Paging David Appell and Nick Stokes again: time to fess up and apologize

“Death threats” story now proven false by ANU Chancellor Ian Chubb

The bizarre now laughable “climate scientists get death threats” at Australian National University has finally imploded completely with the former chancellor Ian Chubb going on record in the Australian today saying:

“For the record, there were no alleged death threats except when journalists picked up the story.”

That puts an end to the issue of there ever being any death threat. There weren’t ever any at ANU, then or now.

Now the issue of how the Australian media took annoying and rude emails (we’ve never questioned that) and turned those into a lie of international proportions will take the stage.

A screencap of the story: 

Well that’s the end of that. Simon Turnill has more at Australian Climate Madness.

David Appell, who went on record to say I deny the existence of my own mother because I had the journalistic sense he didn’t and didn’t believe any of this was credible from the beginning is was recently whining that I’m a “bully” for pointing out the truth and calling him on his own childish behavior in this matter. His reputation as a science writer now lies in tatters, as he’s destroyed his credibility with his crusade of the non existent death threat issue.

Likewise, blogger/scientist Nick Stokes, who fancies himself as being cool and methodical, was completely taken in, and like Appell, seems unable to come to terms with his own quik-set epoxy position that seems to be a product of the tribalism he and Appell share.

They’ve earned a place in climate blog history right up there with “Vermin Supreme” for their inability to accept reality. I expect they’ll be making some sort or wardrobe change/fashion statement soon. In the Vermin Supreme style, I suggest wearing orange road cones:

The latest in Appell-wear, image via Flickr from Wendie Jordan

-or-

They can be men, apologize for their errant and childish behavior towards me and other skeptics on this matter, and move on. I’ll be happy to accept their sincere apologies posted here or on their own blogs and put the matter behind us. Ball’s in your court fellas.

I hope it is the latter rather than the former. Otherwise, I see Josh cartoons in their future.

About these ads

148 thoughts on “Paging David Appell and Nick Stokes again: time to fess up and apologize

  1. Wasn’t there a guy with a kangaroo culling program? Weren’t climate scientists rightfully concerned that their funding might get culled? If that’s not a death threat, what is?

  2. They can be men, apologize for their errant and childish behavior towards me and other skeptics on this matter, and move on…Otherwise, I see Josh cartoons in their future.

    In the meantime, perhaps some savage satire–uhhhhhhh–gentle caricature from Josh will prod them onto the honorable path…

  3. Chubb said he trusted the man who came to him. Which raises the question, who was that man? And is he being disciplined for outright lying to Chubb?

    Aw forget it. Already know the answer to the second question. There will be an investigation and he will be exonerated. Not necessarily in that order.

  4. I hope they act like men as well, but I’ll believe it when I see it. Whenever stupid believers promote nonsense or are caught out telling porkies, they don’t seem to have any shame at all.
    Just look at Ehrlich and his stupid predictions and now he still operates as though nothings happened and not a hint of shame at all.

  5. Quark Soup in a basket followed by Oi!You! Moyhu pie.

    Come on Nick and David, the sooner you admit mistakes and put things right, the less painful it is.

  6. Quik-set epoxy…. Thanks for the midnight chuckle Anthony. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for an apology but I am looking forward to a Josh Lampoon.

  7. Who knows? If you are a crazy leftist living off government grants, with the goal of destroying the livelihood of millions, a bit of criticism might seem like a death threat.

  8. Chubb has once again skated over the real issue. He seems to be saying that all academics need to be protected by security measures like swipe cards because just anyone could walk in to their taxpayer funded offices.

    As a long standing denizen of the ANU, I am mystified by this. To the best of my knowledge, no academic has ever been killed, or even assaulted, in the ANU’s history, because of a dispute about academic issues. Not one. Not ever.

    I discount drunken brawls during/after wine and cheese nights, which are far more of a threat to the ‘elf and safety’ of academics than genuine disagreements about big issues. And, oh yes, there have been quite a few. Sexual infidelity and internal politics (including parking and office space) figure prominently.

    What we see (apart from the lawyeresque sliding away) is the normalisation of the idea that publicly funded institutions are only accessible to those who have been pre-approved via a swipe card. Thanks, taxpayers!

    As for Chubb, he is now the Chief Scientist, whose remit is to justify the carbon dioxide tax. Nuff said.

  9. can we change this

    “Now the issue of how the Australian media took annoying and rude emails (we’ve never questioned that) and turned those into a lie of international proportions will take the stage.”

    to this

    “Now the issue of how the Australian media took harsh but valid criticism found in emails (we’ve never questioned that) and turned those into a lie of international proportions will take the stage.”

    hehe I think it has a more “journalistic” vibe to it.

  10. Chubby meant to set the record straight sooner, but just never got round to it. He should have kept his trap shut. Right, nicky?

  11. Gail Combs says:
    May 28, 2012 at 10:57 pm
    Quik-set epoxy…. Thanks for the midnight chuckle Anthony. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for an apology but I am looking forward to a Josh Lampoon.

    In this instance, a Josh Harpoon is more apropriate….

  12. “Otherwise, I see Josh cartoons in their future.” …

    Aha! A threat that makes mere death seem like the soft option … less embarrassing, anyhow!

  13. Nothing new. Warmists like Appell are liars, cheaters… pseudo-science eaters.
    But most intelligent citizens have already come to that conclusion. Just don’t hold your breathe for Appell to admit anything from under his cone.

    At least Ian Chubb has some honesty to set the record straight.

  14. O PS love the correction they did on the piece.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-11/anu-releases-abusive-emails-sent-to-climate-scientists/4005132

    first correction

    “UPDATE (May 21): The release of these emails under Freedom of Information followed reports last year (see related stories above) that ANU scientists had received death threats. Climate change sceptics have claimed that the released emails contradict suggestions that any death threats were received, but a spokesperson for the ANU says the university is standing by its claims that death threats were received. Questions have also been raised about whether one of the released emails did, in fact, constitute a threat to use a gun, with a person involved in the kangaroo culling program claiming the comments were made by him, and were in no way intended as a threat.”

    It bad but next correction really takes the cake

    “Editor’s note (May 24): This story has been amended to clarify that the specific emails released under FOI were found by the Privacy Commissioner to contain abuse, but not overt threats.”

    Really? “but not “overt” threats”…. how about no threats at all. These guys just refuse to move an inch.

  15. So the whole story was a lie, but the climate scientists wished they got death threats so their wild post modern consensus science would seem more believable. Incredible. Kindergarten science.

  16. “I hope it is the latter rather than the former. Otherwise, I see Josh cartoons in their future.”

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

    That could be construed as a veiled threat. Maybe even a death threat as one may not be able to live with being portrayed in Josh cartoon.

  17. None of this surprises me about the Australian media, in particular the ABC. And alarmists say people like Andrew Bolt are “shock jocks”. Well, that’s just…shocking! This will all be quickly “disappeared” in time for Gillards climate saving tax starting July 1st.

    *whispers* Gillard/Swann, are you taking note of the tanking economy?

  18. ‘What if climate change turns out to be a natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us all’
    So, they decided emails were death threats?

  19. Anthony, you’ve just got to love the BS that revolves around the ivory towers of the so-called ‘climate science’. There are more active stories to report on than there is in world affairs. And the best part is that most of the clowns have been sequestered in their ivory towers and sheltered from any form of scrutiny for so long that they are just wide open for ridicule. They are like a bunch of delinquent little teenagers that are going to have to grow up. When faced with that prospect some are going to scream “what’s up with that!”

  20. “Humble in Victory, Gracious in Defeat” is what should apply here. I do not think demanding an apology is particularly humble, whatever the provocation.
    Having said that…making an apology by the defeated would be gracious.

  21. Like waiting for James Hansen to be fired, I won’t be holding my breath waiting for David Appell and Nick Stokes to apologize. For anything.

  22. David Appell, if you’re reading this, I KNOW Anthony is making it hard for you, but – maybe precisely with that added reason – please do apologize. Short, but sweet, without qualifications and conditions, is best. I’ve been there, done that, and it’s worth it. I do remember your honest and non-Machiavellian reaction to Climategate II.

  23. And in there delusional little world they probably still truly believe they got death threats.

    These people do not deal with the world in an adult way but as play school children, they just will not face reality.

  24. No death threats, but darn I want to see their whole ediface torn to the ground, and I want to see them suffer ignomy and despair at their total gullibility. I want to see their integrity and status ground into the dirt, the whole lot of them.

    I want them to know and realise, deep in their soul, that they have been used ~!!!!!!!

  25. Hmmm

    On 24th May 2012, (5 days ago) professor Ian Chubb unequivocally led the National Press Club of Australia to believe that the “Death Threats” were real and he had acted properly by relocating the scientists concerned. See video of Ian Chubb’s address and in particular question put to him by Christian Kerr of the Australian at 30mins 40seconds of the video.
    Video of Ian Chubb’s Address

    On the face of it, having regard to his reported evidence to the Senate Committee Ian Chubb fair and square and carefully mislead the National Press Club.

  26. Apologies from Appell and Stokes? Why not ask for one from Goldenberg, too, while you’re at it?

    Airborne porkers, 700 yards to portside, 10 o’clock! ‘Ware the dive bombers!

  27. I think I’ll run a book on how long it is before threats against the Team and its hangers-on start to appear. Of course they’ll be anonymous and not traceable back to the warmists who actually sent them. Glieck has shown the way, even though he’s so stupid he got caught.

  28. Here in the UK the AGW campaign is actually paying to forcibly sterilise people in Asia as part of climate control, how long before this sort of crazy arrives at your door.

  29. I respond without great hopes, because my responses at WUWT now just seem to disappear. However, if I’m paged, here’s hoping.

    First, I’d note that having people barge in off the street to berate you in your office is serious business. So the relocation was indeed understandable.

