‘Death threats’ against climate scientists story deader still – the source of one of the ‘threats’ speaks out

UPDATE: Is is now totally unraveled. The person related to the culling license speaks out, see below.

I feel there will be more crow pie coming on the menu for David Appell and Nick Stokes.

Simon from Australian Climate Madness writes:

This is turning into the story that keeps on giving. After yesterday’s revelation that the one possible “threat” was actually an innocent discussion about culling kangaroos, now Legal Affairs editor Chris Merritt writes in The Weekend Australian:

Media Watch eyes climate scientist death threat claims

AFTER triggering a global news event with reports about death threats against climate scientists, the ABC and Fairfax Media are under investigation by Media Watch after a central plank supporting their reports was found to be non-existent.

Before the flaws in their reports were revealed, their versions of the truth had been picked up by Britain’s The Guardian and the scientific journal Nature.

The critical error in their reports, which has been revealed by The Australian, is that emails held by the Australian National University that were supposed to outline death threats against climate scientists have been independently assessed as containing no death threats.

Those emails were made public on Tuesday after a long Freedom of Information campaign by blogger Simon Turnill.

Full story here

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

UPDATE: On the website “Catalaxy Files” and in comments on WUWT below, the person who is at the center of the alleged “death threat” months before the other emails, identifies himself. Link.

Read it from the beginning here: http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/05/10/the-dog-ate-my-death-threats-with-garcinia cambogia-ii/

Here’s the comment left on WUWT:

John Coochey says:

I feel I can now throw some light on the matter. The document viewed as most “threatening” referred to an alleged Deliberation at the ANU about climate change in the Canberra region at which one person “made a death threat” (sic) by showing his gun licence and boasting about his skill as a sniper.. Only two people dropped out of the conference only one of those who did so attended the even meal. Me. I am certainly the one who is alleged to show someone their gun licence. That is not true while at the evening meal (of poor quality) comments moved to eating game meat and I was approached by the Commissioner for the Environment ACT, Dr Maxine Cooper who recognized me as someone involved in the kangaroo culling program in the ACT. She politely asked if she could sit at the vacant seat next to me and asked if I had past the recent licence test – not easy. I replied yes and showed her my current licence. I also impressed on any one interested the high standard of marksmanship necessary to allay any cruelty concerns. I might add that earlier in the day I had challenged two speakers to comment on a letter in the Canberra Times that claimed that temperatures had not increased in the Canberra area for decades. They were unable to do so, having not apparently checked the record despite the the “Deliberation” (conference) supposed to be about rising temperatures in the Canberra region. As all daytime conversations were recorded (we all signed waivers to allow this) this can easily be checked.

I note Readfearn has commented on the “death threat at the conference” in Crikey ,com. He got one thing right I did leave of my own accord. When meal had finished and a piss poor meal it was.

About these ads

109 thoughts on “‘Death threats’ against climate scientists story deader still – the source of one of the ‘threats’ speaks out

  1. I posted this at ACM:
    I want their ‘heads on spikes’ ! ABC, ANU, CT, et al.

    Well, at least prominent full page newspaper corrections and apologies, and ABC to produce a 30-min documentary detailing their deceit and corrections.

  2. Anyone not happy with the Guardian misreporting of climate issues should email the editors:
    Readers’ Editor

    They do read and take note, so stay polite and factual.

  3. “Culling kangaroos” a death threat against scientist that promote Global Warming..er..Man Made Global Warm..er..CACW..er..Climate Change..er..Weather Wierding……, well, they DO jump around alot.

  4. If the ANU scientists considered statements like this —

    “We have had enough! Sometime in the future your days of leeching off the tax payers of Australia will end and you will be looking for work in the employment office where you might find a real job and contribute to society in a positive way.” My bolding. http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/05/anu-death-threat-emails-released/

    – as death threats, all I can say is [self-snip-snip-snippety-snip-snip-snip]

  5. I would not be surprised if we see a similar result with the investigations in to issues at the UEA CRU. Another helping of whitewash please.

  6. I feel I can now throw some light on the matter. The document viewed as most “threatening” referred to an alleged Deliberation at the ANU about climate change in the Canberra region at which one person “made a death threat” (sic) by showing his gun licence and boasting about his skill as a sniper.. Only two people dropped out of the conference only one of those who did so attended the even meal. Me. I am certainly the one who is alleged to show someone their gun licence. That is not true while at the evening meal (of poor quality) comments moved to eating game meat and I was approached by the Commissioner for the Environment ACT, Dr Maxine Cooper who recognized me as someone involved in the kangaroo culling program in the ACT. She politely asked if she could sit at the vacant seat next to me and asked if I had past the recent licence test – not easy. I replied yes and showed her my current licence. I also impressed on any one interested the high standard of marksmanship necessary to allay any cruelty concerns. I might add that earlier in the day I had challenged two speakers to comment on a letter in the Canberra Times that claimed that temperatures had not increased in the Canberra area for decades. They were unable to do so, having not apparently checked the record despite the the “Deliberation” (conference) supposed to be about rising temperatures in the Canberra region. As all daytime conversations were recorded (we all signed waivers to allow this) this can easily be checked.

    I note Readfearn has commented on the “death threat at the conference” in Crikey ,com. He got one thing right I did leave of my own accord. When meal had finished and a piss poor meal it was.

  7. And of course, every word about searing past/present/future CAGW dooms both global and down under ever uttered by those same “cry wolf” pseudo scientists are blinkin accurate… NOT!!!

    Like Gleick, liars have problems that in their minds only their lies protect them from. Why lie about death threats? Just what problem are they trying to hide from (and keep from us). Could it be bad science? FOIs and transparency might uncover… what? Just what are they so scared of revealing that they’d invent a worldwide media frenzy about death threats.

    Good science practices? Not likely
    Excellent data keeping? Again, doubtful.
    Superior or even average math? Oh yeah, lie their rears off to hide good math… Nope!
    Solid research? Nah.
    Avoiding poor assumptions in favor of disciplined objectivity? Somehow I doubt it.

    It becomes a long list, just why would a group go to such lengths to paint questioners of science with bald lies?

  8. The Catallaxy Files writes on these events.
    The dog ate my death threats II

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/page/2/

    It seems that Goulburn (a country city council in the Australian Capital Territory [ACT]) and other ACT residents were invited to a 3 day workshop organised by the Australian National University’s [ANU] Centre for ‘Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance’. (report below).
    The workshop participants attended a dinner (see p24 session 23 of report), where ……………….

    After politely asking if she could sit next to me she asked me how I had gone in the recent licence test which is challenging. I told her I had topped it with a perfect score and showed her my current culling licence, not gun licence, to prove it. The conversation around the table then drifted around the benefits of eating game meat v the poor fare on offer. :)

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/page/2/

    Workshop report (aka Agenda 21 activities parading as academic ‘community’ & ‘engagement’ for policy and further grant proposals). Overview of workshop at p25-7 http://deliberativedemocracy.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/working_papers/CCPSPartReport.pdf

  9. So the “death threats” are as fictitious as rising temperatures/sea levels and shrinking polar caps/polar bear populations? Alternatively as well as farting dinosaurs, deaf fish and the risk of an alien invasion,
    are some of the kangaroos being threatened with a cull actually climate scientists?

