Pathological exaggerators caught on “death threats”: How 11 rude emails became a media blitz
UPDATE2: 5/3/12 Simon Turnill reports that there’s a new story in the Australian saying that the police were never contacted, indicating that the ANU didn’t even take the non-existent “death threats” seriously enough to even report it! David Appell looks even dumber now.
WUWT readers may recall the uproar in the alarmosphere and media over this…well, just like Peter Gleick and Fakegate, this was another “manufactured” claim against skeptics with not a single document to back it up then. An adjudicate looking at the actual documents, has ruled they “do not contain threats to kill”.
In Australia the ABC reported the “scare” this way in June 2011:
Death threats sent to top climate scientists
Several of Australia’s top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security.
Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research.
Vice-chancellor Professor Ian Young says the scientists have received large numbers of emails, including death threats and abusive phone calls, threatening to attack the academics in the street if they continue their research.
He says it has been happening for the past six months and the situation has worsened significantly in recent weeks. (source)
As did Nature, and The Guardian in full alarm mode bloviation.
I get word from Simon at Australian Climate Madness of this breaking development. It seems the “death threats” against climate scientists are nothing but hot air, and alarmist David Appell is now a confirmed idiot for taking me to task (and citing my deceased mother in his argument) over my not getting too excited about the whole trumped up story.
Watts Still Denying the Death Threats – Quark Soup by David Appell
This claim stunk from the beginning for lack of credible evidence, as I pointed out then when I told Appell to take his concerns elsewhere* and tossed his sorry butt off WUWT for good.
Appell has this on his website:
Rule #1: You can never ask too many questions.
But apparently Appell didn’t follow his own advice in this incident and go to the length of FOIA questions that Simon did. Give Simon a round of applause and Appell some well deserved raspberries. – Anthony
============================================================
Simon writes:
Christian Kerr at The Australian reports on my ongoing efforts to obtain, from the Australian National University, copies of emails to climate scientists containing death threats, and a recent Privacy Commissioner ruling that shows that none of the documents produced contain such threats:
Climate scientists’ claims of email death threats go up in smoke
CLAIMS that some of Australia’s leading climate change scientists were subjected to death threats as part of a vicious and unrelenting email campaign have been debunked by the Privacy Commissioner.
Timothy Pilgrim was called in to adjudicate on a Freedom of Information application in relation to Fairfax and ABC reports last June alleging that Australian National University climate change researchers were facing the ongoing campaign and had been moved to “more secure buildings” following explicit threats.
In a six-page ruling made last week, Mr Pilgrim found that 10 of 11 documents, all emails, “do not contain threats to kill” and the other “could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat”.
Chief Scientist Ian Chubb, who was the ANU’s vice-chancellor at the time, last night admitted he did not have any recollection of reading the emails before relocating the university’s researchers. “I don’t believe I did,” Professor Chubb told The Australian.
Instead, he said he had responded “as a responsible employer”.
“I had a bunch of concerned staff and they thought they should be moved to a more secure place so I moved them,” he said.
“With hindsight, we can say nobody chased them down. What do you do?”
The FOI application was lodged by Sydney climate blogger Simon Turnill. It requested the release of “emails, transcript of telephone calls or messages that contained abuse, threats to kill and/or threats of harm to the recipient” sent to six staff members of the ANU’s Climate Change Institute. His request resulted in the discovery of the 11 documents.
The university refused to release the documents, citing a clause in the Freedom of Information Act that exempts documents that “would, or could reasonably be expected to … endanger the life or physical safety of any person” from disclosure.
Mr Turnill appealed against the decision.
In response to the appeal, Mr Pilgrim found 10 documents did not contain threats to kill or threats of harm.
Mr Pilgrim said of the 11th, a further email offering an account of an exchange that occurred at an off-campus event sponsored by members of the Climate Change Institute and other bodies: “I consider the danger to life or physical safety in this case to be only a possibility, not a real chance.”
…
Finally, after a long wait, on 26 April 2012, the Privacy Commissioner ruled in my favour. The decision is available here. In respect of danger to life, the Commissioner wrote:
15. The question is how release of the documents could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any person. In other words, the question is whether release of the documents could be expected to create the risk, not whether the documents reflect an existing credible threat. Even if the threats were highly credible, the question would be how release of the documents would add to the expected threat.
16. In my view, there is a risk that release of the documents could lead to further insulting or offensive communication being directed at ANU personnel or expressed through social media. However, there is no evidence to suggest disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, endanger the life or physical safety of any person.
17. Therefore I consider that the 11 documents are not exempt under s 37(1)(c).
===========================================================
Full story here: http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/05/anu-death-threat-claims-debunked-the-australian/
ADDED – Here’s Appell, calling us all demented because we aren’t alarmed:
And this comment on WUWT:
David Appell
david.appell@xxxx
The death threats against climate scientists have been widely acknowledged by several of them and reported on by many journalists. The Guardian, in particular, has seen them. One scientist had a dead animal dumped on their doorstep, according to ABC News. Some of the threats have been reported to the FBI.