    The question of threats, death or not, has been investigated, as the Australian wished for, by Media Watch. It investigates how the death threats aspect of the ANU story did indeed grow in the telling. But the original Canberra Times story stood up well. As they say:
    “As for death threats at ANU, where did that come from? Not from the Canberra Times. Perhaps from the ANU’s Vice-Chancellor.”
    and go on to probe that a bit more. Meanwhile the report uncovers a lot of other stuff that has been going on.

    For my part, I don’t believe I was taken in by anything, and I think you should quote what I said that I should apologize for. I entered the debate with the WUWT thread on the Privacy Commissioner’s finding. The post said that it declared the emails threat-free – I disputed that. It didn’t, and when the emails were released, I asked ANU for a copy and posted them. For the first time we could see what the Commissioner was alluding to. And indeed there was an email which in his terms described an incident that could be seen as possibly threatening.

    Since then, Mr Coochey has come forward to explain in non-threatening terms how he came to be producing a shooting licence at an ANU gathering.

  30. How can Prof. Chubb say:
    “For the record, there were no alleged death threats …”
    followed by:
    “They were at least abusive but let me be clear… I didn’t read the emails.”

  31. D Appell comes on Real Science and will light up the board with 20 comments in an hour, insulting everyone in sight across multiple posts, seemingly on a search and destroy mission. Nevertheless, it seems many skeptics are somehow enamored with him, otherwise he’d be ignored as they wouldn’t stand for his insults. Here are some of D Appell’s posts over the last couple of days:
    “Of course, it is implied in all denier discussions of the MWP.” [still using the "denier" term, even when talking to skeptics {the gall, really}]
    “You must be another idiot whiner unable to understand the concept of “metaphor.” Do you have a dictionary handy?” [to Stark D.]
    “Did you ever have to write a research paper in, say, junior high school? I honestly can’t tell… As I said, standards here are quite low.” [papiertigre]
    My feeling is that Appell is a warmist with an agenda. He doesn’t go to skeptic sites for his own fun and edification. I think he wants to throw a wrecking ball into skeptic morale. He prods endlessly to incite a reaction, and then goes back to his blog or Scientific American to say how bad us skeptics are. So we lose when we let him in. Look at the type of articles he writes at Sci American, as: Stumbling Over Data: Mistakes Fuel Climate-Warming Skeptics. This is a man who strives to ferret out our weaknesses, and then uses this against us elsewhere. I don’t know why he’s allowed on any skeptic sites, imho. But, I understand, that some might like the interaction.

  32. Quick-set Epoxy and a guy wearing a traffic cone on his head really sum up this ridiculous pathetic bit of over-hyped propaganda. Shame falls of ANU again.

  33. You assume these guys want to get to THE truth of the matter (reality)….they only care about THEIR “truth”, their reality, their fantasy land. They won’t be bothered with facts that don’t support their fantasy.

  34. Australia has a fairly large land area with a small population compared to America, it is inconceivable that we could beat you at anything. However there is one thing that we are beating you at hands down. We have more idiots per square mile than you have.

  35. ‘wayne Job says:
    May 29, 2012 at 3:02 am
    Australia has a fairly large land area with a small population compared to America, it is inconceivable that we could beat you at anything. However there is one thing that we are beating you at hands down. We have more idiots per square mile than you have.’

    I’m not so sure – California surely tips the balance in the USA’s favour!

  36. Slightly off-topic but…..@Greg….The “AGW campaign” is not paying to forcibly sterilise people. As UK taxpayers WE are. And I do not think it is lacking in humility to demand an apology for that. S**tbags, they are. Ought to be ashamed of themselves

  37. Nick Stokes’s equivocation, dissembling and misconstruction of events is exactly what I expected. Typically vile tribalism and closed-mindedness. He doesn’t even begin to recognise that he has done anything wrong. What a pathetic little man. Obviously the product of an age of stupidity, vanity and selfishness.

  38. I see a pattern emerging,
    Chubb says he trusted (aka believed) the man who came to him, Glieck said he trusted the persons unkown who `sent` him the forged document, give me a third example and I`ve got a trend, now all I need is funding, a computer, and some software and I could track the gullibility of AGW scientists, the hindcast would be frighteneing.
    regards

  39. Good luck with extracting an apology from Appell. He might attempt to divert the discussion to a video of someone holding up a noose in front of a non-Australian (let alone ANU) scientist; that person never uttering anything even close to a threat of violence, let alone death.

    As for Nick, I’ve never seen any claims that he needs to apologise for on this subject. Having said that, I don’t read every single utterance from him, either.

  40. wayneJob: We have to have more per square mile…we have California, Illinois and New York, not to mention Washington DC. I think there are more idiots in just those places than all of Australia put together. I haven’t done the division by surface area though so you may still have us.

  41. Nick Stokes says:
    May 29, 2012 at 2:33 am

    my goodness – what a poor excuse for a climbdown!

    ..”And indeed there was an email which in his terms described an incident that could be seen as possibly threatening.”
    AN email? COULD be seen as POSSIBLY threatening? WTF? even now, you are trying to defend the indefensible.

    ..”Since then, Mr Coochey has come forward to explain in non-threatening terms how he came to be producing a shooting licence at an ANU gathering.”
    Oh, and you came straight out and agreed that the ‘story’ was clearly overblown and written in such an alarmist way as to not warrant further defence?

    Nick, on the reasonable assumption that you do indeed have the capability of rational thought – please retrace your steps, and the likely ‘impression’ that the whole STORY left upon you to result in you being in this situation! Note, the word STORY in caps deliberately – as that what it was!

  42. SC-SlyWolf says:
    May 29, 2012 at 2:41 am

    absofeckinglutely!! Perhaps Chubb is looking to be a comedian because those kind of comments are indeed a flippin joke!

  43. Ian E:
    Surely Washington DC would suffice to ensure victory in this particular contest?

  44. @Nick Stokes.
    You do an excellent impersonation of Macavity.
    You should be proud.

  45. Tilting at emails.

    “Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty emails that rise from that machine. And no sooner did David Appell see them that he said , “Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, denier Watts, thirty or forty hulking death threats? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils I shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless.”

    “What threats?” asked Watts

    “Those you see over there,” replied Appell, “in their emails. Some of them have threats well nigh two leagues in length.”

    “Take care, sir,” cried Watts. “Those over there are not threats but criticisms. Those things that seem to be threats are facts which, when they are whirled around by the truth, make the science”.

    My apologies to Cervantes.

  46. “For the record, there were no alleged death threats except when journalists picked up the story.”

    I reckon that’s ducking and weaving – just blaming someone else.. I no longer care if they lose their ..ahem.. “jobs”..

  47. Nick Stokes on May 29, 2012 at 2:33 am said:

    I respond without great hopes, because my responses at WUWT now just seem to disappear. However, if I’m paged, here’s hoping.

    First, I’d note that having people barge in off the street to berate you in your office is serious business. So the relocation was indeed understandable.

    – – – – – –

    Nick Stokes,

    Now you are still imagining skeptic threats toward academics, this time the academic threatened being yourself? Your first paragraph alludes to you being threatened with censorship by our worthy host (Anthony). Your support of academically made-up threats is rather consistent . . . I give you credit for that. But cheer up because incipient paranoia is treatable if you catch it in the early stages.

    Your second paragraph would have us all believe that doors to Post Offices and DMVs (etc) should be locked during business hours because some dissatisfied citizen might want to make a stern complaint in person about gov’t employees. The professors at ANU can dish out complaints but are too milktoast to look critics in the eye? You guys need to participate more in the actual society of normal humans.

    John

  48. Eric Simpson says:
    May 29, 2012 at 2:45 am
    This is a man who strives to ferret out our weaknesses, and then uses this against us elsewhere. I don’t know why he’s allowed on any skeptic sites, imho. But, I understand, that some might like the interaction.

    There are those who set a good example and those who serve as a horrible example.

    Appell is performing his function admirably as the latter.

  49. The endeavour of CAGW Alarmism is SO bereft of integrity that it’ll be staining and discrediting it’s promoters for a long, long time.

  50. Nick Stokes
    “Since then, Mr Coochey has come forward to explain in non-threatening terms how he came to be producing a shooting licence at an ANU gathering.”
    ———————————————
    Seems like you’ve worked hard on that sentence to retain the idea that there was something sinister about the non-incident.
    Mr Coochey didn’t just come forward and explain in a non-threatening manner – he was non-threatening all along. It would be nice if you hadn’t constructed a sentence which sounds like he could have been threatening originally even if his later explanation wasn’t.
    He showed someone the culling license (It is called a culling license, not a shooting license as you have it.) because they asked about it. Maybe if they had been interested in his passing a driving test he would have shown them his driving license too.
    There is no reason to suppose that he wouldn’t have happily pulled the license out if he had been asked about it in a cafe, a train or a library. rather than an ANU gathering – he was just perhaps more likely to get into a conversation about culling at such a gathering.

    You still seem to be struggling to make the whole incident sound threatening. Notably the person to whom he was talking – someone who sounds like they profoundly disagree with Mr Coochy’s culling activities – didn’t inform the police which is what any sensible would have done if they had thought he was even hinting at death threats.

  51. Tom in Florida says:
    May 29, 2012 at 5:00 am

    Tilting at emails…..
    ____________________________________
    Now all we need is Josh to do the cartoons that go with the words.

  52. I seem to remember somewhere I read (might have been on Andrew Bolt’s blog) that there was already a plan to move those scientists anyhow. I could be wrong but if I am not, what a convenient embellishment.

  53. eyesonu says on May 29, 2012 at 12:47 am:

    Anthony, you’ve just got to love the BS that revolves around the ivory towers of the so-called ‘climate science’. There are more active stories to report on than there is in world affairs. And the best part is that most of the clowns have been sequestered in their ivory towers and sheltered from any form of scrutiny for so long that they are just wide open for ridicule.