  10. Bill Tuttle says:
    May 11, 2012 at 10:31 pm

    “If the ANU scientists considered statements like this —

    “We have had enough! Sometime in the future your days of leeching off the tax payers of Australia will end and you will be looking for work in the employment office where you might find a real job and contribute to society in a positive way.” My bolding. http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/05/anu-death-threat-emails-released/

    – as death threats, all I can say is”

    Oh! I always threaten them with one day having to earn their money so I’m guilty. But I understand their reasoning. The perspective must look like death from their pampered existence. No more free shindigs in Rio and Durban!

  11. P. Solar:

    At May 11, 2012 at 10:17 pm you write:

    “Anyone not happy with the Guardian misreporting of climate issues should email the editors:
    Readers’ Editor
    They do read and take note, so stay polite and factual.”

    You forgot the ‘/sarc’ after “They do read and take note”.

    Richard

  12. Can’t help but note that the Dr Maxine Cooper who triggered the conversation about kangaroo culling which led to the “gun licence” comment was made ACT Government Auditor General recently. Like to think she would have an interest in accuracy and truth!

  13. Interesting to compare the emails above with the real thing coming from demented CAGW supporters as reported by the UK Daily Telegraph -

    “Police marksmen shot dead a lone gunman carrying a bomb who had taken three employees hostage at the headquarters of the Discovery Channel near Washington DC…The suspect, James Lee, 43, had previously served two weeks in jail after staging a protest against the channel’s supposed lack of commitment to protecting the environment. …. When Lee organised a protest outside the same building in February 2008, he issued a six-page set of demands to Discovery, saying the channel “must broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet….At his trial, he said he became committed to that cause after being laid off from his job in San Diego. He said he had been inspired by “Ishmael,” a novel by environmentalist Daniel Quinn and by former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”. A lengthy posting on Lee’s website said Discovery and its affiliates should stop “encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants…Instead, he said, the channel should broadcast “programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility.” “Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is,” reads the site. “Saving the Planet means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies!” it says.

    The Al Gore film was shown in many of our schools.

    And this is just some of the propaganda that Australian children have had to face -

    http://mises.org/daily/2997

    and then we had the infamous 10:10 video

    Yet again CAGW proponents expose themselves for the utter hypocrites they are!

  14. Background to culling of kangaroos in the Australian Capital Territory

    There are many more examples of the ACT government hypocrisy, blaming the kangaroos for their own planning mistakes. Four days after teh cull started, we now find out that the kangaroo numbers that were used to justify this cull were estimated by counting kangaroo poo! How unscientific is that?

    http://www.kangaroo-protection-coalition.com/canberrakangaroocull.html

    The Department of Defence says the cull is necessary to protect native grasslands and threatened species, and avoid starvation among the kangaroos.
    The planned method of slaughter is to tranquillise the animals with the use of darts and then kill them with a lethal injection.

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/canberras-kangaroo-cull-begins/2008/05/19/1211182694317.html

  15. Sorry – missing links included for -

    Marion says:

    May 12, 2012 at 12:58 am

    Interesting to compare the emails above with the real thing coming from demented CAGW supporters as reported by the UK Daily Telegraph -

    “Police marksmen shot dead a lone gunman carrying a bomb who had taken three employees hostage at the headquarters of the Discovery Channel near Washington DC…The suspect, James Lee, 43, had previously served two weeks in jail after staging a protest against the channel’s supposed lack of commitment to protecting the environment. …. When Lee organised a protest outside the same building in February 2008, he issued a six-page set of demands to Discovery, saying the channel “must broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet….At his trial, he said he became committed to that cause after being laid off from his job in San Diego. He said he had been inspired by “Ishmael,” a novel by environmentalist Daniel Quinn and by former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”. A lengthy posting on Lee’s website said Discovery and its affiliates should stop “encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants…Instead, he said, the channel should broadcast “programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility.” “Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is,” reads the site. “Saving the Planet means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies!” it says.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7976513/Gunman-shot-after-taking-hostages-at-Discovery-Channel-headquarters.html

    The Al Gore film was shown in many of our schools.

    And this is just some of the propaganda that Australian children have had to face -

    http://mises.org/daily/2997

    and then we had the infamous 10:10 video

    Yet again CAGW proponents expose themselves for the utter hypocrites they are!

  16. Flashback for Anthony re Dr. Maxine Cooper who, as just sayin’ says above, is now ACT Government Auditor General :

    9 May 2009: Warwick Hughes: ACT (Canberra) Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr. Maxine Cooper) chides BoM re urbanization near Canberra Airport observations site
    Anyway, the good Doctor (Cooper) asks the question, “How much do these developments affect the Bureau’s ability to keep using this site as a long-term reference station?”
    Heavens above, if Dr Cooper is getting concerned about the Canberra AP site then the list of global sites that that Dr P. D. Jones and the Hadley Centre use to generate “global warming” trends for the IPCC should really give her cause to be alarmed.
    And note, Canberra is on the Hadley Centre / Jones list…
    COMMENT BELOW: The late great John Daly was onto Canberra Airport some years back. See this graph where he compares its record with Wagga airport: http://www.john-daly.com/stations/canberra.gif

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=218

  17. This is exactly why there’s a growing “yeah whatever” feeling. Far to many chicken little predictions. What do they do to counter these…..issue even more chicken little predictions. It’s a vicious cycle and I’m loving it.

  18. I just read all the comments under Nick Stokes’ blog on this topic (it took intestinal fortitude, gotta say). When called out on his pronouncements about these ‘death threats’, Stokes is amazingly agile at picking out one minor point of a challenging argument while completely ignoring the major points.

    However, he seems to be of the view that all the evidence is not yet in. “Still, we haven’t heard from others at the dinner”, says Stokes. He also thinks that there may have been other email threats which were deleted by staff when they received them. Further, Stokes maintains,”in the face of what we have, to say there were no threats of harm requires proof.” This reversal of the onus of proof is reminiscent of Trenberth’s similar requirement.

    Stokes is unable to see, or at least admit, that the story was hugely overblown by the Vice Chancellor of ANU, who was reported in the ABC thus, “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.” Prof. Young then went on to call for “a logical public debate” on climate change.

    Oh the hypocrisy!

  19. just sayin’ says:
    May 12, 2012 at 12:53 am

    Can’t help but note that the Dr Maxine Cooper who triggered the conversation about kangaroo culling which led to the “gun licence” comment was made ACT Government Auditor General recently. Like to think she would have an interest in accuracy and truth!
    _________________________
    YEESH,
    So the woman who set him up is now Government Auditor General?? Says a lot about the honest of government doesn’t it? That is almost as bad as having a tax cheat as the US Secretary of the Treasury.

    • I think you have overstepped the line here. Dr Cooper is a professional and capable Public Servant and I have he highest respect for her

  20. “What’s that Skippy? The polar ice caps are melting and we’re all going to drown? And the climate is passing the point of no return?”

    -h/t 1960s kids TV from Oz

  21. Have to agree with John Coochey – As I read it, Dr Maxine Cooper was simply engaging in a conversation with John, which was no doubt overheard by others around the table. There is no evidence that Cooper relayed anything of the conversation to anyone. I would imagine some chicken-little ANU research assistant played chinese whispers with a few other like-feathered birds and the innocent conversation blew up into “He’s got a gun licence and is a marksman sniper AND A SKEPTIC – OMG!!!!”