It is pernicious, obnoxious, and dangerous for people here, especially Anthony Watts, to claim that these threats exist do not exist. It is of a kind, and only a step from being complicit.
And here, he uses an ugly caricature of me to make his point:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2011/07/looks-like-watts-is-having-second.html
He writes:
Denying these threats as Watts and his minions (microWatts?) do is despicable, and it is dangerous. They have taken this discussion into a very dangerous place, and innocent people are being targeted simply because they are doing their jobs as best they can and have come to a scientific conclusion with implications that some people do not like. It’s craven, truly craven.
* I can’t publish what I really want to say about David Appell, lest I violate my own blog policy.
Dead Animals? A horse’s head?… or did a bird decide to expire on the porch?
Mike says: May 2, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Vice-chancellor Professor Ian Young says the scientists have received large numbers of emails, including death threats and abusive phone calls, threatening to attack the academics in the street if they continue their research.
He says it has been happening for the past six months and the situation has worsened significantly in recent weeks.
You know, there is no indication that death threats came in person…. Nor is there evidence something came at all, and there were no police complaints…just a press release. Eleven e-mails in six months? That really sounds like a truly “worsening situation”. Hell, I get six or seven e-mails from students each semester suggesting that if I don’t give them an extension on their term papers they’ll beat up in the parking lot and give me a bad review on ratemyprofesor.com. OOOhhhh!!!!
After telling so many lies, what is another one more or less?
Once a liar, always a liar.
.
Its the beginning of the end of climate alarmism as a political force in Australia. The Australian Labor Party now has a full blown revolt in its parliamentary ranks over the greatest public policy folly in the history opf the Commonwealth – the carbon tax. The present Prime Minister Gillard will be replaced within four weeks and the climate alarmism policy will be either abandoned or emasculated. This revolt in the Labor Party was led by coal miners, steelworkers and the ignored people who have voted ALP all their lives. The elitist labour aristocracy and their green allies who imposed this policy from above are being exposed every day for the lying, dishonourable scum they are. I dont apologise for the use of that word. They lied, intimidated and threatened the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of hard working Australians on their path to imposing a scientifically flawed and politically corrupt policy. It wont save them at the next election. Too little too late. But my god its bracing to see the rats jumping the sinking ship..
It appears hyperbole and being easily spooked in all things and not just climate ‘projections’, aka prophesy, are the prerequisites, or the pathology for being a Climate scientist of the AGW faith!
Nick’s comments are illuminating.
I just wish that he had the same “zeal” in questioning some of the claims made about CAGW.
And totally OT, but has anyone been reading Keith Kloor’s site recently? Honestly if he keeps this up AW may have to promote him to lukewarmer.
And then there are the real threats carried out in the name of climate alarmism:
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2012/04/and-we-climate-skeptics-get-called-evil.html
Mike says:
May 2, 2012 at 6:29 pm
” I remember one time when you were upset that someone came to your house to confront you on your views. You were right to be concerned.”
==============
Yep, and you never know what might be waiting for you:
connolly says:
May 2, 2012 at 7:00 pm
I have a lot of good Aussie mates. I’ll be joining them for a celebratory beer or three the day Gillard gets her just desserts.
The death threats against climate scientists have been widely acknowledged by several of them and reported on by many journalists. The Guardian, in particular, has seen them.
In other words: It’s true because a consensus of experts say it is.
Whenever people claim to have received threats of violence by mail, email, phone, etc. I ask if they’ve reported the matter to police. Only the police are able to lawfully deal with such matters.
If no such report has been made or is about to be made, then I dismiss the claim as hype.
People will make claims in conversation, but putting the claims into an official report presents the hurdle of possible repercussions for false reports which few dare to leap if their claims cannot be substantiated.
Nick Stokes, come on, be honest with yourself. Don’t you think that if there were any serious, credible death threats, those of the CAGW cabal wouldn’t have been falling over each other to release them? So desperate are they to discredit sceptics, they will quite happily manufacture smears (Gliek), yet they become all coy when supposedly in possession of hard evidence of intimidation by us semi literate, right-wing, creationist, science-hating denialist nut jobs? Right. Though I’d miss them if they stopped, the defences of manipulative, self serving and hubristic liars you spin here are becoming more half hearted every time. One might imagine you were paid by an NGO to post here, but have little faith in your own words. If so, please step it up a bit, I’d like to see my money used to better effect.
J Burns
Mike says:
May 2, 2012 at 6:29 pm
“The allegation is that the death threats and threats of physical attack were made by phone and in person. ”
Any source to back up your allegation?
