Paging David Appell – 'death threats against climate scientists' story even deader than yesterday

UPDATE: More crow pie is served here

Paging David Appell and Nick Stokes – your crow pie is ready now.

As a follow up to yesterday’s breaking news that there were never any death threats at all, as determined by a court adjudicate, Simon Turnill writes on Australian Climate Madness that it has been confirmed that there’s a new story in the Australian saying that the police were never contacted over the alleged “death threats”, indicating that the Australian National University didn’t even take the non-existent “death threats” seriously enough to even report it! Today, ANU has “no comment” as to why.

He writes:

Following the freedom of information request story which made page 1 of The Australian yesterday, Christian Kerr and Lanai Vasek write a further story today, confirming that the Australian National University made no complaint to the police, despite alleging a vicious campaign of hatred against climate scientists.

As I said in my original post on this back in June 2011:

Last time I checked, which was about thirty seconds ago, making threats to kill in the ACT was a criminal offence, thanks to section 30 of the Crimes Act (ACT) 1900, and punishable by a maximum of ten years imprisonment. A similar provision for threats to kill via a postal service or carriage service appears in the Schedule to the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995, with a similar punishment.

So one has to ask why no action was taken by the university, given these were allegedly such serious crimes?

Full story here.

Will science writer David Appell now retract his vicious personal smears here, here, and here, plus his follow up smear yesterday when faced with fresh evidence and offer an apology and retraction of his claims? I doubt he will, as I believe he does not have the personal integrity within himself to do so. I’ll be delighted to be proven wrong though.

UPDATE: Well that didn’t take long, Appell has now published my email to him (which was part of an unsolicited email thread started by Appell) along with the email addresses of people on the cc list. I view this as completely unprofessional and completely within character for him. On the plus side, when myself and the other email addresses he published start getting hate mail, we now have a claim against Mr. Appell.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

An apology is unlikely. His last name in French is “to call”. So he might be a “name caller”. Ooops. Me bad. I just did it. Wrist slap.


Somehow I don’t think you are holding your breath awaiting on a reply from either one.

Richard Lawson

But Nick Stokes said the police were informed so it must be true!!!

Mike Smith

Well, they could have called the police. But, there again, those people are notoriously difficult. There’s a good chance they might even have asked to see some ummmm, evidence, of this heinous crime!


nick, clairvoyant and visionary, most emphatically assured everybody that the police were informed, just secretive about it.
i’m always interested in watching that moment when, having fallen 99 storeys of a 100 storey building and boasting how well he can fly- the sidewalk appears. I love the splattering noises and the religious peace that follows.

Mac the Knife

Ahhhhhhh…… the boy who cried ‘wolf’!

Shouldn’t crow be served raw? I think you are confusing humble pie with eating crow, which of course would necessitate a different whine, er, wine. White with crow, but a fruity dessert wine with pie.

Buncha freakin’ crybabies. Employing the oldest trick in the book, sympathy-mongering. Oooo, look, threatened climate scientists. Should come as no surprise to claim threat, given the number of things ‘threatened’ by ‘a warming world’. Small problem: cantet crustum.
Gnomish, you made me spill my tea!

Brian H

Appell? Integrity? Together in the same room/skull?
The bind moggles.
As for Nick, he’ll never stop shovelling. He enjoys it too much!


on the other hand- the warmunists ‘know who we are and where we live’ and have indicated a strong intention to ‘imprison deniers for crimes against humanity’ and ‘burn down their houses’ – that’s when the scientists themselves aren’t threatening muggings in dark alleys or beating up fellow scientists.


Oh! That pie is definitely something to be Raven about!


It is sort of funny his complaining about the email you sent him being insulting. It certainly isn’t flattering, but compared to some of his comments to and about you, pretty mild stuff.
His best case is he’s immature. Unfortunately for him it may more likely be the worst case – a lack of integrity.


I assume from the comments above that the actual emails received by the scientists has been published somewhere? I cannot find them – any help please.
Surely these comments cannot have originated as the result of hearsay?

Anything is possible

I suspect the whole thing was just some angry punters telling the scientists what they could do with their models. Although, to be fair, had they carried out those instructions to the letter, the outcome probably would have been fatal.


…and I have to imagine that a lawsuit will eventually end up in appellate court.
Sheesh. This guy lends to puns Much better than wille Connolly.


Damn decent of you to send him traffic…looks a bit sparse over yonder.
I get a creepy, “I’m ready for my close-up Mr. Watts,” vibe out of it though.

Interstellar Bill

All the crows on Earth couldn’t make a big enough pie for the Alarmist Regime to eat in return for their cruelly saddling us with wasted trillions of dollars, poinless billions of man-hours of labor, square miles of forests destroyed to print their apocalyptic bilge, and the scabrous fuel poverty, ethanol starvation, eco-land displacement, high gas prices, and endless hours of fearing the future, as endured by the ubiquitous victims of their hellishly destructive fantasies, dispensed with maximum arrogance, condescension, and vituperation of dissenters.


