the point of not accepting overwhelming evidence to the contrary?”
Er, he’s that way with CAGW, so why not CADT?
(That’s “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Death Threats”.)
Nick Strokes is a huge loser. I am extremely unimpressed by the Blackboard. Lucia put me under heavy moderations because I told her it was misleading to post about arctic ice loss without posting the temperature. She would not post the temperature because there was almost no change, meaning ice loss was due to natural variability.
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. says:
May 4, 2012 at 10:14 am
“Nick Strokes is a huge loser. I am extremely unimpressed by the Blackboard.”
I agree. I posted at The Blackboard maybe twice, several years ago. That’s all. But I have copied Lucia’s charts and posted them here several times, with attribution. There was no problem until early this year, when I tried to post her chart showing that Hansen’s predictions were wrong.
Now, I can no longer access her blog. When I click on Lucia’s charts in my chart folder, I get: “Access Denied”. I have been blacklisted. Why?
I suspect that since folks like Nick Stokes and Zeke Hausfather are Lucia’s pals, they or someone like them has convinced her to blacklist my IP address. Typical alarmist censorship. Lucia should be ashamed of herself. As for her pals, censorship is a way of life for them, so I get a chuckle out of seeing the hypocritical Nick Stokes sniveling about a minor moderation delay.
pokerguy says:
Again ,I understand the appeal of kicking him when he’s down. Which is what he’d have done to you. But you’re smarter than that.
When someone keeps coming back to engage over and over, “kicking him while he’s down” is sometimes the only way to put an end to things.
Yesterday there were 16 comments on Appell’s page, almost all were calling him out, saying he’s been “owned” and the like. Today there are only 9 comments, of which 2 say “removed by site administrator”, and all but one are supportive. There were many more than 2 removed, that much is clear!!
Monty Python captured it in “Quest for the Holy Grail” with the Black Knight. He kept coming back long after it was obvious to everyone else that he had lost. As the King is riding away shaking his head and the Black Knight sits limbless, the knight finally accepts “reality”… “All right, we’ll call it a draw.” When one can’t accept that they are wrong they can still do damage to you. If they’re delusional, it’s best not to turn your back to them.
It’s a question of accumulated volume …
/8-\
Oh Gawd! The first one had me chuckling, but this one had me literally laughing out loud…
Though ought not the “Screaming” be a dev 2 output (or stderr?) redirect /dev/null? Then again, the “Screaming” script might be different under Linux 😉
OK, since I’m making a comment:
Never expect the Warmers to admit any wrong, no matter how horrid. It’s just not in them. True believers one and all, absolved of all sin by Pope Puchari. In fact, you are wicked and evil for damaging their self esteem by pointing out when they have borked it.
@Smokey:
I was invited to do a ‘guest posting’ at the Blackboard. When I declined (pointing out that I was interested in forwarding my search for the truth, not in facilitating argument, and that Lucia’s site was more interested in some spicy argument; that would take more time than I wanted to sink: I found a comment on Blackboard from Lucia announcing me as “uninteresting” and to be ignored (in essence). Perhaps it was the analogy I used…
I often explain the philosophy I learned in our family restaurant; that everyone has their own sense of taste and it is not up to YOU to decide what is good / better with the example of one customer who regularly ordered “Runny eggs and Tabasco sauce”. When I first saw that order (at about 8 years old) my response was “Yuck!” as runny near raw eggs are not attractive to me and eggs that are firebreathing even less so. My Dad explained to me that the job was to deliver what the customer wanted, the way they wanted it, without criticism. I’d used the “runny eggs and Tabasco” metaphor for how her site (that relishes spice and conflict) was different from mine (where I do more pondering and ‘quiet digging’). I think it may have hurt her feelings. Or maybe being non-spicy and not willing to help drive traffic I was just “not interesting” to her… At any rate, I’m not about starting fights to watch the fur fly; I’m much more about finding what truth can be found, so I don’t go to the Blackboard now either. Not blacklisted as near as I can tell…
FWIW, if you do want to ‘take a peek’, just go to a ‘cyber cafe’ and launch a different browser (i.e. no cookie history, etc. Download Opera or Firefox for example). I have a ‘disposable’ email address for sites that need one as well. Easy to pick up on a dozen places like gmail.
THE thing I’ve notice more than all else from the “Warmers” vs the “Skeptics” is that Skeptics like to explore a wide range of possibles and weigh them against each other. Relishing the new learning, the compare and contrast. The weighting likely truths. “Warmers” are far more focused on The Agenda. Stray from The Dogma and you get a load of Dogma Excrement flung at you. “Fling Poo” seems built into their nature, unable to rise past it. Insult, invective, character assassination, etc. Oh, and a very strong tendency to “Edit for effect” and delete anything they don’t like.
