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.
Nick Stokes says:
The very first report, Canberra Times, 4 June 2011 said:
“The Australian Federal Police says it has not been contacted by the university although it is aware that threats have been made.”
Clearly someone had reported it. Probably the people who received the threats.
*******
Great, let’s see the AFP reports then. Clearly you, or the Canberra Times must have it. Right?
REPLY: Having been in the news business and seen all sorts of this sort of thing at our TV and radio station, the fact that the police haven’t bothered to do anything but take a report (they’ll do that if somebody calls about a cat stuck on a telephone pole, so its of no consequence) really blows Stokes weak arguments out of the water. He’d rather believe this fantasy that the facts in front of him today – Anthony
“I had a bunch of concerned staff and they thought they should be moved to a more secure place so I moved them,” he said.
“Please, sir, there’s a blogger who says we’ve been receiving threatening e-mails and phone calls and we think we should be moved to a more secure location.”
“Good heavens, Trembley — have you been receiving threatening e-mails and phone calls?”
“Not personally, sir, but three days ago, Shivvers got a spam message on his cellphone.”
“That’s settled, then. Pack up.”
“With hindsight, we can say nobody chased them down. What do you do?”
Uhhhhhh — actually take a look at the e-mails, maybe?
Really- when all your model output is completely wrong, angling for a better office by way of merit isn’t going to work. So they came up with the idea that a couple of old emails could be leveraged to get themselves into a new building.
Any normal scammer would have signed up for an anonymous email account in an internet cafe and sent themselves some threats to lend it a credible (and essentially untraceable) air.
But – as we know – these guys are so incompetent they can’t even fake a death threat properly.
Truly an own goal of Gleikian proportions. They all essentially have zero credibility after this.
Is it that hard to just tell the truth for once.
Climate science is all “spin” and no fact and that even extends to making up threats now (well, that has been going on for awhile now, this is not the first case). There is a reason we don’t feel like we should trust them. Because they have already shown a long history of spin and distorting the truth.
And then we have Michael Mann calling up Deans and Vice-Chancellors and Editorial Boards trying to get people fired. Now that is doing real harm because many of those people were actually removed. But what does he get? More Medals as in just last week.
As far as I recall, the Australian Federal Police didn’t investigate this issue any further and no charges were laid against anyone (If there were we would have seen no end to articles on ABC etc etc about it). This suggests the whole issue of death threats was untrue.
kim2ooo says:
May 2, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Nick Stokes says:
“Well, I think even just one threat, even if possibly veiled, demands a precautionary response.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I agree. Send me monies for a pair of shoes, I just have to have, OR I’LL HOLD MY BREATH TILL I TURN BLUE.
*
NO, Kim! Let that CO2 out! It’s good for the plants! 🙂
* * *
On the threats, are you kidding? If they were real they would be plastered all over the news in glorious detail. If they had real data they wouldn’t need to make any up.
* * *
On Gillard. Hey, Connolly, I’m an Aussie, too. I’ve been watching the collapse of Gillard also. What a glorious sight it is. My guess is she’s not getting a lot of sleep at night. I don’t think she will go easily, though, even to “save” the Party. So what happens then? Will they carry her out in a straight jacket? I’m waiting to find out. Could be fun viewing. Cheers!
You mean climate scientists may have exaggerated the truth? Why that’s shocking.
/sarc
Reg Nelson says: May 2, 2012 at 8:46 pm
“Great, let’s see the AFP reports then. Clearly you, or the Canberra Times must have it. Right?”
No, very unlikely. In Australia, such reports are not usually released outside court proceedings. Particularly with the AFP, which is rather secretive. And it would be exempt from FOI.
Wow,
So I am unreasonable for asking to see actual proof. AGW promoters rely on lying to their true believers in a drearily dependable fashion. The believers seem to have an endless appetite for the recycled cow food Appell, Gleick, Zwick, Hansen, Gore, Mann, etc. faithfully produce.
Appell,
You are a wanker, a coward and a kook.
And I was right to call you out.
It should come as no surprise that a group of climate “scientists” were able to draw conclusions suggesting impending catastrophic events which, upon investigation, appear to have no merit in fact. They’ve gotten into a habit you see….
My other theory is that the emails contained valid factual criticisms which brought the “scientists” face to face with their life long failures to produce any evidence to justify their theories. The constant of reminder of said failure gave them a sense of hopeleness and thoughts of suicide. Alarmed that they might kill themselves, they were removed to a secure facility where doctors in white coats could monitor them closely, and they wouldn’t have to read anymore emails pointing out their mistakes.
kim2000 and her turning blue remark get the LOL of the day!
No no Nick doesn’t need to look for the reports. They modeled the reports therefore the reports existence is confirmed by the death threat report model.
Predictably, David Appell beclowns himself even further, he’s spinning so fast he’s got stuff in orbit around him. No scruples with this guy, totally bereft.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/05/gloating-over-australian-report-on.html
As one commenter put it, he’s been punked, but rather than admit this, he just creates more lies wrapped in old ones. He doesn’t realize that nobody is going to hire him anymore (except maybe Grist, DeSmog and Climate Progress, where they live in alternate universes) after writing stuff like that.