    The term that comes to my mind, introduced to me playfully by ‘the line’ (literally: assembly line/factory floor personnel) ‘women’ some years back is “Drama Queens”.

    Wise geek has this on the subject:

    A drama queen could also be described as a diva, a neurotic and self-centered perfectionist prone to sudden demands and outbursts. However, a diva is also usually considered to be exceptionally talented, which is not always the case with a drama queen. A drama queen may be jealous or envious of others, which could make any personal failings even more painful and trigger another round of emotional outbursts or irrational thoughts of revenge. In a drama queen’s world, people can be either with her or against her; there are no stages in between.

    From the Urban Dictionary we have this series of user-supplied defs:

    Drama queen

    1. An overly dramatic person.

    2. Someone who turns something unimportant into a major deal; blows things way out of proportion when ever the chance is given.

    3. Someone who angsts about the littlest things, the most unlikely possibilities, and spazzes out about the most ridiculously unimportant matters.

    4. Typically an annoying b**ch who always feels like every insignificant problem in her day is a disaster of Hurricane Katrina proportions. Anyone giving her the time of day is in for an endless session of hearing why her boyfriend is such an ****ole or how she’s fat because she can’t wear size 0 jeans along with an all-day crying marathon.

    .

  54. Nick Stokes says:
    May 29, 2012 at 2:33 am
    I respond without great hopes, because my responses at WUWT now just seem to disappear. However, if I’m paged, here’s hoping.

    Welcome back, Nick. That said…

    First, I’d note that having people barge in off the street to berate you in your office is serious business. So the relocation was indeed understandable.

    First, I’d note that the person who said that the scientists had been threatened by walk-in visitors seems to be the same person who claimed the scientists had been receiving threatening e-mails. That’s cause to reflect on the veracity right there.

    But the original Canberra Times story stood up well. As they say:
    “As for death threats at ANU, where did that come from? Not from the Canberra Times. Perhaps from the ANU’s Vice-Chancellor.”
    and go on to probe that a bit more. Meanwhile the report uncovers a lot of other stuff that has been going on.

    And the “other stuff” going on reported by the Canberra Times and your link to it is…?

  55. kev in uk

    I demand that you retract your comment immediately. If I rearrange your words, turn some upside down and ignore every fourth letter then when I half close my eyes and squint at what remains I consider that, in some lights, and with a following wind, it could be argued that they could be seen as possibly a threat of some sort if the reader were of a feeble disposition and prone anyway to a touch of the vapours. . Shame on you sir
    tonyb

  56. Nick Stokes says: @ May 29, 2012 at 2:33 am

    First, I’d note that having people barge in off the street to berate you in your office….
    __________________________________________
    Well Good ole Nicky just proved how sensitive and sequestered the ivory tower crowd is.

    He should try working as a Quality Engineer, listening to consumer complaints, or as a waiter or store clerk or in any other job where you have to deal with the public. Heck even doing children’s entertainment I get people in my face screaming at me. I know school teachers and child care providers have it happen too.

    Where do these people live anyway? In a Monastery? You get idiots screaming in shopping mall parking lots over parking spaces for Josh sakes.

  57. @glenn thompson

    I am hugging myself with glee that Chubb is so actually …..Chubby!

    The word could have been invented for him. He clearly has no issues with anorexic tendencies.

  58. On the subject of death threats I was just thinking yesterday how really the 10:10 video and that little indian kid saying he knew where we lived and they were many etc is pretty damn close to a death threat. Can someone who knows how to embed put the vids in the thread – just in case some undecideds want to see who’s threatening who.

  59. Dear Anthony
    Please be careful as you have shown that their credibility is dead in the water and no doubt they will squeal and say you, are sort of, kinda making death threats? :-)
    To Mr Appell and Mr Stokes please note: “As empty vessels make the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest blabbers,”

  60. I would agree with many. The skeptic’s position being one of preventing tax dollars from being spent down a climate sink hole, we are, in essence threatening the livelihoods of climate scientiests who believe in CAGW. Job security has its benefits and when removed, leaves one feeling rather exposed to the whims of the buying private citizen. Not unlike private sector jobs I would imagine.

  61. And while climate scientists are whining about phony threats, we have the head of a major climate science group within NASA saying that he would like to see the heads of fossil fuel companies tried for “crimes against humanity and nature.”

    Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist

    James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

    Question to Nick Stokes (though I doubt he will answer) and others: Is calling for innocent persons to be put on “trial for crimes against humanity and nature” a threat? Should the climate science community collectively and forcefully condemn this kind of rhetoric? Should the person making such threats be removed from his position of authority within the climate science community?

    By the way, everyone should read this about the definitions of “Crimes Against Humanity”.

  62. Nick “Mr Amnesia” Stokes has now produced his response: “Death threats – who said anything about death threats?”

    Mr Stokes, please read the previous thread on how scientifically literate people can delude themselves. There can be no cure until you admit there is a problem.

  63. Nick Stokes on May 29, 2012 at 2:33 am said:

    First, I’d note that having people barge in off the street to berate you in your office is serious business. So the relocation was indeed understandable.

    – – – – – – –

    Nick Stokes,

    By that statement you are promoting the idea that the ANU scientists, whose false claims of death threats showed them to not be telling the truth, should now somehow be simply believed about their claims that they were verbally abused by citizens walking into their offices.

    Nick, I suggest you reconsider your apparent continuing naïve belief, without substantiation, of anything the ANU scientists say about being victims of skeptic behavior . . . I suggest you especially should be more skeptical about what the ANU scientists are saying now about receiving verbal abuse in their offices; given the falseness of their previous claims of receiving death threats. Where are the corroborating witnesses to citizens walking into their ANU offices and verbally abusing them? Especially, where are the witnesses who allegedly verbally abused the currently less than credible ANU scientists? This still smells funny.

    John

  64. Anthony – simply outrageous stuff and dangerously simplistic if you want to delude yourself.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/15/another-day-another-death-thre-1/ try this video

    or sample some of the choice material received http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1216_scientist.pdf (warning that language here is rank) from an larger analysis at http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/21/death-threat-denial/

    My colleagues in BoM and CSIRO have told me of the vilest threats made against person and family in email and postal mail, and sometimes in person at presentations.

    Having sat through various anti-carbon tax rallies I’m not surprised – some of the informal audience chatter is off the meter. And the way the audience is whipped up by agitators I’m not surprised.

    In fact why would any of us imagine that extreme views do not exist on both sides of the AGW debate. If you told me that you had received hate mail or threats I’d have no trouble taking your word for it.

    Are you naive enough to think this is not going on – or are on entrenched that you cannot imagine any anti-AGW person never making such comments ? Really ….

    REPLY: I and other skeptics do get hate mail, I don’t whine about it since none of it is credible. The issue is about death threats, of which there were none. I’ve never disputed there were angry emails. I’ll say the same thing to you that I’ve said to David Appell, show me some evidence of death threats. Hearsay on angry Deltoid isn’t evidence of death threats. The http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1216_scientist.pdf is about the same level of stuff that I get, and Morano gets. Morano recently posted an email that reads just like that against him, but it isn’t a death threat.

    People vent when they feel lied to and threatened. Given the Gillard situation in Australia, I would not be surprised if the Gillard administration gets letters like these every day. Maybe an FOIA request will tell. When I worked at the TV station we’d get phone calls and anonymous letters like this from time to time, all anonymous. We didn’t worry about it except for the one time one person signed their name to it. And that time we did call the police. The person backed down, claimed it was a “joke”. We didn’t press charges, and never heard from him again.

    Appell points out that he doesn’t consider comments from anonymous people credible, on that we agree, and some anonymous angry rants sent via email are also difficult to take seriously. Yours included, since your email address is obviously an obfuscation – Anthony

  65. Nick Stokes

    As usual, you mix true and false to continue a misconstruction of events. How can we ever trust you, John Coochey did NOT produce a shooters licence at all, he was asked about kangaroo culling which requires passing a test and he produced his permit to cull Kangaroos – Not his shooters licence to possess/use a firearm, different thing entirely. and heck you have got to be joking when you say “investigated” by media watch…..worse than the UK whitewashs.

    Now for your dissembling and ducking and weaving you should take yourself and a few of your colleagues to view the Heretic play in Melbourne, great acting, and centres around a threat to a UK professor who unfortunately wont toe the warmist line and pervert her understanding of science and the scientific method. You might also learn some climate science, have a few laughs and recognise some stereotypes in academic circles. So well acted its hardly a punishment, but go anyway…

  66. Nick’s transparent untruth about the phony death threats is typical fanatic behavior. When the prophecy is found to be lacking, or the eveidence turns out to be phony, the fanatic simply denies there ever was a prophecy or claims that the phony evidence was never important anyway.

  67. John Whitman says: May 29, 2012 at 6:53 am
    John,
    You recommend scepticism. I would too, to you, and a first tool is, as Willis recommends, just quoting what you are talking about. I’ve recommended that people who want me to apologize for something I said to do that. Just quote it. What is it?

    “false claims of death threats showed them to not be telling the truth”
    OK, which scientists falsely claimed what?

    And Gail:
    “Well Good ole Nicky just proved how sensitive and sequestered the ivory tower crowd is.”
    Well, I linked to a stern condemnation by our host of office intrusions. It’s not just ivory towers.

    Bill Tuttle
    “And the “other stuff” going on reported by the Canberra Times and your link to it is…?”
    Did you miss it? It’s the Media Watch report. It has links to the original Canberra Times report, which it discusses.

  68. epoxology: the science of sticking (permanently) to an untenable position

  69. “They had people walking in off the street…..”

    Can you imagine a climate skeptic traveling half way around the country or world, searching out the campus, then searching out the department, then searching out the office, then the obscure professor and remain unchallenged by security the whole time?

    Ludicrous. If that is the case then ANU students cannot be safe on campus if the chancellor is to be believed.