Just another side effect of too much CO2 in the atmosphere. It truly is the “Devil Gas”!


“Time to fess up, you got punked. ” AW
lol nice. He’s probably going to feel this one for awhile.

Mike Jowsey

I read all the ‘recent’ comments on that posting of Appell’s and not one was in support of him – on the contrary, they all condemned his actions regards not fessing up and regards publishing email addresses. Shooting himself in the foot seems to come easily to Mr. Appell.

I haven’t believed anything Nick Stokes says for some time. If he told me the sky was blue I’d want to check.

Chris B

Didn’t Ben invoke the Santer clause and threaten to do physical violence to an unbeliever.
Oh, I forgot, he was frustrated.


That apology should include all sceptics who have had to endure the baying pack screaming about how we, the sceptics, are treating the “scientists”, the wonderful fellow travellers who all along have “believed” everything served up by the fellow travellers, most of whom are not even remotely connected with “climate science” but have been willing to peddle such false stories to serve their own feeble minded purposes.
Proves that the warmist believer pack are, the “evil dills/of the closed minds variety” in this non science nonsense.
Mirror mirror on the wall who are the stupid of them all. Hell will freeze over before they even think,………. er think about apologising.


If making a threat is a crime, why making false allegations of a threat isn’t? There should be a mechanical remedy for that, something like this:

In a post titled ‘science bullies,’ Appell write the following:” Hmm…. ridiculing, lying, name-calling, harassing (such as publishing email addresses), endless innuendos…. Remind you of anybody? “

Yep, 1984 all over again, no admission of being wrong, the climate scientists were always right. This is priceless. I just want to know how any sane and reasonable person could possibly believe anything these people say nowadays. And how can anyone possibly defend them? These people falsely put out sympathy pleas about being harrassed and otherwise threatened with death and they are all lies.
They seem to like to cry wolf quite a bit, don’t they?

Left the following comment at his blog:
Not sure where the phrase began, but “Screwed the pooch” fits here !!
WIll it show up??

Ally E.

The more they say and do, the more clearly they show themselves for what they are. It amazes me, though, I mean how many times can they shoot themselves in the foot before they fall over?

Curious George

The simplest explanation that fits all known facts is usually true.The emails have not been released, that leaves us free to speculate.
Let’s assume that the “off-campus event” resulted in a bar brawl, and one slighted party sent an email describing in some detail what (s)he would do to the behind(s) of one or more climate scientists. Naturally, they wanted to be “moved to safer locations” without involving the police.

Comment in moderation at Appell’s place:

It seems it’s an Anon fest around here so let me comment with my full name. I’m sure it’s pretty easy to find out my web address, my email, a picture of mine and more.
That said, your WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 2011 post “Watts Still Denying the Death Threats” is quite embarrassing in hindsight. What are your plans to avoid falling for fabricated news in the future?

Geoff C

But these personal controversies just add to his web traffic.


Anthony, you made the other email addresses public when you Cc’d them on an email to him. Use Bcc if you and they want or expect privacy.

No, they were already part of an email thread Appell started on Diviner results…- Anthony

Steve Oregon

Appell has fallen for every fabrication there is.
Like many other defective thinking alarmists Appell has zero learning curve and has developed an appetite for Crow.
Having been caught in one tall tale after another he’s been the butt of ridicule for years.
He was all caught up in the “weather is not climate” chant until he got caught calling weather climate himself. First he denied he ever did it. When showed his own words he spun it. But later he denied it again and denied he had been given his own words. It was asinine. It took repeated calls on the carpet before he stopped denying everything.
He’s a simpleton pretending to be authoritative who’s been on the merry-go-round with all the usual chants, bromides & red herrings for years.
His defaults are usually the most elementary of statements parroted as if no one had ever heard or considered such wisdom.
Such as his chronic habit of referring people to the IPCC AR4 as if he was informing people of it’s existence. He’s said countless times “CO2 is a greenhouse gas” .
To provide scientific defense of Lubchenco’s baseless fabrication of Oregon’s AGW=Ocean Dead Zones he posted links to periodicals covering her claims as if they were peer review studies.
Like some RealClimate regulars he just insisted the link was “established science” without any science whatsoever.
He can’t focus, can’t have normal conversations, refuses to acknowledge anything and is woefully far behind and unable to keep up to speed.
Exhibit A: Appel vs Willis
David Appell | April 28, 2012 at 8:00 pm | Reply
Who lied? And what was their lie, specifically?
Willis Eschenbach | April 28, 2012 at 9:55 pm | Reply
David, if you haven’t noticed any lies after the release of two tranches of climategate emails,
David Appell | April 28, 2012 at 10:24 pm | Reply
Willis, I see a lot of selective interpretation on your part. Just give me one documented “lie.”
David Appell | April 29, 2012 at 12:04 am |
How do you know it is a lie? It seems to me it is M&M’s word against Mann’s.
Willis Eschenbach | April 29, 2012 at 12:47 am |
Sure, glad to. Michael Mann lied [etc],,,,,Phil Jones lied [etc],,,,…
I can provide more, David. You are on a fools errand trying to prove these guys were honest scientists. They weren’t, and now the whole field is paying the price.
David Appell | April 29, 2012 at 12:13 am | Reply
Roger: That the same hockey stick shape has been calculated by completely different mathematical methods (Tingley and Huybers) provides support against claims there are substantial mathematical errors in the Mann et al analysis.
David Appell | April 29, 2012 at 12:46 am | Reply
It might be convincing for people who find a blog post more substantial than a peer reviewed paper. I don’t.