And he and his buddy in delusion, Nick Stokes, still can’t produce anything other than discredited news reports.
Nick Stokes says:
May 2, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Reg Nelson says: May 2, 2012 at 8:46 pm
“Great, let’s see the AFP reports then. Clearly you, or the Canberra Times must have it. Right?”
No, very unlikely. In Australia, such reports are not usually released outside court proceedings. Particularly with the AFP, which is rather secretive. And it would be exempt from FOI.
******
So I can equally say the AFP is aware you are a nutter, but don’t have to back it up with any facts?
One surprise here is that why is anybody even expecting Nick Stokes to have any credibility. He has always been a shameless defender of lies and fraud and part of that pond slime cabal. He needs to be sent back to whichever rock from under which he crawled out.
Haven’t the climate alarmists been threatening the deaths of billions if we don’t do what they want for years?
Reg Nelson says: May 2, 2012 at 9:16 pm
“So I can equally say the AFP is aware you are a nutter, but don’t have to back it up with any facts?”
Why is the obligation so one-sided? Several people here have said that it wasn’t reported to police. Why not ask for some evidence there?
The fact is that the AFP have said that they are aware of it. That’s all they are ever going to say. That’s the practice – I can’t change it.
Is anybody surprised that people who see death threats when there are none also see catastrophic global warming when there is none?
Gotta say this–At least they’re consistent!
(Maybe it’s the water they’re drinking; maybe they’re smoking a peculiar brand of weed; or perhaps the grant enticement is just too much to turn down.)
Alley E
The Queen of Climate Alarmism Julia the Last wont have to be carried out kicking and squealing. Her support has already collapsed. She will be gone by the second week of June. And for all our friends across the Pacific you will probably hear the cheering from the miners and steelworkers of the steel and coal regions of Australia. She came in as a back stabber and she will be taken out the same way. The most despised “leader ” of the labor party in history will be put out with the putrifying garbage of global warming policy. Great days friends. Great days.
If you want a sample of what some Australian climate scientists were receiving during this period (not the ANU ones), Graham Readfern has some. They can be threatening. Not safe for a family blog.
REPLY: So what? There are no explicit death threats there, and I get this kind of mail from anonymous cowards every week. Again, you’ve got nothing of substance, and the adjudicant agreed that there were no death threats, the police don’t see enough to start an investigation, and the university isn’t doing any followup. You lost. Stop whining. Very telling that you run over to Appells blog and say you’ve been banned when you haven’t. But, you have been given an extra level of moderation for post approval because you’ve clearly lost your sense of rational thought in this thread. – Anthony
Willis Eschenbach says:
May 2, 2012 at 3:37 pm
… If he had any … oranges, he’d apologize
Willis, I think you meant avocados 🙂
connolly says:
May 2, 2012 at 7:00 pm
A brilliant piece of prose that sums up the situation perfectly. The same could be applied to every country where CAGW mumbo-jumbo has been allowed to take hold.
I am looking forward to the Aussie elections
I was a reasonably public figure in Oz at the height of anti-nuclear activism. I worked for the company that discovered the Ranger Uranium Mines and I was for some years visiting V-P or Pres of the NT Chamber of Mines. In that position I interfaced with NT police, put some on the payroll to form a gold squad, when 2 people had gone missing presumed dead in unexplained but suggestive circumstances. So a few people saw me on TV and in the newspapers.
Back home, I would leave a wife and 2 sons, both of school age. My wife reported a number of incidents to police in my absence and at times was given security of police patrols. There was a device that resembled a bomb put on an outdoor table. My car was released to roll down a driveway and smash into the home. All reported.
It is particularly concerning to hear the type of phone calls that we withstood. It was taxing to feel the violation of our space and property. It was frustrating to know that we never caught an offender, but not through lack of trying. All abuse was in the cause of zealotry.
With this post, I am putting a line under what could be called a threat. I have never done this type of thing to another. Those who cry foul at something less need to get a bit of stiffening of resolve and stop sucking at the teat.
From Stokes
Reality :
One force, the AFP, and, I live here.
Two points:
First – I would like to read the 11 emails before engaging in any analysis. I will wait to comment until I see them.
Second – Appell has not served his cause well. It is the displeasure at his shortcomings by his ideological superiors in the cause that he should be more concerned about; not critical skeptics.
John
Nick Stokes:
‘You should be aware that there are two police forces involved here. The AFP has responsibility for Federal property security, and clearly someone had reported it to them. The ACT police does local policing in Canberra. The fact that the AFP was not investigating at that time does not say that ANU had not investigated.’
Actually, Nick, ACT Police ARE the AFP. As it states on their website (on the ACT Policing part):
‘ACT Policing is a business unit of the AFP and was created for the purpose of providing policing services to the ACT under the auspices of a Policing Arrangement between the Commonwealth and ACT Governments.’
There is no separate police force called ‘ACT Police’.
Red herring, really — doesn’t affect the veracity of the claims.