    I hope ANU has got the camera footage, the subsequent arrests and prosecutions for these threatening street walkers. One suspects the people walking in off the street were really students from the climate department.

  70. Mickey Reno says:
    May 29, 2012 at 5:42 am

    The endeavour of CAGW Alarmism is SO bereft of integrity that it’ll be staining and discrediting it’s promoters for a long, long time.
    ____________________________
    It is doing that to ALL science. With the Royal Society, the US National Science Foundation. American Chemical Society and all the rest jumping on the consensus bandwagon, it will be a long time before science recovers from this black eye.

  71. Nick Stokes on May 29, 2012 at 2:33 am said:

    First, I’d note that having people barge in off the street to berate you in your office is serious business. So the relocation was indeed understandable.

    Chubb said a couple of visitors walked in off the street – not ” barging in” which implies intentional disruption.

    Nick, Read the post again.

  72. @Nick
    First and foremost, thanks for showing up and reading through some pretty insulting stuff. Goes with being visible and speaking up. Clearly people feel the real situation has been misrepresented (alleged threats) and that offends people’s sense of justice. It is a form of emotional theft, I believe.

    I didn’t dig into the why’s and heretofore’s of what you should apologize for and don’t care to. But I certainly remember Anthony being loudly and wrongly insulted for no good reason. That can’t sit well on one’s conscience. I often find his moderating unbearably lenient.

    @Andrew30
    >They lie and they know that they lie.

    What surprises me is that in cases like the CRU’s work and the hockey stick, they know that we know that they are lying yet still they lie, as if there is another audience who still believes them. It means they hold that thousands of interested parties – skeptical climate realists – are not relevant.

    @Pamela Gray
    >The skeptic’s position being one of preventing tax dollars from being spent down a climate sink hole, we are, in essence threatening the livelihoods of climate scientiests who believe in CAGW.

    Relevant to Andrew30 above, I am not convinced they believe in CAGW. There is a large and accumulating amount of evidence that they to not believe it; they are just selling it. The Yamal exposure during the past 10 days is a case in point. The trees were all added into the statistical blender and the result was sour soup so the majority of the trees were left out yielding a temperature hockey stick. It means the Team was fully aware of the realities that a) trees make lousy thermometers, b) there was an MWP and c) there is nothing alarming about the ramping of temperature from 1976-1996.

    To continue to market CAGW while aware that the ‘best and most marketed evidence’ (the hockey stick) was a cherry-picked lie means there is no ‘belief’ save in the warped ’cause’ of the ‘team’.

    Teams of scientists should have no other cause than the truth as far as they are able to determine it at the time. Conclusions are all conditional upon, one could say relative to, the state of understanding that prevailed at that moment. CO2 has a slight warming potential at the present concentration; water vapour has a negative feedback response to an increase in temperature, hence the Stable Earth Hypothesis. Time to ditch the carbon coyboys and get back to improving the lives of the multitudes.

  73. wayne says:
    May 28, 2012 at 11:41 pm
    At least Ian Chubb has some honesty to set the record straight.
    ====
    After he was called on the carpet by the Senate. Did he attempt to correct the newspapers at the time? Where is this unnamed source that Chubb relied upon? Maybe he/she has a much different recollection of events – if he/she exists. Why has this source not come forward or been named?

  74. Struth says:
    May 29, 2012 at 7:20 am
    “My colleagues in BoM and CSIRO have told me of the vilest threats made against person and family in email and postal mail, and sometimes in person at presentations.”

    ==========================
    Put your big girl panties on…..I’ve receive hateful email – because I’m a Climate Realist [ and I'm a kid ].

  75. Anthony Watts: “quik-set epoxy position”

    Nick Stokes says:
    May 29, 2012 at 2:33 am
    “I respond without great hopes, because my responses at WUWT now just seem to disappear.”

    Tom in Florida says:
    May 29, 2012 at 5:00 am
    “Tilting at emails.”

    You gents are good. Almost as funny as “Who’s on First?”

    —————————————————————-
    John Whitman says:
    May 29, 2012 at 5:07 am
    “Your second paragraph would have us all believe that doors to Post Offices and DMVs (etc) should be locked during business hours because some dissatisfied citizen might want to make a stern complaint in person about gov’t employees.

    In December of 2009 I had to make a visit to the local US Social Security Office. At the entry way I was greeted by an armed officer and, I suspect but did not notice, a camera taking my picture. After a short wait I was directed to a booth and got to do business with a nice young lady behind an inch thick sheet of glass. The SS offices fit your “etc” and indicate their better funding, perhaps, than the quasi-govt. and money-losing Post Office and the state-govt. operating DMVs.

    As ‘Ian E’ and ‘wayne Job’ have noted – “more idiots per square mile”!

    Unlike CAGW, apparently “idiots” are a threat to be taken seriously.

  76. Nick Stokes says: @ May 29, 2012 at 7:39 am

    Well, I linked to a stern condemnation by our host of office intrusions. It’s not just ivory towers.
    _________________
    Oh good grief, GROW UP.
    I have had death treats made, it came out in testimony in court because the idiot shot up the house down the street. Same person tried to run me over in her truck. Guess what Nick? The police did nothing except tell me not to rile the person. And BTW that was not the first time for me or for members of my family.

    What I am saying is death threats happen to ordinary people so this should never have been news in the first place. Of the top of my head I can think of at least eight people I know who have received REAL death threats.

    This whining because the public has figured out scientists have lied and are justifiably angry is pathetic. Especially when there are NO real death threats. SO GROW UP

  77. The only threats I have ever heard came from warmists and environmental fanatics, who are hell-bent on giving their lives some sort of meaning and purpose. They see all resistance to the movement as causing the death of millions. It is a short walk, to calling for our demise or banishment.

    It is a shame that these people find no purpose and meaning within their own lives and family. GK

  78. Nick………your resemblence to the Black Knight from Monty Python gets stronger every time you open your mouth. You just are not credible anymore. When you act like a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar (“…it wasn’t me”) how can we be expected to listen to anything else you have to say. You have become the joke. If you want to have a fair hearing you need to start calling things as they are, not acting like some fancy lawyer with a silver tongue (maybe you and Gavin had the same teacher?)
    Are you still unwilling to admit Manns hockeystick was bogus, or was that just another minor ‘flesh wound’?

  79. Gixxerboy says:
    May 29, 2012 at 3:50 am

    Nick Stokes’s equivocation, dissembling and misconstruction of events is exactly what I expected. Typically vile tribalism and closed-mindedness. He doesn’t even begin to recognise that he has done anything wrong. What a pathetic little man. Obviously the product of an age of stupidity, vanity and selfishness.

    ^Repeated for effect.^

    Stokes, any credibility you might have had before this fiasco is gone. Commenters are just about universally disgusted with you and your reprehensible sidekick Appell. If you had any sense of shame you would be hiding under your rock right now, instead of falsely claiming that you are censored here. But obviously, your Momma didn’t raise you to have any ethics. Or how to man-up and admit it when you are provably wrong.

  80. Mr Stokes and Mr Appell
    You are much cleverer than I no doubt, according to yourselves of course, however I knew absolutely that there were no death threats. Why? Well it’s like this see, when someone receives a death threat they contact the police and the police investigate. This didn’t happen now did it? Well lucky for the lie my Kangaroo down ANU that they didn’t make a complaiint, cos they would have been accused of wasting police time?

  81. Nick Stokes: “I respond without great hopes, because my responses at WUWT now just seem to disappear.”

    Nick, are you suggesting that your posts are being deleted/censored? Or just ignored? The former is a significant claim that differs, I think, from most of our experience here.

  82. Nick Stokes says:
    May 29, 2012 at 2:33 am

    I respond without great hopes, because my responses at WUWT now just seem to disappear. ”

    ——————-
    Poor baby!…
    Many of my posts go “missing” here…Instead of paranoia – I attribute it to WordPress.

    You might have a case – if like at RealClimate – your post showed up…and then went missing.?

  83. Nothing to see here boys but lying attention grubbers shooting for a cheap headline in a long forgotten news cycle. The very idea that the activist pseudoscientists behind AGW alarmism are not FULLY aware of using cheap PR tricks to garner attention at critical times in their conference or funding cycles can no longer pass the laugh test.

    That the distinction between private office work vs. academic office hours is ignored by our apologist comes off as naive and worthy of sympathy, but this is by design. Our charlatan is fully aware of such a distinction, one of the strongest that still exists in the West: the Academy is open whereas Commerce is private. Oily masochism may be at work here and a transferred longing for love out onto thousands of dearly earned readers, and again it goes, pushing them away at the one point real affection and camaraderie threaten to take away the sweetest battle of his life. Passive-aggression is strong in this one as he dangles the potential of being a future convert in front of others in public, presenting a challenge. One underdeveloped man on a planet of 6,840,507,003 now has tens of thousands of people hanging on his every word, berating him, blissfully! The environmental policy debate has thus taken a fetishistic and masturbatory turn down the muddled road to obscurity. All those kids who rebel against their grade school indoctrination will thus be rebelling not against anti-science forces but against silly old folk, merely, and justifiably.

  84. Showing someone your driver’s license can be considered a threat to run someone over if you’re not on the PC side of some given issue.

  85. Nick and Appell you appear to have brought this upon yourselves … and this event should have been marked according to OSHA signage rules as follows:

    .

  86. So Chubb, as head of ANU, was happy to let accusations of death threats circle the media – threats of criminal, nay, murderous intent – and did nothing to persue them or investigate? Did he even contact the cops? Was that question even asked of Chubb, even by the coppers, after the event?
    “I’ll just let my man take care of it and hope no-one gets blown away on my watch”.
    My my and he is now the Chief scientist of Australia – not very curious is he?