  22. “Vice-chancellor Professor Ian Young says the scientists have received large numbers of emails, including death threats

    I wonder if Prof. Young knows that issuing death threats in the ACT is a criminal matter, punishible by up to 10 years in prison. If its the case that he knew that such threats had been issued to staff of his University, he was duty-bound to report the matter to the police. If such a report was not made, that omission might also be a matter in which the ACT police take an interest.

    Wolf-crying can be a serious matter.

  23. Gail Combs says: May 12, 2012 at 2:26 am

    Gail, suggesting that Maxine Cooper “set up” Mr. Coochey is quite a stretch. It sounds like two acquaintances having a chat at a public venue. As I read this, Mr. Coochey himself didn’t know that he had been the inspiration for one of the “death threat” incidents until the e-mails were released. It’s entirely likely that Dr. Cooper her self still has no clue of her role in this farce. It would be nice if she would take the time to come forward and corroborate Mr. Coochey’s version of events.

    It would seem, however, that Mr. Coochey himself disagrees with your categorization of Maxine Cooper (see the comment just below yours).

    Mr. Coochey, thank you very much for coming forward. Your meal at the Deliberative Democracy meeting may have been tasteless, but your recounting of the experience is just delicious.

  24. from page 6 of the report linked at Catallaxy:

    “The second departed after feeling frustrated that he could not get his views across to the group (and was very unfortunately subjected to special attention by the comedy act that was intended to provide the opportunity to decompress at the conference dinner after a demanding first day).”

    http://deliberativedemocracy.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/working_papers/CCPSPartReport.pdf

    go to page 28 of the report, at the bottom of the Timetable for Day 1, to see the comedian considered suitable for this august occasion was Rob Quantock:

    Oct 2009: reportage/enviro: Emergency call from Parliament House
    Photo Caption: Rob Quantock, Melbourne comedian and fervent supporter of the climate action movement, entertains the crowd
    The afternoon of free entertainment around 350 Day of Global Action featured Melbourne’s funnyman Rod Quantock, in a play, Gamble with the Climate which highlighted the urgent need to reduce carbon levels in the atmosphere from the unsafe level of 390 parts per million to under 350ppml…
    ANU Professor Andrew Glikson spoke prior to the play on why 350 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere constitutes a safe climate, and 450 is a very unsafe climate for the globe. Andrew informed us on what the latest and best research is now telling us on the severe risk of not acting to immediately reduce carbon emissions and levels.

    http://www.reportage-enviro.com/2009/10/emergency-call-in-front-of-parliament-house/

    ANU hearts Quantock:

    (WITH AUDIO LINK AT BOTTOM)
    Oct 2009: ANU: Thirsty Work
    Rod Quantock
    Comedian, Writer and Climate Change Activist
    Rod Quantock says, “If climate change doesn’t scare you, then you don’t get the science.” Fortunately Quantock does, and when he gives you his take on the physics, chemistry, biology, geology, palaeontology, cosmology and meteorology of climate science you’ll get it too. And then… you’ll be scared. It’s win-win. Sounds like great fun doesn’t? It’s an edgy mix of panic and hysteria. But that’s what you’d expect from someone whose comedy has been described as ‘medicinal’. In his irreverent style and clever humour has proven to be a great avenue to deliver powerful messages about the reality of climate change, water issues and possible outcomes.
    This lecture was introduced by Jon Ward, Manager, Environmental Policy, Toyota Motor Corporation Australia

    http://www.anu.edu.au/discoveranu/content/podcasts/thirsty_work/

  25. I believe they had a simple typo. I believe we have made death to paycheck threats.

  26. John Coochey says:
    May 12, 2012 at 2:47 am

    I think you have overstepped the line here. Dr Cooper is a professional and capable Public Servant and I have he highest respect for her
    ________________________
    Sorry my dislike and distrust for public servants is showing.

    I voted for a US senator who deliberately lied to my face to make sure I (and those I talked to) voted for him. I am still steaming two years later. Especially when I question him after he voted for the bill I was opposed to and gave me a pathetic song and dance routine about the bill having been “changed” so he “felt” it was alright to vote for it.

  27. Well the mails deserve being read and published all over the place. It is worth reading each one of those also in conjuction with John’s post above:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/11/death-threats-against-climate-scientists-story-deader-still/#comment-983046

    It is revealing how important is to have the FOI process in place and also how do warmist transform reality:

    https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/FOI/ANU_emails.zip

    Incredible stuff. We all own a lot to Simon for the perseverance he showed and clarified this against all the obfuscation, it is a great step forward in clarifying the situation:
    “Those emails were made public on Tuesday after a long Freedom of Information campaign by blogger Simon Turnill.”

  28. Gail Combs says:
    May 12, 2012 at 2:26 am
    YEESH,
    So the woman who set him up is now Government Auditor General?? Says a lot about the honest of government doesn’t it? That is almost as bad as having a tax cheat as the US Secretary of the Treasury.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++

    Doesn’t take too much in the way of comprehension skills to figure that Maxine Cooper is blameless in this. Ad homs chucked about willy-nilly do the realist cause no good at all, especially at a time when we’re not as firmly entrenched on the high ground as we might be.

  29. It would be reasonable to expect that faced with FOI disclosure of 6 months of Emails, ANU, finding that they had little/no credible evidence in there to support their ‘death threat’ claims, would have voluntarily raked out any material from OUTSIDE that period in order not to look complete idiots: but wait . . .

  30. Climate scientists are waging a campaign to change our minds, to control the message, to effect social change by claiming there is a crisis. This is just one more example of their propaganda efforts. Indeed, when reading through this, and seeing the original purpose for the meeting where the Kangaroo culling license was shown, I was stunned, absolutely stunned that scientists were there trying to do research into how to change the public’s mind about climate change. In other words, how to make their propaganda more effective. How to do social engineering on the Australian public and warp them to their cause (or is it The Cause.) Truly I find THAT part of it far more disturbing than how they self-servingly conflated innocent incidents into a crisis.

  31. This is such a discourtesy to all kangaroos. Who are the climate “scientists” going to blame next? Mother Teresa? Koala Bears?

  32. Climate Change: Ask an expert – public lecture Jan 2010 (Australian National University, Canberra, Australia)

    0:41:27- 051:23 Dr Maxine Cooper, Commissioner for Sustainability and Environment in the Australian Capital Territory discusses what is needed at the local and regional scale
    042:23 How to I communicate that to Mary and Joe in the public?….
    044:27 One of the things I’m very pleased about, when I write the ‘State of Environment’ report, it has to be tabled in the Assembly- the government then has to respond to those recommendations
    044:38 And in the region, I don’t have legislative power but I have the support of 17 local Councils
    0:48:28 ‘How do we make it politically irresistible?
    0:49:21 How do we get those changes?
    0:50:12 And the most powerful change that you can do in terms of change…… is going to .. be the peer group…… is the discussions at the dinner table, the coffee shop. That will make a difference.
    0:50:21 The first conference on the psychology of climate change was held in Bristol last year …………… greatest obstacle to action………….. but the denial strategies that we all adopt……… and we need to re-frame climate change……don’t talk about polar bears. …….. energy independence and potential for new enterprises, … peer pressure. ‘

    Canberra, the capital city of Australia with a population of 358, 000 (public servants).