On my site I tried at first to be wide open on comments. Got a load of folks who I think were “professional trolls” doing the old Fling Poo and attack on just about everything. So I had to go to a moderation model. My #1 rule is “be polite” and don’t be insulting. Turns out that alone gets most of the Hypercritical Warmers pushed out of shape. They either leave after being put on moderation or can’t control themselves and end up as Carping Comments fodder ( a place where I let their comment through, but only after dissecting it and providing context…) or on a very short ‘banned’ list. Can’t think of even one person ‘banned’ for what they believe or desiring to say “I think this matters and was not in your analysis”. Lot of personal insults, though, from the ones that went to the ‘bin’. FWIW, Nick Stokes is on a ‘straight through’ to post comments setting; so that shows where I’ve set the bar. Folks have to be much worse than his style to “have issues”. ( I’ve generally found him dedicated to the verge of fixated; but reasonably polite.) Yet there are plenty of folks on the Warmers side who can’t meet that bar.
Yet they are happy to delete my comments on their sites just asking inconvenient questions. I started several years ago at realclimate asking things like “putting thermometers at airports will give high readings, how do you adjust for that?” I was an innocent who thought “Global Warming could be a bad, I need to learn more” and ran into a wall of scorn there. Later ran into WUWT and asked some stupid questions. Got polite and clear answers. The rest, as they say, was history… Eventually realized that AGW had more holes in it than Swiss Cheese and started my own “digging in” that surfaced how crappy GIStemp was.
The sharp contrast between the two approaches was a major deal for me. One ridiculed me for wanting to clarify where things seemed to “not fit”, the other said “Well, it doesn’t fit because this bit is wrong; unless that guy has something new…”)
At any rate, there’s a particular “mind print” to the Warmistas. They “suck their own exhaust” enough that the “style” just reeks and it shows very fast. Much of it has to do with “attack the messenger” and “embarrass for effect” along with liberal application of ridicule and censorship. Self destructive, if you ask me.
Ends up in things like Gleick.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/9250707/Farmer-gets-death-threats-after-killing-rat.html
ANU has now released the emails. I’ve put up a post with links.
The one described to by the commissioner as “intimidating” is in Doc_5.pdf. It describes a conference/seminar organised by the University, at which, on the first day, someone “took exception” to a talk on climate change. Then:
“Moreover, before he left, he came to the Fri dinner and showed other participants his gun licence and explained to them how good a sniper he is.”
OK, he doesn’t say who he might be exercising his skills on, or how fatally. But it does sound spooky.
Nick Stokes,
If that is the scariest email of the bunch, all I can say is, you scare real easy.
I am shocked, really, that an Australian would be such a bedwetter. Maybe a resident of N.Y. City. But someone from Oz?? Your ancestors must be spinning in their graves.
BOO!! Did that scare you? Here, maybe this will help. [Click in image to embiggen]
• • •
E.M. Smith,
Lucia should be ashamed of herself.
It would appear that the “sniper” has chosen to reveal himself :
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/05/10/the-dog-ate-my-death-threats-ii/#comment-478546
It that is indeed the true explanation of what transpired, that is about as innocuous as it gets.
Still, can’t really blame climate “scientists” for seeing threats when none really exist. It’s what they do.
Dear Anthony,
You wrote to Nick Stokes above,
“You were put on troll moderation YESTERDAY, not after I made this post, and you know this. Both you and Appell can’t seem to embrace humility, or to even admit you’ve been wrong, try it sometime. Until then, you get the slow lane.”
I agree with you that the ANU death threats turned out to be a ruse and I strongly disagree with Nick on this. But I respect his right to hold a contrary opinion, and his right to freedom of speech. I thought this is something skeptics all stand for? Moreover, Nick is exceptional among AGW defenders in that he is always respectful and polite.
In my mind, you do huge damage to your credibility by putting people like Nick on ‘moderation watch’ and announcing that here, and I urge you to take him off it again and offer him the apology he deserves.
Alex Harvey
REPLY: Happy to do so if he 1. admits publicly that he was wrong. 2. Apologizes for some of the not so “polite” comments he made about me elsewhere related to this episode. Note, he still gets to post here, but he just gets an extra level of moderation. -Anthony
Alex,
Try and hold the alarmists to the same standards you demand of the realists. It will work wonders for your own credibility.
Dear Anthony, if you say that he must admit that he was wrong, then you are saying he doesn’t have the right to disagree. And if you say he doesn’t have the right to disagree, then how is this different from zealots who try to silence legitimate climate skepticism? I have been discussing these ANU death threats at Nick’s blog, and while I think his argument is weak, I also think he believes what he says. Meanwhile, I don’t know what Nick said about you elsewhere, but you run the most visited climate skeptic blog in the world, so I don’t see how you can afford to be sensitive about negative comments. I read Nick’s blog regularly and attacking you certainly isn’t a recurrent theme. Public figures just have to cop this sometimes. If it was me, I would be thankful that Nick takes the time to comment here. This diversity of views is what is so absent in much climate change discussion.