  87. Nick Stokes says:
    May 29, 2012 at 7:39 am

    John Whitman says: May 29, 2012 at 6:53 am

    Nick Stokes,
    By that statement you are promoting the idea that the ANU scientists, whose false claims of death threats showed them to not be telling the truth, should now somehow be simply believed about their claims that they were verbally abused by citizens walking into their offices.
    [ . . . ]

    John

    John,
    You recommend scepticism. I would too, to you, and a first tool is, as Willis recommends, just quoting what you are talking about. I’ve recommended that people who want me to apologize for something I said to do that. Just quote it. What is it?
    “false claims of death threats showed them to not be telling the truth”
    OK, which scientists falsely claimed what?

    === = = = = =

    Nick Stokes,

    I appreciate your reply. Thank you.

    I was referring to the below quote of yours. I had your quote in my original comment to you. I am pointing out in my comment to you (John Whitman says: May 29, 2012 at 6:53 am ) that you are still prima fascia trusting, without corroboration, the ANU scientists (who falsely claimed death threats) when they are now claiming verbal abuse from citizens off the street. The ANU scientists knew there were no death threats and complied with the story of death threats anyway, that is a clear case of ANU scientists not telling the truth and being now prima fascia untrustworthy.

    Nick Stokes on May 29, 2012 at 2:33 am said:
    First, I’d note that having people barge in off the street to berate you in your office is serious business. So the relocation was indeed understandable.

    John

  88. Nick Stokes;
    “false claims of death threats showed them to not be telling the truth”
    OK, which scientists falsely claimed what?
    >>>>>>>

    Well we don’t know, do we Nick? Professor Chubb said he was told their were death threats. He’s quoted to that effect above. He claims he took the word of the person who told him, but doesn’t say who that person is. So, there are two possibilities:

    1. Chubb lied about being told by someone else, or
    2. Someone else lied to Chubb and he hasn’t said who.

    So I don’t know which scientist made the false claim. Chubb, or the person Chubb says told him that Chubb hasn’t identified. But either way….someone lied. Instead of trying to obfuscate the matter, perhaps you should be just as angered about being mislead as the rest of us and put some time and effort into finding out the answer to your own question, just who is the liar? Pretending that there was no lie because at this point we don’t know exactly who the liar was is as weak a misdirection from the core issues as I’ve seen of late.

  89. I believe it was Nick Stokes who posted shortly after Climategate that all he could get out of it was scientists were just going about their daily normal work as any scientists do; nothing at all unethical or untoward about them at all.

    Nick Stokes,
    Whatever respect I had with you was lost then. This issue just cements it.

  90. Some time ago, Mr Watts didn’t your offices in chico get invaded by an uptight femal antagonist.? Do i not remember correctly that you were very upset by this event?

    More threats to scientists:
    Warning graphic language in emails!

    http://www.readfearn.com/2011/06/emails-reveal-nature-of-attacks-on-climate-scientists/

    I understand there were several incidents at the ANU in early 2010. On two separate occasions, individuals had walked into institute premises demanding to see particular staff members. Both individuals were acting “aggressively”, professor Steffen said. The institute’s offices were on the ground floor with open access with no security restrictions. The institute’s website had also been subjected to what professor Steffen described as a “cyber attack”.

    http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/05/07/hate-campaign-against-climate-scientists-went-beyond-emails/?wpmp_switcher=mobile&wpmp_tp=1

    MIT Climate Scientist’s Wife Threatened In A “Frenzy of Hate”

    http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/01/mit-climate-scientists-wife-threatened-frenzy-hate

    “I have hundreds” of threatening emails, Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University in California, told Tierramérica.

    http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50607

    Dr Wigley what can you tell me about these death threats?

    TOM WIGLEY: Well there’ve been a number of abusive and threatening emails that have been sent to a number of the protagonists here, and I’m not going to mention the names of the individuals but it does include me, and those things are very worrying.

    I’ve been asked not to say anything about the details of these threats but I can at least say that the FBI in the USA and the police in England are taking these things seriously and are investigating the sources of the threatening emails as well as they can.

    And you know, while the investigation is going on it’s really not possible for me to say any more and I’ve been asked not to say any more.

    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2766202.htm

    REPLY: The ANU is a public place, open to everyone, with generally free access. For example, here in Chico, Chico State University is open access, and if I wished to, I could walk right into CSUC and visit any professor’s office at any time. My private office is not a public place, but my own private property, which I hold title to. Big difference. – Anthony

  91. Isn’t it odd how there’s all this furor over threats to warmists, while Green terrorists are actually attacking people?

  92. Nick your integrity dies every time you defend something utterly untrue, The Hockey Stick and the Death threats were fabrications. Lies to influence the gullible. Keep it up, it hurts and ridicules climatology and keeps reminding people who the charlatans are.

  93. i like how chubb blames the journos. is he taking his cue from myles?
    they’d make lovely goats for the cagw ridiculum.

    stokes is like stepping on a snail. one doesn’t feel too badly about his destruction, but grimaces about the slime on one’s shoes.

    unfortunately, this entertainment comes at a price just as the fraud has a cost.
    why do they continue to lie when they know we know they are lying?
    because we keep paying for the show.
    it’s the only growth industry left in america.

    too strong for josh to cartoon: the steer who amputates his own limbs to provide free burgers.
    america, the edible.

  94. No Surprises here the Socialist Doom and Gloom, CAGW crowd will do and say anything to promote their lying agenda, lie’s stacked on lie’s. This is a classic example.
    1. Chubb lied about being told by someone else, or
    2. Someone else lied to Chubb and he hasn’t said who.
    3. The MSM media pushes the lie over and over again.
    4. This is a small pathetic but example of how the AGW industry/movement has operated since day one!

  95. A good headline for this story would be “What Do You Expect form Alarmists?” — or just “Alarmists!” This subtly implies that they’re generally disposed to be jumpy and accusatory on evidence that is slim or nonexistent.

  96. jjthoms says:
    May 29, 2012 at 9:34 am
    Some time ago, Mr Watts didn’t your offices in chico get invaded by an uptight femal antagonist.?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    So, you’re trying to equate something that actually happened with a lie about something that didn’t actually happen? Oh my.

  97. “Threats” of a sort, are everywhere and in every field. I witnessed or was told about a few between employees at a large radio station, one being an exchange between the tower rigger and an electrical engineer. I don’t condone *any* type threat, but what some of the AGW crowd was trying to do was to use those real or perceived incidents as a way of tarring the skeptics. In a way, I think they *wanted* the threats in one form or another.

  98. kim2ooo says:
    May 29, 2012 at 8:06 am
    “It is now clear that the move to more secure buildings at ANU had nothing to do with death threats. The move took place in february 2010, 16 months before it was linked in the Canberra Times to death threats”

    http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com.au/

    Nice find, Kimmie!

    Chubb’s story is starting to look even shakier…

  99. tonyb says:
    May 29, 2012 at 5:55 am
    damn, damn, damn and DAMN! And I thought I’d disguised my threats very well, but you smarty pants saw right through…….!

  100. Nick Stokes says:
    May 29, 2012 at 7:39 am
    Bill Tuttle
    “And the “other stuff” going on reported by the Canberra Times and your link to it is…?”
    Did you miss it? It’s the Media Watch report. It has links to the original Canberra Times report, which it discusses.

    Okay, I read it a bit farther and discovered this: “But the story quoted only one scientist talking about death threats…he was advised by police to install a ‘panic button’ security alarm in his university office after receiving death threats.”

    Police wouldn’t have advised him to install a “panic button” if he’d received a credible threat — unless they’d also told him to have the receiver attached to an armed guard sitting just outside his office door.

    BTW, if you’re interested in trying to earn a fast 500,000 Pakistani rupees, that’s the current going price for my head over here. But i wouldn’t advise the attempt…
    — The Canberra Times, 4th June, 2011

  101. Peter Whale says:
    May 29, 2012 at 9:50 am

    Nick your integrity dies every time you defend something utterly untrue, The Hockey Stick and the Death threats were fabrications. Lies to influence the gullible. Keep it up, it hurts and ridicules climatology and keeps reminding people who the charlatans are.”

    He doesn’t care about his integrity here at WUWT. As long as his mates slap him on the back and cheer him on then he finds his integrity is justified. A different story when his mates turn on him.

  102. “My colleagues in BoM and CSIRO have told me of the vilest threats made against person and family in email and postal mail, and sometimes in person at presentations.”

    50 years ago people whould throw rotten eggs and tomatoes at those they didn’t like. What a bunch of baby girls. Form the Climate Scientist Rugby team and scrum down with some real men.

  103. climatereflections says: May 29, 2012 at 8:51 am
    “Nick, are you suggesting that your posts are being deleted/censored?”

    It’s not just my fantasy. On troll bin moderation, my posts are not acknowledged with a note that they are awaiting moderation. I suspect the mechanism of “troll bin moderation” is that they go straight into the spam bin, from which someone will retrieve them if the spirit moves.

    John Whitman says: May 29, 2012 at 9:15 am
    “the ANU scientists (who falsely claimed death threats) “

    But there you go again. Quote them. Or set out your evidence before calling them liars.

    In fact the thrust of the Media Watch report was that the original Canberra Times report seems to have been based on what scientists said. It said almost nothing about death threats, but did describe an alarming situation, and stood up well. Reference to death threats grew as the story was relayed through the media, and was mentioned by the V-C (Ian Young, not Chubb) during an on-air interview. It may be that the V-C mis-spoke, or that he knew something that we don’t. It doesn’t follow that scientists lied.

    [REPLY: Nick, your posts are NOT being deleted or censored. Extra moderation simply means that your postings are getting the extra attention they deserve. -REP]

  104. davidmhoffer says: May 29, 2012 at 9:20 am

    “Professor Chubb said he was told their were death threats. He’s quoted to that effect above.”