  33. You must be very careful what you say to a Warmista. After all, they believe:
    1. an extra 0.01 % of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere will cause global death and destruction;
    2. that windmills can save us;
    3.that someone else will pay for the windmills;
    4. that anyone who questions these facts is intellectually and morally inferior.

  34. These plainly wrong claims of threat are explicable – CAGW supporters have a propensity for detecting problems where there are none.

    Unfortunately, as evidenced in the last few months, most of the press are all-too-willing to believe without question all these kinds of phantasy problems invented by the CAGW industry – CO2 harm, big bad Oil, big bad Heartland and death threats from skeptics.

  35. Data obviously have not conformed to the death threat model, but hey, why could not they simply adjust the emails? Is it not unprofessional a bit?

  36. Do “Alarmists” need a special gun license to shoot themselves in the foot? More crimes may have been committed than just prevarication.

  37. The thing about CAGW fanatics, like all radical leftists, is that they will lie, lie lie in order to support their position. I’ve seen this again and again – the end justifies the means. Sometimes they just make it up as they go, to support their untenable scientific and ethical stance.

    I saw this first in July 1989, when I entered East Germany on a business trip, and saw firsthand the alleged “Worker’s Paradise”… … and what a dysfunctional, repressive hell-hole it really was.

    In scientific papers, Steve McIntyre has capably exposed the voodoo science of dendrochronology, and the cabal of co-conspirators who have misled us for over a decade, in their deceitful attempts to eliminate from the scientific record the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, in order to support Mann-made global warming fanaticism.

    As Earth has refused to warm, the warming alarmists have not only changed their story (Global Warming => Climate Change => Sustainability), they have even changed the surface temperature data (GISS, and recently Hadcrut4).

    It is notable that NONE of the global warming alarmists scary predictions have materialized. Nevertheless, we waste enormous time and effort, as every week there are new, very-scary CAGW predictions to refute.

    I propose a time-saving strategy to deal with these CAGW serial BS-er’s:

    The Law of Warmist BS
    “You can save yourselves a lot of time, and generally be correct, by simply assuming that EVERY SCARY PREDICTION the global warming alarmists express is FALSE.”

    Regarding threats of violence and actual acts of violence, I do know of some, but all of these were directed at global warming skeptics. Dr. Tim Ball has received several death threats and has gone public. Other scientists who have been the victims of actual violence do not want their names or stories mentioned, and I must respect that – but it has been a very “dirty” war.

    On a lighter note, I received a threatening email in ~2002, after I wrote a skeptical article in the National Post, accusing me of causing the flooding of Prague. I pondered this accusation for a moment, and briefly enjoyed my newfound God-like powers. “Thor, God of Thunder, Despoiler of Worlds!”. I responded to my anonymous tormenter: Dear Sir, You are correct. I am the ONE, fully responsible for the flooding of Prague. Now “run along” or I’ll do it again!

  38. Gail Combs says:
    May 12, 2012 at 3:37 am
    John Coochey says:
    May 12, 2012 at 2:47 am

    I think you have overstepped the line here. Dr Cooper is a professional and capable Public Servant and I have he highest respect for her
    ________________________
    Sorry my dislike and distrust for public servants is showing.

    I voted for a US senator who deliberately lied to my face to make sure I (and those I talked to) voted for him. I am still steaming two years later. Especially when I question him after he voted for the bill I was opposed to and gave me a pathetic song and dance routine about the bill having been “changed” so he “felt” it was alright to vote for it.

    ______________________________________________________

    Q: How can you tell when a politician is lying?
    A: When they open their mouth.

  39. How I wish they would “eat crow”, but you can’t shame the shameless. That’s another reason why this fight has gone political, and *Has* to be a political, rather than a scientific one. This is yet one more piece of evidence that the people pushing the AGW meme, men like Gleick, are not “honest scientists” but in fact are Frauds, Cheats, Liars, Con Artists, and moral degenerates through and through. Our efforts have to be focused on letting everyone ELSE know what they are and why we know that, not on changing the minds of the moral degenerates themselves. That will remain an impossible task.

    warning the public about what they and what they want (domination and money) now remains as our highest and best purpose.

  40. How many lies will it take before we openly question how much of the work in this field is simply faked?

  41. The release of the e-mails and the testimony of John Coochey illustrate two points. Which may be blindingly obvious to others but might be worth restating anyway.

    1. Challenge everything a warmista says. Make them prove it with evidence, not opinion. Don’t be fobbed off with ‘this has been debunked’ or ‘research has moved on’ or idle references to the research literature. Get them to explain it. In public..in words that you can understand. Be polite and calm. Say please and thank you. Do not use emotive terms or insults. Act like a forensic lawyer would do. Use the rhetorical question ‘is it correct to say that…….and if not why not?’ Never lose your cool. Never get emotionally involved. Never give a warmista a simple excuse (insult, bad language, ad hom etc) to moderate/ban/ignore you. Use FoI if you have to. And publish the results in a blog. That way they are always retrievable somewhere.

    The Australian guys got away without challenge for a little time. But eventually the truth was fund by a bit of dogged determination. And it was not to their credit.I suspect that many others of us believe that the truth of many other warmista myths is equally damaging. We just need to get to the bottom of them.

    2. This hilarious saga shows a long trail of ludicrous misjudgement by nearly everybody involved. From the first earwigger who misinterpreted the conversation to the university authorities who suspended credulity and common sense for the purpose of a headline..and to the journos who didn’t even botheer to check their sources before making a big noise about nothing in particular,

    How much can we rely upon their collective judgements when the matter is not a relatively minor one of a snippet of an overheard conversation over dinner, but on the Future of Humanity itself – or whatever guff they are coming up with today. Since I wouldn’t trust them, on this showing, to cross the road unaided without a stroller,, a nurse, a safety net and three functioning GPS devices, I fear that their pronouncements on (CA)GW will still leave me cold.

    Those who know cockney rhyming slang will realise that my calling them a ‘wunch’ (*) is not meant as a compliment.

    (*) From the contemporary English saying ‘A Wunch of Bankers’

  42. I love teachable moments. Anyone & everyone still unsure about whether or not humans are destroying our climate should read the ‘death threat’ emails for themselves:

    http://www.wakeup2thelies.com/2012/05/10/read-the-so-called-anu-death-threat-emails-in-full-here/

    Now ask yourselves the following questions:

    1. How much have these climatologists over exaggerated the impact humans are having on our climate?

    2 Are these people capable of objectively evaluating scientific data and drawing rational conclusions?

    3. Do you still believe CO2 is destroying the planet?

  43. This from “Norm” at Judith Curry Climate etc. site I can barely believe it. Nature etc.. need to retract/withdraw all of Hansen’s publications!
    Quote :
    “Carbon dioxide only has an effect on the atmospheric window centred on 14.77microns and ranges from about 13 to 17 microns and not from 7 to 14 as stated by Hansen
    How did the peer review miss this obvious error!
    This and several other errors and scientifically unsubstantiated claims in this paper have contaminated the peer reviewd literature and provide a faulty scientific reference for the future research which has resulted in the mountain of defedtivet research that supports the fraudulent contention od CAGW.
    Left unchecked, this has eroded public trust “.