Jimmy Haigh says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 2, 2012 at 7:26 pm
Oops. I’ve just realised that some may read my last comment as a threat. It is not.
>> “could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat”.
One such strongly worded letter was found to contain this threatening insult….
“Your mother is a hampster and your father smelt of elderberries!”
Oh, the horror!
Anthony,
“Plus they never even bother to do an investigation at ANU”
How do you know? It’s a large university, and has a security staff. The fact that the V-C didn’t personally read the emails doesn’t mean they weren’t investigated.
REPLY: Because it is a fact.
The Australian Federal Police says it is aware of the issue, but there is no investigation underway.
last line here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-04/death-threats-sent-to-top-climate-scientists/2745536
And this was confirmed by Simon in his independent investigation:
I contacted the ACT police media office about this matter and they confirmed no complaint had been received and therefore no action in respect of the alleged threats had been taken.
Really Nick, stop smoking whatever it is that’s rotting your reading comprehension and cognitive abilities. – Anthony
Nick Stokes says:
“Well, I think even just one threat, even if possibly veiled, demands a precautionary response.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I agree. Send me monies for a pair of shoes, I just have to have, OR I’LL HOLD MY BREATH TILL I TURN BLUE.
I find it interesting that Nick Stokes would defend something like this. He’s lost a lot of credibility on this one.
If any one of my employees came to me with death threats, my first call would be to the police. Apparently this didn’t happen.
If any one of my employees came to me with death threats I would at least want to evaulate the level of threat before I went to the expense and trouble of relocating them. I wouldn’t just do it on hearsay. Apparently this didn’t happen.
If the threat is real, then release the emails. (What is it with the warmists and releasing information?)
Nick, you’ve done yourself a disservice, I’m afraid. If you’ll stick up for this with dodgy reasoning, I wonder what dodgy science you’d stick up for?
It depend on the definition of a threat. When Ben Santer wrote:
I don’t see this as a threat that would warrant whisking Pat Michaels away to a secure location. (Although I think this this comment contributes to a hostile work environment and should have resulted in actions against Santer). Had Santer said,
that would rise (in my mind) to the level of a specific and credible threat that should be turned over to the police.
It seems that we will now get to see the emails that the ANU classified as threats. Lets agree ahead of time to evaluate them against the Santer standard. You in?
When someone receives a threat, they should call the police. My understanding is that the university did not do this, rather, they issued a press release. That seems like a strange way to deal with the situation.
It isn’t logical to send death threats to people that are shooting themselves in the foot, screaming their brains out about little or nothing, being chased by the law and voted out of office, chaining themselves to lies and foolhardy behavior, and making contradictory comments and publishing books and papers that would easily kill the most accomplished professional’s credibility.
I say let these misguided people continue their nefarious charade and let’s all cheer them on as they run off the CAGW cliff like lemmings into the sea. Bon voyage….
AndrewS says:
May 2, 2012 at 8:07 pm
“If the threat is real, then release the emails. (What is it with the warmists and releasing information?)”
No no no – an e-mail is easily faked. If the threat was real, then RELEASE THE RECORDS OF THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
What? There never was one? So the warmist scientist stand-ins got a barrage of death threats but obviously didn’t take them seriously enough to even once call the police? Now that must have been a life-or-death situation, I see…
Maybe they modelled the threat situation and extrapolated it. And the model was just as right as their climate models are. (Makes you wonder whether they even consider conservation of energy)
And the measured threats were adjusted post facto to get them in line with the model hindcasting…
Now, hold it. David Appell did not say that specific skeptical individuals issued death threats against identifiable climate scientists. He claims that a composite climate scientist received death threats from a composite climate skeptic.
mpaul says: May 2, 2012 at 8:10 pm
“When someone receives a threat, they should call the police.”
The very first report, Canberra Times, 4 June 2011 said:
“The Australian Federal Police says it has not been contacted by the university although it is aware that threats have been made.”
Clearly someone had reported it. Probably the people who received the threats.
Anthony,
“And this was confirmed by Simon in his independent investigation:
I contacted the ACT police media office…”
You should be aware that there are two police forces involved here. The AFP has responsibility for Federal property security, and clearly someone had reported it to them. The ACT police does local policing in Canberra. The fact that the AFP was not investigating at that time does not say that ANU had not investigated.
REPLY: So what? Two different agencies have done nothing, launched no investigation, because there is NO CREDIBLE THREAT. The police didn’t escalate into an investigation, provide proof of one or shut up, your defense of this is beyond ridiculous. You’ve earned troll bin moderation status me thinks because you’d rather believe this fantasy you’ve concocted than facts of the matter at hand. And, the facts are, that there’s no death threats. Game over. – Anthony
No problem. Just give each of the “threatened” a hockey stick to beat off their attackers.
Then again, if I followed this, the proof of the death threats proved there were no death threats.
Can we hope that the “threatened” will give up on the hockey stick?