    No, in fact Prof Chubb is careful not to say that. People get the V-C’s mixed up. Chubb was V-C at the time of the staff move, which was queried in the Senate Committee. His statement, of which much is made in the head post, is simply saying that death threats were not alleged at the time of that decision, in Feb 2010.

    Ian Young was the V-C in the academic year 2011, and it was he who mentioned [the nonexistent] death threats in an on-air interview.

    REPLY: added [the nonexistent] There, fixed that for you. You have to get used to saying that now – Anthony

  105. Nick Stokes is dealing with profound, chronic Cognitive Dissonance. Leave him alone.

  106. jjthoms says:
    May 29, 2012 at 9:34 am

    Nice links :)

    Being a fairly good researcher,,,well looked at those links.
    The first two are from Mr Graham Readfearn …WHO uses The Guardians report here

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/06/australia-climate-scientists-death-threats

    You are aware these are the emails that have been debunked in this very post?

    Many of the others listed by Mr Graham Readfearn seem to be referring not to scientists, but to Cate Blachard…

    IMO stretches the limits of Mr Graham Readfearns crudity as he titles his piece “Emails reveal nature of attacks on climate scientists”.

    One goes to Mother Jones….In it Mr Kerry Emanuel states they came because of this video clip he did: “New Hampshire’s GOP Climate Hawks”
    “It makes me feel to some extent disgusted with politics and to some extent ashamed to be an American.”
    “Republican candidates “have either been misled in which case it’s not great to be part of the political system where candidates for the president of the United States could be so misled on such an important issue, or they were dishonest, in which case equally bad in my view: How could we live in a country where candidates are being dishonest about an issue of such importance?”

    “”What was a little bit new about it was dragging family members into it and feeling that my family might be under threat, so naturally I didn’t feel very good about that at all,”

    IF SOMEONE THREATENED MY FAMILY I WOULD NOT RESPOND LIKE THIS:
    “Emanuel decided not to alert police.”

    Another stretch of the limits of credulity.

    THEN we have: .
    “I have hundreds” of threatening emails, Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University in California, told Tierramérica.

    http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50607

    Is this the same person?
    Stephen Schneider: “”To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.””

    Mr Stephen Schneider: seems to see threats different than me.

  107. I’m surprised that Nick continues to engage in epoxology.

    If I understand the situation correctly….

    1. Anthony was attacked by Appell because he questioned the seriousness of the situation.

    2. As evidence began to suggest that ANU had, in fact, exaggerated the seriousness of the situation, Nick Stokes argued against the evidence – implying that Anthony should still feel a sense of shame for originally questioning the seriousness of the situation.

    3. ANU has now officially admitted that the seriousness of the situation had been exaggerated.

    4. Nick Stokes seems to be arguing that the situation was, although less serious, still serious.

    Nick, stop moving the goalpost. Even if the situation was somewhat serious, it is absolutely clear that it was less serious than had been originally claimed.

    You should admit this and apologize to Anthony for ever implying that he should feel any sense of shame for originally questioning the seriousness of the situation.

  108. It’s obvious that a lot of people here need to read the Canberra Times article by Rosalyn Beeby,and read it carefully.

  109. Nick Stokes;
    No, in fact Prof Chubb is careful not to say that.>>>

    Let’s see… according to the article:

    “Professor Chubb admitted that he never saw the threatening emails. However, he denied any of them included death threats as was widely reported. “They were at least abusive but let me be clear…I didn’t read the emails. I trusted the man who came to me.” ”

    Now here’s the thing Nick. That’s what he is saying NOW. But some things don’t add up.

    1. He never asked to see the emails and admits he doesn’t know what was in them AT THE TIME.
    2. He says they were at least abusive…. OK, trust again? Or did he finally read them?
    3. This controversy isn’t exactly a few hours old. A responsible manager would have taken steps to clear up the misunderstanding reported in the news immediately.
    4. His replacement, ALSO said nothing. While Chubb could argue that he was no longer in the position (which doesn’t actually change his responsibility to do the right thing) neither did his successor. His successor appears to not have checked with Chubb, not to have checked the emails himself, or if he did either, didn’t bother to set the record straight.

    People in positions of public trust have a duty on matters such as this. By remaining silent in the face of media reports they claim they knew were wrong, they said nothing. By doing so they implicitly approved what was being said for publication.

    So one again Nick, who lied and when? You can spin this in circles, but either someone lied to Chubb and he is covering for them, or Chubb lied, or Chubb and his successor both supported the dissemination of false information when they knew full well it was wrong. Pick which sin you think they are guilty of, but don’t ask us to believe they are guilty of none. You’ve got both feet stuck in your mouth right up to the knee caps and if you shove any harder you will be in danger of swallowing your arse.

  110. wobble says: May 29, 2012 at 5:22 pm
    “As evidence began to suggest that ANU had, in fact, exaggerated the seriousness of the situation, Nick Stokes argued against the evidence – implying that Anthony should still feel a sense of shame”

    Where on earth do you get that implication from? In all the posts this month the message has been emphatic – the death threats were non-existent. And I was sceptical of that claim. Is that not allowed?

    and so we come to:
    “ANU has now officially admitted that the seriousness of the situation had been exaggerated. “
    Where? Ian Chubb does not now speak for ANU. In fact, he made that very clear in responding to Christian Kerr at the NPC. He said that he felt it necessary in 2010 to move the staff based on information received. He has never said that involved death threats, and he made that explicit at the Senate hearing. But he was not speaking for the later period, and in particular for the period after he left ANU.

    The fact is, as Media Watch has documented, there was inflation of death threat talk as press reports circulated. And the later V-C in an on-air interview seems to have said something about death threats that may not have been well based – though as MW says, there doesn’t even seem to be a record of what he actually said. Beyond that, we really don’t know.

  111. Nick Stokes is now the Black Knight with the bottom half of his torso cut off. Don’t worry, Nick, It’s only a flesh wound.

  112. Irony is that anyone expected Nick Stokes to have credibility or honesty. He’s been a mealy mouth dishonest apologist for the cause from day one. He’ll obfuscate, lie, twist and do any contortions to that effect. He has always been one without any ethics or morals.

  113. David Hoffer,
    One reason why I keep on with this, probably longer than I should, is that people seem to make no effort to get the facts right. There are two successive V-Cs involved, two police forces etc. You need to know who said what.

    Prof Chubb’s discussion with Sen Ryan is now available. He makes clear that he has never alleged death threats, and that his statement about the absence of death threats covers the period of his time at ANU – up to end 2010. He first tries, as I have done, to try to get Sen Ryan to actually pin down what allegation he is talking about and who is supposed to have made it:
    Senator RYAN: I turn now to an issue that has arisen lately as a result of a newspaper investigation and media reports last year, which is the alleged death threats to scientists or staff at the ANU regarding—
    Prof. Chubb: Excuse me, Senator. Can we get the question right first? Where were the alleged death threats to scientists at the ANU? Who made that allegation? You?
    Senator RYAN: Me?
    Prof. Chubb: Well, you just did.

    Then the substantive exchange:
    Prof. Chubb: The original article contained a comment about death threats to scientists in Australia. The journalist had spoken to 30 or so people, she said. Towards the end of the article, she quoted me as saying I had moved some people within the ANU. I was Vice-Chancellor of the ANU, not Chief Scientist, at the time.
    Senator RYAN: I appreciate that.
    Prof. Chubb: As a responsibility to staff, I moved them. That is it. I do not think you can find a quote attributed to me where I said they had received death threats.
    Senator RYAN: Professor Chubb, maybe this is the reason you reacted before. At no point have I mentioned your name in respect of this at this point. I am merely trying to summarise the issue. So I am not mentioning—and I have not, for the record—your name. I have talked about there being media reports.
    Prof. Chubb: For the record, there were no alleged death threats except when journalists picked up the story later that those death threats applied to scientists at the ANU.
    Senator RYAN: Before that story broke, in terms of your dealings with it at the ANU, there were no death threats over the emails that were referred to in that media story?
    Prof. Chubb: While I was Vice-Chancellor there, yes. Senator, the story goes a bit like this. Somewhere early in 2010 I had a representation from a senior member of my then staff, as he was, saying that staff in his area were concerned about emails they had been getting. They had had a couple of visits from people who had walked in off the street. We looked at what we could do. We moved them. Senator, we did not make a fanfare. We did not go public. We simply moved them and got on with our business. I did it then. I would do it today if I were still Vice-Chancellor of the ANU and that individual came and told me that same story. I was pleased that I did it because I was a responsible employer.
    Senator RYAN: Professor Chubb, I am not having a crack at you here. I did not have a crack at you earlier when you reacted to the initial line of questioning. So they brought to your attention emails that were, it is fair to describe, of a threatening nature?
    Prof. Chubb: Well, they were at least abusive. But let me also be clear because, as I made clear to a journalist who asked me in the last couple of months, I did not read the emails. I trusted the man. He was a senior member of the staff and he represented the concerns of his staff to me.
    Senator RYAN: And it was part of the research school or a particular department or faculty?
    Prof. Chubb: It was in a particular building, yes.
    Senator RYAN: And so you did not see the emails. I was not aware of your public comment on that, but I appreciate that. You took his concerns at face value and then you physically moved these people location-wise within the ANU. Is that what you are referring to?
    Prof. Chubb: Well, I did not move them physically personally.
    Senator RYAN: Their physical location—
    Prof. Chubb: It was moved, yes.
    Senator RYAN: That is what you mean when you say you moved them. You did not move them in or out of any particular school?
    Prof. Chubb: I did not drive the truck, no. No. They just moved offices.
    Senator RYAN: But it also was not moving departments or anything like that?
    Prof. Chubb: No. They moved behind a door that had a swipe card access rather than were in a building with about four, maybe five, doorways open to the public.

    So there it is. At the time of moving the staff, there were emails that were bothering them, but no allegation of death threats at that time. There had been intrusions. So he moved them.