  44. What do you want to bet that statistically Climate Skeptics versus Climate Alarmists closely mirrors the political mores of the Tea Partiers versus the Occupy Wall Street mob? The Tea Party is smeared by the media as gun toting violent rednecks who could snap just like that, but in thousands of rallies involving millions of people there have been no incidents. Meanwhile, you can hardly rub together two OWS’ers without get a knifing or rape, much less a simple threat of violence.

    No doubt, when Tony Abbott (opposition leader in parliament) forms a new government at the next election in Australia and repeals the Carbon Tax, riotously violent dissent will suddenly become a patriotic duty!

    Knowing the prejudices of sanctimonious academics, simply being in the proximity of someone with a roo culling license would have been offensive to their urbane sensitivities, much less breaking bread with such an uncouth barbarian. Combine their bigotry with their sense guilt — climate academics are well aware the tide of evidence is flowing strongly against them — it’s not hard to imagine them conjuring up bilious fantasies of mayhem.

    The real goon squad here aren’t the bigoted neurotic academics, but their enablers in the media who conflated what they must have known from the evidence was baseless paranoia into a yellow star to pin upon the “denialists.”

    Just another Epic Fail for the grand consensus of righteousness.

  45. Summary of Tony Thomas at Quadrant on the original Ozzie “death threat” fiasco below. To me, this approach to democracy stinks:

    Here’s the background: Dr Kersty Hobson, an Oxford University visitor, and Dr Simon Niemeyer, Senior Fellow, of the ANU’s modestly titled “Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance Centre” helped bag $378,500 in 2008-10 grants from the Australian Research Council… to work out ways to browbeat climate sceptics towards sanity, or in academia-speak, “provide insight into the scope for positive community behavioural change”.

    They tell (nearly) all in their paper titled, “What sceptics believe: The effects of information and deliberation on climate change skepticism.”… They explicitly note a parallel between “genocide denial” and “climate denial”. The latter denial must be defeated so that “democracies [can] gain early consent for tough climate change mitigation measures”…

    Not being climate scientists themselves, Hobson and Niemeyer initially had to show that warmism is a true doctrine. A piece of cake. The IPCC said in 2007 that human-caused warmism was ‘unequivocal’. Despite that, “a non-trivial modicum of doubt and skepticism linger in various sectors of society”. They cite … Clive’s 2007 book, Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change…

    The project’s rationale was to round up citizen sceptics… then hit them with three days of scary warming scenarios out to 2100… The researchers categorized the 35 sceptics into sub-species, as a zoologist might group various types of zebras. The sub-species became types A (12 present), Emphatic negation; B (21), Unperturbed Pragmatism; C (32), Proactive Uncertainty; D (15), Earnest Acclimatization; and E (32), Noncommital Consent (> 35 because of overlaps). The researchers’ hope was that after three days, even the most evil A’s would migrate towards least-evil E’s, who believe “Strong political leadership needed; Trust scientists; Adaptation is possible; Government should act; Climate Change probably dangerous.”

    Movies run the disclaimer, “No animals were harmed during the making of this film”. Our ANU researchers had to be wary that their herd of untamed sceptics might panic and stampede, knocking over tables of wine and cheese, injuring themselves and more seriously, trampling and biting their human guardians.

    The risky step in the study was to discuss with the 35 sceptics the two scenarios about climate impacts… that make Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” movie look wussy…. “For example, the individuals loaded on discourse A – who might be called climate deniers – were not moved by the scenario interview, and 2 left the deliberative process as they felt, in their words, they were not being listened to. Indeed, qualitative data from the interview and forum suggest that not only were these individuals unmoved, they became more dogmatic and belligerent, suggesting that public climate change communication strategies or interventions can unintentionally alienate such individuals further.”

    “Of the 13 [severe] sceptics who started the forum, only 11 finished it… There is uncertainty about whether public processes can attend to ‘deep’ differences (see Dryzek, 2005) that exist around such contentious issues as climate change. If it is the case that deliberation requires participants to personify the ‘free and equal citizens’ of deliberative democracy theory, what happens when participants become ‘angry, confused, demanding, and uncooperative’?…In this case, the Emphatic Negators arguably came to the forum with little intention of embodying this ‘free and equal citizen’…

    Sadly, the researchers concluded that any drift of the sceptics towards warmism, thanks to all the deliberative processes, was ‘rarely sustained’ and more or less no sceptic changed sides. They lamented that although some milder sceptics moved to least-evil E positions, a ‘positive’ result, it hardly seemed worth the huge time and effort spent on the exercise. “In short, if 2 hours seeing (at times quite challenging) climate scenarios for your local region, and then 3 days spent deliberating cannot dispel the myriad of forms of climate scepticism, what will?”

    Regrettably, this project never reached its intended zenith owing to the ‘lack of research funds’ and participants bitching that they were ‘surveyed out’.

  46. “… one possible “threat” was actually an innocent discussion about culling kangaroos, …”

    They are right to be worried… Kangaroos is Aussie for “Climate Alarmists”
    Good thing they don’t know, is Yank for “Taxpayer Funded Global Warming Scammers”
    ;)

  47. How can you be part of the consensus (97% of all scientists…) AND be an under-dog (we are being threatened…) at the same time?

  48. With these fake death threats at ANU we skeptics see the evidence growing exponentially, as CAGWists approach their end game, that the IPCC centric CAGW folks have a disturbing (to us skeptics anyway) pathological fascination with human death.

    John

  49. Now that John Coochey has put to rest the most serious of the DEATH threats, we need to get to the next worst threat, from the emails, in its entirety, evil email #9…

    “Mate ,That report is the biggest load of rubbish I have ever seen.”

  50. DirkH says:
    May 12, 2012 at 12:46 am
    @me, May 11, 2012 at 10:31 pm
    Oh! I always threaten them with one day having to earn their money so I’m guilty. But I understand their reasoning. The perspective must look like death from their pampered existence. No more free shindigs in Rio and Durban!

    I’d originally figured them for wussification personified, but with the information that they shindig in Rio and Durban, risking sudden death from 20-foot sealevel increases when New Jersey-sized floating ice shelves slip their Antarctic moorings and float away — welllll, I now find myself quietly admiring their insane courage…

    NOT!

  51. Steve from Rockwood says:
    May 12, 2012 at 7:35 am
    How can you be part of the consensus (97% of all scientists…) AND be an under-dog…?

    They burrow..

  52. Louis Hooffsteter says:

    May 12, 2012 at 9:09 am

    Maybe John Coochey, (the person who made the “death threat” by displaying his kangaroo culling license) wasn’t aware of Dr. Maxine Cooper’s passion for kangaroos:

    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/71878272/Dr-Maxine-Cooper-Commissioner-Level-1_-Building-3_-9-Sandford-

    She prefers relocating or sterilizing them to control their populations, and opposes culling as inhumane.
    ==========================================================================

    Louis,
    I think you will find this was addressed TO Maxine Cooper, as Commissioner,and was actually written by a Frankie Seymour so it would be unfair to take it as representative of her views on the matter.

  53. I read the 11 emails in Louis Hooffsteter’s comment (May 12, 2012 at 6:51 am). Anyone who claims any of those emails contains a “death threat” is either batty or a CAGW proponen or botht.

  54. Reed Coray,

    at a climate forum that I am commenting in there are a bunch of alarmists who are spinning them away with their now patented moving the goal post and deflection argument tactics.They simply can’t accept the possibility that the University grotesquely overrated the threats and the media played along with this deliberate propaganda for the purpose of smearing skeptics with a pot full of overcooked red herrings.

    http://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/tgeog/anu_death_threat_emails_released/

    and,

    http://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/t5dpz/death_threats_against_australian_climate/

    They are so pathetic these alarmists are in trying to defend the indefensible.

  55. Wasn’t it Nick Stokes who said ‘Climategate’ was just scientists doing their normal daily routine or something to that effect?

  56. I can see why an alarmist climate scientist would consider this a death threat. Aren’t kangaroos a member of the rat family? This man was killing their close relatives!

  57. Paging Nick Stokes…Mr Stokes please make it to the nearest comment section…Mr Nick Stokes…

    Or is he in the moderation cue or something?
    You would think he would like to either defend himself or admit he was incorrect? Nothing wrong with being incorrect, but it hurts ones credibility to not admit being incorrect….

    [REPLY: Uhhh… no, Nick is not stuck in moderation and he gets out as fast as anyone else does. He’s busy fighting off the piranha on his own site. It’s still dark where he is, I believe, so give him a chance to have a cuppa before resuming the death of a thousand nibbles. -REP]

  58. ‘A Wunch of Bankers’

    Or as my dearly departed mother (butter wouldn’t melt in her mouth) learned to say…”Pheasant Pluckers”

  59. [snip - I don't allow this video on my blog - because it is a publicity stunt by a LaRouche supporter who then just a couple of hours after the incident, recorded a propaganda video about it. It serves no purpose except to inflame some people and there is no connection between LaRouche and credible skepticism. I denouce the entire LaRouche organization and will not be a party to promoting them in any way. - Anthony]

  60. The critical part of the linked report is:

    “Media Watch executive producer Lin Buckfield said yesterday one of her program’s researchers was examining reports on the affair that had been carried by The Australian, ABC news, Lateline and The Canberra Times. “If through our inquiries we decide that an item is warranted, we will proceed accordingly,” she said.”

    I won’t be holding my breath. I’ll be very surprised if they decide it is “warranted”, given Media Watch’s frequently demonstrated greenie/alarmist perspectives.

  61. First, I personally denounce anyone sending politically charged or threatening e-mails to scientists and citizens. There’s no place for that in the debate. I’m sure we can all agree with that (even Nick and David).

    I would, however, like to pose a question to everyone. Suppose you are a CEO of a private business in the energy sector, and a prominent climate scientist issues the following statement:

    “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term
    consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for
    high crimes against humanity and nature.”

    As a CEO with a family and a business, how would you feel about this statement? Someone in the government wants YOU locked up for life or worse! WOULD YOU FEEL THREATENED? I sure would…

    I would suggest that for someone who is highly placed in the government to make an ugly THREAT like this would be grounds for immediate dismissal. I’m sure Nick and David will join me in denouncing this scoundrel and calling for his immediate firing over such bald threats to innocent U.S. citizens (who, by the way, have not done anything to warrant such threats).

  62. Ian H says:
    May 12, 2012 at 3:16 pm

    Who is the absolute dick waving the noose around in the following video.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Dono…since SkepticalScience posted it have you asked Mr Cook if he did any research?

    REPLY: See my edit above – Anthony

  63. Paging Nick Stokes…
    Yes, it is indeed morning on Mother’s Day here. When I was last commenting here, we were speculating on what the emails might contain, based on the Privacy Commissioner’s report. The posts here said nothing – I contended that the Privacy Commissioner wasn’t saying that.

    So I obtained the emails and posted them, so you could all see. And indeed, the one that the Privacy Commissioner flagged did contain a story which had been interpreted as a threat.

    Now Mr Coochey has given his account, in which no threat was intended. Incidentally, he was able to do that because of the emails I posted. It would be interesting to hear from the others to see how it came to be seen as a threat, although we probably won’t now.

    It does seem clear that the meeting concerned was designed to set up a culture clash (dumb idea) and succeeded, and in that context someone found whatever they saw scary. As to what happened thereafter, it’s pretty speculative. As I’ve commented elsewhere the CCI was very marginally involved here. It wasn’t their conference; Steffen got a message from it and sent out an email informing his staff, which is the one that got caught up in the FOI request. There will be other ANU correspondence, but it wasn’t within the terms of the FOI request.

    So yes, it does look as though the chain of incidents behind the V-C’s reported statement of June 2011 don’t, on investigation, amount to much. There are still the off-campus incidents described by Beeby here. And here is in incident on Youtube, when Schellnhuber visited my alma mater last year. Stuff happens.

  64. I see after posting above that references to the Melb Uni video are not allowed because there is no connection between the perps and credible scepticism. I agree with that, and indeed there is no connection between any death threats and credible scepticism. Just as there is no connection between, say, Charles Manson and climate science.

    I’d be very happy to support that proposition. The abuse and threats are not a stain on scepticism. But they still have an effect on people in science. So I resist claims that they don’t exist.

  65. So the absolute dick in the video was a La Rouche supporter. That tends to explain it.

    I am glad that the claims of death threats at ANU have turned out to be fabricated garbage, and I am amused to see them caught out. But in rejecting their propaganda there is a danger that we go too far and assert that all on our side are angels. Sadly the world is full of absolute dicks and some can be found on all sides of every issue.

    The true test in my opinion is how the morons and dangerous idiots are regarded by the mainstream on their side of the debate. Are they and their actions repudiated, disowned and rejected or are they accepted or even supported. I therefore see our repudiation of the noose waver as being the most important thing. However I think it would be foolish to pretend that people like this do not exist.

  66. Just as there is no connection between, say, Charles Manson and climate science.

    Nick Stokes,

    I believe Anthony has admitted he was wrong and apologized for the post of his that you linked.

    The question is, do you have the integrity to clearly and unambiguously admit you were wrong and apologize for pushing what is now a completely debunked tale of death threats being made against ANU climate scientists, or will you continue to try to spin, obfuscate, deflect blame, and throw around red herrings in the hopes of keeping the lie alive?

    I know which way I’d bet, but perhaps you’ll surprise me.

  67. wws says:
    May 12, 2012 at 5:16 am

    How I wish they would “eat crow”, but you can’t shame the shameless. That’s another reason why this fight has gone political, and *Has* to be a political, rather than a scientific one. This is yet one more piece of evidence that the people pushing the AGW meme, men like Gleick, are not “honest scientists” but in fact are Frauds, Cheats, Liars, Con Artists, and moral degenerates through and through. Our efforts have to be focused on letting everyone ELSE know what they are and why we know that, not on changing the minds of the moral degenerates themselves. That will remain an impossible task.

    Which brings up a question: Does anyone know of any instance in which a Cli-Sci AGW advocate has admitted any scientific error and recanted or adjusted the original claim? The closest I can come is a few instances of changing the subject/terminology.

  68. tallbloke says:
    May 12, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    …on Deltoid.

    REPLY: That’s really a hateful lot over there isn’t it? – Anthony

    Would that be some of the aforementioned pheasant pluckers? Poor pheasants!
    ;(
    ;)
    ;p

  69. Nick;
    Have you spent even 1 minute investigating or responding to the plethora of explicit and frequently crude death threats (not just implied maybe kinda unwelcome comments) against sceptics, aka “deni-er-alists”? Your concern for victims of abuse rings as hollow as a drained oil drum.