    Note that the emails in question where not the ones covered by the FOI request. It was reported that he did not read those but that was for an obvious reason – he was no longer at ANU.

    And note that he specifically says that his comment about emails applies to the time when he was V-C. In fact, from the context, to the period leading up to the move. It is not a statement, as this post would have it, that there were never death threats at ANU.

    Now that I’m not saying there were. I’m just exercising a bit of scepticism. Prof Chubb is not saying what has been claimed.

  114. Tsk Tsk said on May 29, 2012 at 5:31 pm:

    The cone. The poster. Am I the only one seeing it?

    I noticed too, but if I had mentioned that I would have felt obliged to also note Obama and Biden are apparently in the closet.

  115. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    May 30, 2012 at 12:30 am
    Tsk Tsk said on May 29, 2012 at 5:31 pm: “The cone. The poster. Am I the only one seeing it?”
    I noticed too, but if I had mentioned that I would have felt obliged to also note Obama and Biden are apparently in the closet.

    According to Newsweek, Obie is now out of the closet.

  116. kim2ooo says:
    May 29, 2012 at 4:31 pm
    @ me
    Thank You! :)
    PS My above post links
    (five links snipped in the interest of saving ‘lectrons)

    Good grief — and you’re still sane after reading those?

  117. From Nick Stokes on May 30, 2012 at 12:22 am:

    Prof Chubb’s discussion with Sen Ryan is now available.

    Strange link, standard click doesn’t work, need to right-click and save the pdf.

    He makes clear that he has never alleged death threats, and that his statement about the absence of death threats covers the period of his time at ANU – up to end 2010.

    Acually by Chubb’s official Chief Scientist biography he was Vice Chanchellor at ANU until February 2011.

    So there it is. At the time of moving the staff, there were emails that were bothering them, but no allegation of death threats at that time. There had been intrusions. So he moved them.

    Ever the alarmist, eh? You quoted Chubb: “They had had a couple of visits from people who had walked in off the street.” That rises to the level of “intrusions”? That’s what the police say when someone illegally breaks in, “There was an intrusion.”

    And note that he specifically says that his comment about emails applies to the time when he was V-C. In fact, from the context, to the period leading up to the move. It is not a statement, as this post would have it, that there were never death threats at ANU.

    Now that I’m not saying there were. I’m just exercising a bit of scepticism. Prof Chubb is not saying what has been claimed.

    Why won’t you say there were death threats at ANU? The Australian reported on 24 May 2012:

    … It is now clear that the move to more secure buildings at ANU had nothing to do with death threats. The move took place in February 2010, 16 months before it was linked in The Canberra Times to death threats.

    ANU vice-chancellor Ian Young, when asked about the circumstances of the move, said there had been no death threats just before scientists moved offices.

    “The threats that we know of just prior to the move were threats to physical safety,” he said.

    “A more serious threat came some months after the move. Prior to that, however, we know of at least one direct death threat to an ANU staff member.”

    That threat concerned Andrew Macintosh of the Centre for Climate Law and Policy, he said.

    The details of the threat(s) were clearly mentioned by the Canberra Times on 5 June 2011:


    Andrew Macintosh, associate director of the ANU Centre for Climate Law and Policy, said the scientists had been targeted for years but it had worsened. ”I received a few a couple of years ago. It was three letters, with pictures of dead animals and print cut out from newspapers. There was a variety of ways I was going to die. They were going to shoot me, gut me and so on. Since then I’ve had lots of abusive emails and phone calls.”

    Come on Nicky! The current VC said there was “at least one direct death threat to an ANU staff member”. Mr. Macintosh detailed three separate letters. Granted that was a mere “staff member” and seemingly not one of the moved scientists, but still… Why not come out and say there were death threats at ANU?

    And on the timeline, in June 2011 Mr. Macintosh says the letters were received “a couple of years ago”. Chubb was VC until February 2011. Doesn’t that indicate Mr. Macintosh received those letters while Chubb was still VC? Why doesn’t Prof. Chubb come out and say that death threats were received while he was VC? He did say in his testimony:

    Prof. Chubb: For the record, there were no alleged death threats except when journalists picked up the story later that those death threats applied to scientists at the ANU.

    So was he speaking truthfully, in your opinion, because he only referred to the scientists and not “staff members”? How thin do you want to slice this baloney, Nicky?

  118. Nick Stokes says:
    May 30, 2012 at 12:22 am
    One reason why I keep on with this, probably longer than I should, is that people seem to make no effort to get the facts right. There are two successive V-Cs involved, two police forces etc. You need to know who said what.

    Okay — let’s see who said what…

    Prof. Chubb: As a responsibility to staff, I moved them. That is it. I do not think you can find a quote attributed to me where I said they had received death threats.
    Senator RYAN: Professor Chubb, maybe this is the reason you reacted before. At no point have I mentioned your name in respect of this at this point. I am merely trying to summarise the issue. So I am not mentioning—and I have not, for the record—your name. I have talked about there being media reports.
    Prof. Chubb: For the record, there were no alleged death threats except when journalists picked up the story later that those death threats applied to scientists at the ANU.

    No threats? Odd – Ian Young said that the scientists were moved *because* of the threats. And they were moved while Chubb was Vice-chancellor.

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

    Prof Chubb’s discussion with Sen Ryan is now available. He makes clear that he has never alleged death threats, and that his statement about the absence of death threats covers the period of his time at ANU – up to end 2010.

    Well, all righty, then. Let’s go back to pre-2010 when Chubb *was* the Vice-chancellor: “Claims prominent climate change scientists had recently received death threats have been revealed as an opportunistic ploy, with the Australian National University admitting that they occurred up to five years ago. Only two of ANU’s climate change scientists allegedly received death threats, the first in a letter posted in 2006-2007 and the other an offhand remark made in person 12 months ago…” My bolding.

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/carbon-death-threats-go-cold/story-e6freuzr-1226071996499

    So, to recap: Chubb claims he moved the scientists because they were concerned, and there were no death threats during his tenure. Yet in 2011, we see a news report that ANU had been hyping that at least one *alleged* death threat arrived by mail sometime in the 2006-2007 time frame, which *was* during his tenure. And Ian Young stated that the scientists had been moved because of concern over the *alleged* death threats.

    *sitting back to make popcorn*

  119. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: May 30, 2012 at 4:11 am
    “Why won’t you say there were death threats at ANU? “

    Why won’t you? Or do you?
    Chubb’s reference to death threats (non-existent) is clearly in the context that he is being asked about – the move of the CCI staff members. His previous statement is:
    “As a responsibility to staff, I moved them. That is it. I do not think you can find a quote attributed to me where I said they had received death threats.”

    And Bill Tuttle:
    “there were no death threats during his tenure.”
    Again it is clear that he is responding to questions about the move.

    As to the ABC report, that was queried by Media Watch. They seem to have got the time sequence wrong. In fact, if you read carefully, Ian Young is <not quoted as saying that the scientists were moved because of death threats. So
    “And Ian Young stated that the scientists had been moved because of concern over the *alleged* death threats. “
    No, he didn’t.

  120. Nick Stokes says:
    May 30, 2012 at 5:08 am
    And Bill Tuttle: “there were no death threats during his tenure.”
    Again it is clear that he is responding to questions about the move.

    No, he quite clearly stated that there were no death threats while he was Vice-chancellor. Senator RYAN: Before that story broke, in terms of your dealings with it at the ANU, there were no death threats over the emails that were referred to in that media story?
    Prof. Chubb: While I was Vice-Chancellor there, yes.

    Neither Ryan nor Chubb were takining about the move — the subject was the threats, and Chubb stated there were no threats during his tenure.

    As to the ABC report, that was queried by Media Watch. They seem to have got the time sequence wrong.

    It’s your unsupported opinion that the ABC story was wrong on the time frame.

    In fact, if you read carefully, Ian Young is <not quoted as saying that the scientists were moved because of death threats. So
    “And Ian Young stated that the scientists had been moved because of concern over the *alleged* death threats. “
    No, he didn’t.

    “At the time of the reports, vice-chancellor Ian Young denounced what he called intolerable threats against his scientists. ‘Climate change staff approached university management about verbal and written harassment. The university acted to move them to more secure offices’.”

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

    and

    “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.”

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

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

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/climate-scientists-claims-of-email-death-threats-go-up-in-smoke/story-e6frgcjx-1226345224816

    So, Chubb stated that the scientists were concerned, so he moved them, and you’re claiming that Young said that wasn’t the reason Chubb moved them.

    Yup. Got it.

  121. From Nick Stokes on May 30, 2012 at 5:08 am:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: May 30, 2012 at 4:11 am
    “Why won’t you say there were death threats at ANU? “

    Why won’t you? Or do you?
    Chubb’s reference to death threats (non-existent) is clearly in the context that he is being asked about – the move of the CCI staff members. His previous statement is:
    “As a responsibility to staff, I moved them. That is it. I do not think you can find a quote attributed to me where I said they had received death threats.”

    So you are supporting the weaseling? You provided the link to the testimony that had it. Here it is with bold added:

    Senator RYAN: I turn now to an issue that has arisen lately as a result of a newspaper investigation and media reports last year, which is the alleged death threats to scientists or staff at the ANU regarding—

    Prof. Chubb: Excuse me, Senator. Can we get the question right first? Where were the alleged death threats to scientists at the ANU? Who made that allegation? You?

    Senator RYAN: Me?

    Prof. Chubb: Well, you just did.

    Senator RYAN: Sorry, I apologise if I am careless with my words.

    Prof. Chubb: Okay.

    Senator RYAN: I am trying to summarise a legal document.

    Prof. Chubb: There is a line, Senator, which we should not cross.

    Senator RYAN: Sorry?

    Prof. Chubb: There is a line we should not cross.

    Senator RYAN: Yes, I know.

    Prof. Chubb: That is good.

    Senator STERLE: Woops!