    Frank K;
    If said CEOs of rent-seeking renewable energy companies feel threatened by those who consider they’re just rent-seeking at the country’s and world’s expense, and think they should be charged with causing harm, then either
    a) they’re guilty, or
    b) they feel the courts would be so biased against them that they’d be unfairly convicted.

    Which do you suppose it is?

  70. CTL,
    I’m not pushing any particular stories. I didn’t initiate this series of posts. In fact, I think these discussions are generally unhelpful. Where I come in is where people assert that scientists are lying about the threats. I think that is not true, and is unfair because they are genuinely under stresses that they should not be subject to.

  71. Nick Stokes says:
    May 13, 2012 at 12:04 am
    CTL,
    I’m not pushing any particular stories. I didn’t initiate this series of posts. In fact, I think these discussions are generally unhelpful. Where I come in is where people assert that scientists are lying about the threats. I think that is not true, and is unfair because they are genuinely under stresses that they should not be subject to.

    Since the police determined that there were no threats, and since the contents of the e-mails contained no threats, and since the only thing remotely resembling a threat was a third-hand recounting of a conversation involving kangaroo culling, the only thing left to conclude is that the scientists were lying about the threats — and you are admitting they were lying by throwing the sympathy card in an attempt to excuse them for lying.

    E-mails mocking them for incompetence put them “genuinely under stresses” — what a crock.

  72. Bill Tuttle says: May 13, 2012 at 1:00 am
    Bill, I’ve been trying to get some accuracy here.

    Since the police determined that there were no threats
    There’s no basis for saying that. To the contrary, the 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.”

    All that could be inferred is that police thought there was not enough evidence to sustain a conviction – not the same thing at all.

    “the only thing left to conclude is that the scientists were lying about the threats”
    There’s very little in the emails about what scientists said. The report of the gun licence thing came from a conference organised by the “Deliberative Democracy” outfit. Steffen simply informed his staff and V-C, as he had to. The statements reported by the ABC etc were quoting the Vice-Chancellor. Which scientists do you say were lying? Where?

  73. Nick,

    you need to get off this topic because you are being irrational and making a fool of yourself as well.You have no case to build on and what you have been writing here is causing us to laugh at you.

    You failed to notice that after 11 months the Australian Federal Police has NOT launched an investigation and the University has NOT filed a formal complaint on the matter.It is obvious that despite a lot of babbling by the University on the threats .It has been shown nearly 11 months later that they were B’sing us on the level of the seriousness of the allegations (never shown in June of 2011).

    It took an FOI that the University fought against for months to call them liars and exaggerators of the claimed MANY death threats.The media at the time in their typical one sided bias and the many alarmists ran with it despite that it was at the time UNSUPPORTED allegations of the supposed many death threats.It was unalloyed propaganda campaign to tar the skeptics with undisclosed allegations of a serious nature that normally would have the police all over it if they were as bad the University claimed at the time.

    Privacy Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim ruled here explaining why he released the 11 e-mails from the FINDINGS area of his report:

    “13. The consultant’s assessment relies on the existence of ‘threatening and abusive information communicated to the Climate Change Institute’ in assessing whether release of the documents would cause danger to the life or physical safety of the recipients. As 10 emails do not contain threats of harm against the recipients or the ANU, I consider this report cannot be relied upon to determine whether release of the documents would cause the harm identified in the report. It is not clear from the report whether the emails were viewed by the consultant.

    14. I give separate consideration to the email describing a participant’s behaviour and comments at the off-campus event which the ANU regarded as threatening. In my view, the exchange as described in the email could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat. In its reasons for decision, the ANU stated that it did not report this incident to the AFP because the incident occurred off-campus and it is incumbent upon people who are directly involved in an incident to make a first person report to the police. The ANU advised that University security encouraged the staff member to report the incident to police. I consider the danger to life or physical safety in this case to be only a possibility, not a real chance.”

    http://www.oaic.gov.au/publications/decisions/2012_aicmr12.html

    Ten of the e-mails have NO death threats at all in ANY forum and the 11th is he he ….. off campus.The University was creamed by his ruling and YOU know it!

    Try reading the actual e-mails here and see why the University did not bother asking the police to investigate.There was nothing there to support their lying allegations of 11 months earlier.

    http://www.wakeup2thelies.com/2012/05/10/read-the-so-called-anu-death-threat-emails-in-full-here/

    Here is what ABC stated back in june 2011:

    “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.”

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

    Yet the e-mails they released calls them a liar since it does NOT have evidence of a “campaign of death threats” in them.In fact they never had ANY death threats at all in those 6 months,according to those 11 e-mails they released.

    The University says they were forced to “tighten security” and moved them to an undisclosed location.Yet they NEVER FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE POLICE and never has the police investigated the alleged claims which any ration being would have taken them VERY SERIOUSLY….. if ……. they were true and real.This after ELEVEN MONTHS!

    Recall this revelation that the University failed to act up on that was posted in June of LAST YEAR:

    “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.”

    http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/06/death-threats-to-anu-scientists/

    Nick you have nothing.No Filed complaints.No Police investigations.You have nothing,NOTHIIIING!

    I think you need to give it a rest and get on with your life since you have lost this argument hands down.

  74. well said SunSettTommy
    Perhaps now the V-C could start to answer some rather awkward questions
    and face the press and police about making false alligations?

  75. I fear the culling of Kangeroos is a metafor for the destruction of that specially flinty independence I used to know in Ozzies.

  76. Nick Stokes says:
    May 13, 2012 at 2:59 am
    @ me, May 13, 2012 at 1:00 am
    Bill, I’ve been trying to get some accuracy here.

    By all means — let’s get some accuracy here.

    “Since the police determined that there were no threats”
    There’s no basis for saying that. To the contrary, the 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.”

    The basis for saying that is that the Australian Federal Police were aware of the so-called threats, but since no one at ANU took those “threats” seriously enough to contact them and file a complaint, the police decided quite properly that someone had gotten his knickers in a knot for some reason, but wasn’t genuinely concerned over it.

    All that could be inferred is that police thought there was not enough evidence to sustain a conviction – not the same thing at all.

    Ah — another chance for accuracy. The police receive a complaint, investigate, and then turn the results over to a state attorney, who – being more familiar with the ins and outs of the law than a cop – decides whether or not there are sufficient grounds to prosecute. Said solicitor then takes his recommendation to *his* boss, higher up the food chain, and *he* decides whether or not the evidence would sustain a conviction.

    “the only thing left to conclude is that the scientists were lying about the threats”
    There’s very little in the emails about what scientists said. The report of the gun licence thing came from a conference organised by the “Deliberative Democracy” outfit. Steffen simply informed his staff and V-C, as he had to. The statements reported by the ABC etc were quoting the Vice-Chancellor. Which scientists do you say were lying? Where?

    Duh. The ANU scientists who said that they had received e-mailed death threats.

    And the Vice-chancellor is probably kicking himself for not having asked to see the e-mails in question when he was first told that his faculty members had received threatening e-mails.