    Senator RYAN: No woops on my part, Senator Sterle.

    CHAIR: Order! Senator Sterle!

    Senator RYAN: There were media stories about alleged death threats to scientists at the ANU.

    CHAIR: Known very well to you.

    Prof. Chubb: No.

    Senator RYAN: They were not?

    Prof. Chubb: The original article contained a comment about death threats to scientists in Australia. The journalist had spoken to 30 or so people, she said. Towards the end of the article, she quoted me as saying I had moved some people within the ANU. I was Vice-Chancellor of the ANU, not Chief Scientist, at the time.

    Senator RYAN: I appreciate that.

    Prof. Chubb: As a responsibility to staff, I moved them. That is it. I do not think you can find a quote attributed to me where I said they had received death threats.

    Senator RYAN: Professor Chubb, maybe this is the reason you reacted before. At no point have I mentioned your name in respect of this at this point. I am merely trying to summarise the issue. So I am not mentioning— and I have not, for the record—your name. I have talked about there being media reports.

    Prof. Chubb: For the record, there were no alleged death threats except when journalists picked up the story later that those death threats applied to scientists at the ANU.

    Senator RYAN: Before that story broke, in terms of your dealings with it at the ANU, there were no death threats over the emails that were referred to in that media story?

    Prof. Chubb: While I was Vice-Chancellor there, yes. (…)

    So there it is, quite a clever weaseling. The 5 June 2011 Canberra Times piece clearly said there was a death threat. But it was a staff member at ANU who was targeted. Then when Chubb gave his testimony, he quickly twisted the questioning to focus only on the scientists. So although death threats were received at ANU, as confirmed by the later VC Ian Young, Chubb got off saying with a straight face that there were no death threats during his tenure because he was only talking about the scientists.

    For added intrigue, as you noted the moved personnel were from ANU’s Climate Change Institute. Mr. Macintosh, whom Ian Young has confirmed did receive at least one death threat, the mere staff member, belonged to ANU’s Centre for Climate Law and Policy, which is part of ANU’s College of Law.

    So how come the CCI people got moved to more secure offices, while the person (and his department) that got a verified-by-VC death threat wasn’t moved? Is a climate scientist more valuable than a lawyer?

  122. Nick Stokes says:
    May 29, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    John Whitman says: May 29, 2012 at 9:15 am
    “the ANU scientists (who falsely claimed death threats) “

    But there you go again. Quote them. Or set out your evidence before calling them liars.

    – – – – – – – –

    Nick Stokes,

    Appreciate keeping the dialog alive.

    There is one fact that cannot be in dispute. The ANU scientists who received the emails knew they were not death threats. So they knew the truth was not being told about the emails when the ANU admin and MSM started telling lies about the emails being death threats. When the ANU scientists when along with the lie they became liars.

    The ANU scientists saw the ANU’s administration’s story and the media storm rage around the world for an extended period. The ANU scientists saw clear statements that they had received death threats, the statement of their death threats were openly discussed as an established fact by the ANU and the media for an extended period of time. You say quote them . . . yet we now know the emails did not contain death threats (info commissioner’s report) and the ANU scientists knew when they received them that the emails did not contain death threats.

    Now why should there be any credibility to the ANU scientist’s current story of verbal abuse in their offices by citizens from the street unless there is plentiful corroborating evidence from the alleged verbal abusers and other witnesses?

    John

  123. Nick Stokes says:
    May 29, 2012 at 6:31 pm

    In all the posts this month the message has been emphatic – the death threats were non-existent. And I was sceptical of that claim. Is that not allowed?

    Do you agree that the seriousness of the situation had been exaggerated? Yes or No?

    The fact is, as Media Watch has documented, there was inflation of death threat talk as press reports circulated. And the later V-C in an on-air interview seems to have said something about death threats that may not have been well based – though as MW says, there doesn’t even seem to be a record of what he actually said. Beyond that, we really don’t know.

    Certainly, you seem to be implying that the seriousness of the situation had been exaggerated. Admit it.

  124. John Whitman says: May 30, 2012 at 7:46 am
    “The ANU scientists who received the emails knew they were not death threats. So they knew the truth was not being told about the emails when the ANU admin and MSM started telling lies about the emails being death threats. “

    “ANU scientists” is not an organism. It is a rather large collection of individuals. Each scientist knows what is in his email, but not in others. No ANU scientist was in a position to know that no other scientists had received death threats (if true).

    wobble says: May 30, 2012 at 8:17 am

    “Do you agree that the seriousness of the situation had been exaggerated? Yes or No?”
    By whom? Yes, I’ve said that the Media Watch report traces how a tangential reference to death threats in the original Canberra Times report was expanded in the derivative media reports, without apparent justification. This seems to have lead to a serious situation being mis-characterized.

    And Bill Tuttle, KDK,
    Reference to the earlier incident is a red herring. If you look at Chubb’s statement in context he says:
    Prof. Chubb: As a responsibility to staff, I moved them. That is it. I do not think you can find a quote attributed to me where I said they had received death threats.
    Senator RYAN: …
    Prof. Chubb: For the record, there were no alleged death threats except when journalists picked up the story later that those death threats applied to scientists at the ANU.

    His “for the record” statement, trumpeted in this post, is clearly referring to the staff that were moved.

    However, KDK,
    “So how come the CCI people got moved to more secure offices, while the person (and his department) that got a verified-by-VC death threat wasn’t moved?”
    There’s no indication that the earlier person did not already have keycard security, which is common at ANU. In fact, the Law building would be a very safe place.

  125. Nick Stokes says:

    This seems to have lead to a serious situation being mis-characterized.

    Do you agree that the seriousness of the situation had been exaggerated (regardless of who did the exaggerating)? Or, are you going to refuse to admit this?

  126. Nick Stokes says:
    May 30, 2012 at 11:34 am

    John Whitman says: May 30, 2012 at 7:46 am
    “The ANU scientists who received the emails knew they were not death threats. So they knew the truth was not being told about the emails when the ANU admin and MSM started telling lies about the emails being death threats. “

    “ANU scientists” is not an organism. It is a rather large collection of individuals. Each scientist knows what is in his email, but not in others. No ANU scientist was in a position to know that no other scientists had received death threats (if true).

    = = = = = = =

    Nick Stokes,

    You actually claim the ANU scientists, whose emails were extensively reported worldwide over an extended period of time by ANU admin and MSM to contain ‘death threats’, did not know that their own emails actually did not contain death threats. Also, you actually claim those ANU scientists did not know that it was their emails that were being referred to in the alarming ANU admin and MSM reports of ‘death threat’ emails; those reports being made worldwide over an extended period of time.

    The ANU scientists who received the ‘death threat’ emails knew they were not death threats and said NOTHING publically during the PR blitz on the ‘death threat’ emails that was supported by ANU admin and the MSM. That makes them liars in a chain of lying.

    Their current story about being verbally abused by people off the street cannot be credible without extensive corroboration by the people who allegedly abused them verbally.

    John

    • Nick, this would be so much easier if you’d simply admit that:

      1. There were no death threats
      2. You were taken in by the lies ABC promoted
      3. You are thus defending an indefensible position

      You are now acting like Bill Clinton arguing the definition of what “is” is. Everybody else (well excerpt your cohort in gullibility, the feckless David Appell who won’t touch the issue now) sees that you’ve lost this argument.

      Can you really be this dense? C’mon you are a smart guy, act like it.

      If you want to continue, please post a photo for Josh, so we can get the parody cartoon accurate. We already have picture of Appell.

  127. Anthony,
    I’m sorry that I took some time to see this – I had thought the thread had become inactive.

    I have asked above and would ask again – if you think I have said something I should apologize for, you should quote it. Say what it is. You have not been doing that.

    You say I was taken in by the ABC report? Where? I don’t believe I have said anything that relies on it. I have quoted above, favorably, the Media Watch report, which is quite critical of the ABC report, and has in fact prompted some corrections.

    Generally, despite what you have been saying, I have not been affirming the existence of death threats at ANU. I have been sceptical of your case that there were none. For my part, I don’t know, and have never claimed to.

    I think you have been taken in by spurious reports in the Australian. In your first offering of crow pie, where you quoted a report which merely repeated a year-old statement that the ANU had not reported the licence incident to police (as I had acknowledged). A report which had furthermore foolishly contacted the wrong police force (ACT Policing).

    And in this latest post, you have, via the Australian, taken Prof Chubb’s statement out of context. It’s linked here:
    Prof. Chubb: As a responsibility to staff, I moved them. That is it. I do not think you can find a quote attributed to me where I said they had received death threats.
    Senator RYAN: Professor Chubb, maybe this is the reason you reacted before. At no point have I mentioned your name in respect of this at this point. I am merely trying to summarise the issue. So I am not mentioning—and I have not, for the record—your name. I have talked about there being media reports.
    Prof. Chubb: For the record, there were no alleged death threats except when journalists picked up the story later that those death threats applied to scientists at the ANU.

    He is being quizzed about a specific allegation. He says emphatically that it was not he who said that the staff were moved (Feb 2010) in response to death threats. Sen Ryan asks him to summarize the issue. At that point he says:
    “For the record, there were no alleged death threats except… “

    He’s very clearly referring to that incident, not death threats in general.

    Now I haven’t been claiming that there were ANU death threats – again I just don’t know. I’m just pointing to inadequacies in your case. I have agreed that the gun licence incident has been satisfactorily explained. I note that the ANU V-C seems to be still saying that there were death threats. I make no judgment.

    If you want a photo of me, googling ‘”Nick Stokes” CSIRO’ should turn up something.

    REPLY:
    Ok thanks. Next time I’ll suggest 50 words or less…this reads like a novel. Your perception of being “taken in” obviously doesn’t jibe with that of others here.

    At your suggestion, I did find this. http://www.cmis.csiro.au/Nick.Stokes/index.htm – Anthony

Comments are closed.