    Your turn to answer a question: Why, upon being told that some of his people had been receiving death threats, would someone in the position of Vice-chancellor of a major university *not* raise holy hell, *not* contact the police, *not* file a complaint, and *not* demand 24-hour police protection for them?

    That’s assuming, of course, that the Vice-chancellor considered the threats to be *valid*…

  77. nicky, nicky

    You have really stepped in it this time. Your rep is in tatters. All you can hope for now is that the world burns up really soon.

  78. Nick Stokes says:
    May 13, 2012 at 12:04 am
    “CTL,
    I’m not pushing any particular stories. I didn’t initiate this series of posts. In fact, I think these discussions are generally unhelpful. Where I come in is where people assert that scientists are lying about the threats. I think that is not true, and is unfair because they are genuinely under stresses that they should not be subject to.”

    Nick there is nothing to sustain the story of a death threat, but nothing at all.
    It is not only that but the story was exploited and circulated.
    Furthermore Shub Niggurath makes a point here:

    http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2012/05/12/how-does-one-trust-an-australian-climate-scientist/


    “4) There do not seem to be any death threats.
    Right now, cries of “A-Ha!” by climate skeptics derive mainly from the impact of revelation of facts previously hidden from public view. But there is one group who knew these facts all along – the climate scientists who originally received these emails.
    Even as the spectre of death threats was raised and cynically exploited – perhaps by the university, and by Nature and Guardian, the scientists kept mum. As skeptics said: “the debate may be heated up, but whatever the case, death threats are not acceptable”, the scientists knew there were no threats of the sort, but yet kept their silence. They simply let faceless and anonymous members of the public – i.e., skeptics, be tarred.”

    • We should not forget what the so called death threats amounted to. It was an over dinner conversation largely between the ACT Commissioner for the Environment, who has a major role in the annual kangaroo cull, and a licensed culler. Other persons around the table would have been a party to it and there may well have been explanations to these about the testing program. To do othewise would have been as rude as talking behind your hand or turning your back to someone at the table. Imagine going to the police with that! “The Commissioner was talking to this shooter about the culling program we want him arrested” I think the only result would have been certifiication of the complainant to a psychiatric ward

  79. Nick — relax and take a deep, cleansing breath. Exhale on a plant and listen to it purr (figuratively, of course) from getting a nice dose of life-giving CO2.

    When the piranhas at your place get to be too much, come on back here and we’ll talk about something neutral, such as the inhuman abuse New Joisey– uhhh — Jersey residents must suffer by having the size of their lovely state used as a metric for ecological disasters.

  80. Hey John Coochey

    If we are to assume you are the evil denial sniper that intended to pick off climate “scientists” with your mad sniper skills… any chance you can sue them for libel over this?

    Your “death threat” has been world wide public fodder. I know in the UK its very very easy to sue for libel which is why Mann and other climate nutters have considered suing under UK rules to shut sceptics down in the past. No idea what aussies rules are for that… however if similar to the UK’s you’d probably have a pretty good chance.

    • An article covering the debunking of the death threats was published on p2 of the Australian today (a major national broadsheet) I was also interviewed yesterday by the Sydney Telegraph and the Herald Sun (Not to be confused with the Sydney Morning Herald)

  81. Well, Nick, my wager money is safe; your response did not surprise me.

    Instead of being honorable and displaying some personal integrity by admitting your mistake, apologizing, and moving on, you’ve chosen to write even more lies, more spin, more obfuscation, more non sequiturs, more red herrings, and more fantasies to try to prop up your baseless propaganda.

    I’m not pushing any particular stories. I didn’t initiate this series of posts. In fact, I think these discussions are generally unhelpful.

    Better hope people don’t visit your blog and see what a steaming pile of bullshit that statement is.

    You’ve written hundreds of blog posts and comments — tens of thousands of words, and hours of your time — trying to salvage this debunked death-threat fable for the sole purpose of using it to slander people who disagree with you.

  82. John Coochey,

    Thank you for directly relating to us here @ WUWT your eye witness information wrt one of ANU’s fabricated death threats.

    John

  83. Summary / Reprise

    The thing about CAGW fanatics, like all radical leftists, is that they will lie, lie lie in order to support their position. I’ve seen this again and again – the end justifies the means. Sometimes they just make it up as they go, to support their untenable scientific and ethical stance.

  84. When it comes to the sensibilities of our earnest egalitarian effete progressive journalists in the media some things are just so manifestly obvious that they don’t really require the discovery of tangible evidence. The idea that mean ‘right wing’ ‘deniers’ are out there threatening the lives of earnest egalitarian effete progressive climate scientists is one of those things just like the idea that humans, capitalism, and consumerism are destroying the planet.

  85. I think this is among the most significant info for me.
    And i am glad reading your article. But wanna remark on few general things, The
    website style is wonderful, the articles is really nice : D.
    Good job, cheers

  86. John Coochey says:
    May 14, 2012 at 1:33 pm

    One advantage of being self unemployed (retired) is that I cannot be threatened
    ________________________________
    Do not make a bet on that. I and several of my self-employed neighbors can refute that statement from personal experience. Regulations and bureaucrats are especially useful for punishing those with an independent streak.

  87. John Coochey says: May 14, 2012 at 1:33 pm

    First, John, thank you for your obvious integrity.

    John, with respect, the threats are typically not limited to one’s income, they are (sometimes) to one’s life.

    Regarding threats of violence and actual acts of violence, I do know of some, but all of these were directed at global warming skeptics. Dr. Tim Ball has received several death threats and has gone public. Other “skeptic” scientists who have been the victims of actual violence do not want their names or stories mentioned, and I must respect that – but it has been a very “dirty” war.

    The problem is that the far left has adopted global warming as a sacred “Cause”, to be defended by their brownshirts with vehemence and violence against all intellectual challenges.

    To understand the history of eco-extremism, you may wish to read this essay by Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace. It is no accident that this was written in 1994, five years after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

    http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues/the_log.cfm?booknum=12&page=3

    The scientific failure of the global warming alarmists’ case is evidenced by the utter failure of their predictive record. Not one of their very-scary global warming predictions has materialized. There has been no net global warming for 10-15 year, but this does not deter the global warming fanatics – the shepherds just change their story, and the sheep just follow.

    • I just heard from Media Watch and it looks like they are going to run some sort of story on Monday. The said I was not a central issue but did not say what was. For you who are not in Australian Media Watch is an ABC news program which used to specialise in covering poor or biased coverage in the media. It is now however about as politically correct as you can get especially about AGW. Will be interesting to see what they do with it

  88. I have just seen the story by Media Watch and even by their own standards it was a disgrace running an argument along the lines “because we have not seen every document available (or not) from every university in the country, especially the ANU then we should not comment” Well guess what? An Freedom of Information request has just gone in. Media Watch promised me they would link to a brief note I sent them. It does not seem to be there

  89. In what might be the final rap up some alarmist like the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s Media Watch have tried to focus on a “death threat” not contained in the ANU emails. It mentions chasing someone down the street with burning brands. This featured in an insert in the original Canberra Times article. Its earliest appearance was traced by the Australian newspaper to an ABC blog, the drum and an article by Clive Hamilton, an alarmist Professor of Public Ethics (whatever that is) and was allegedly made to an activist, not scientist. He did not respond to requests for authentication by the Australian. I believe he is currently located at Oxford.

Comments are closed.