Anything is possible says: “I suspect the whole thing was just some angry punters telling the scientists what they could do with their models. Although, to be fair, had they carried out those instructions to the letter, the outcome probably would have been fatal.”
Not at all, Any. Consider the source of the models. I’m absolutely sure they’ll fit.

Rick Bradford

Gene says:
May 3, 2012 at 4:16 pm
If making a threat is a crime, why making false allegations of a threat isn’t?

It can be — ‘wasting police time’ is one offence, but as we now know, they didn’t even call the cops, so that one won’t stick.
Other charges such as: crying ‘wolf’ in a public place; pleading victimhood without due care and attention, or using the word ‘outrageous’ in a built-up area, are not yet on the statute books.


Unfortunately, we all know what will happen next. They will fabricate evidence. We will now see a bunch of climate scientists taking out anonymous gmail accounts and emailing themselves death threats and then holding those email up as “evidence” that the deniers are threatening them. The tip-off will be that they look like they were “written from the secret villain lair in a Batman comic. By an intern”.
Here’s what I imagine the death threat will look like that Micheal Mann will send to himself:

“As an executive from the fossil fuel industry I have been funneling millions of dollars into a secret PR campaign to discredit respected climate scientists like yourself. In the past I have used this tactic very successfully, like when I funded the campaign to cast doubt on the ill effects of smoking. But in this case, your science is too strong and is backed up but multiple lines of independent evidence. My disingenuous PR campaign simply can not overcome your robust peer reviewed science. Therefore I plan to hack you to death [with a] kitchen knife.
Yours Truly
Anonymous Republican Fossil Fuel Executive

The press, of course, will eat it up.
/political parody

David Ball

Big shout out to David Appell!! We go waaaay back. How ya doin’ there Davey me boy ?

James Allison

What about the Aussie Climate Scientists who created the original death threat scare out of thin air? Maybe the death threat authority Nick Stokes can tell us who they are.
Surely these guys deserve to have some light shone upon them.


“Time to fess up, you got punked. What you do now Mr. Appell, will forever define you henceforth. I predict that rather than apologizing for your own ineptitude and hatred, you’ll write yet another smear.”
Anthony, I know it felt good to write this. (If my understanding is correct the above is from a personal email from you to him.) But should we hold ourselves to a higher standard? I think restraint is almost always a good idea. Why sink to their level?

David Ball

Sure makes the prostate exam easier. Being able to describe to the doctor exactly what he is seeing, ….

David Ball

pokerguy says:
May 3, 2012 at 6:57 pm
C’mon, if they can dish it out, they should be able to take it. Good for the goose, heat in the kitchen, and all those other appropriate canards, ….

Gail Combs

Mike Smith says:
May 3, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Well, they could have called the police.
At least in the USA a call to the police is always logged.

Gail Combs

Nick Stokes says: @ May 2, 2012 at 7:53 pm (on the thread )

“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.

Notice the weasel words “The Australian Federal Police says it is aware of the issue” The cops could be aware of the issue because they read about it in the newspaper not because they received any “Official Notification” and a request to investigate.


“C’mon, if they can dish it out, they should be able to take it. Good for the goose, heat in the kitchen, and all those other appropriate canards, ….”
I think you’re missing the point. Or my point anyway. It’s not a question of fairness, but a question of tactics. I cringed when I read Anthony’s email. In my view it diminishes him, and that ain’t good. Just my opinion naturally. Reasonable folks can and no doubt will disagree.
REPLY: Maybe it is cringeworthy, but Appell has crossed the line of decency several times in this issue with his public and hateful attacks on me, and I’ve bit my tongue on many occasions in public commentary. Today he posted my private email without permission, putting the email addresses out there as well. If I did that, I’d be vilified, and yet for some strange reason you are painting me as the one who’s done something wrong. – Anthony


These climate scientists are just trying to validate their so called research as being dangerous to others, and they are appealing by the way.
Look, I am involved in a shameful misuse of university pressure. A blog site run by an adjunct lecturer with her senior lecturer in history at UNE, did not like the letters I and others wrote concerning their conflict of interests over a point of history. To confirm how bad I was and ignorant she relayed that I had written terrible letters regarding climate change and as a denier I couldn’t be trusted and was ignorant and illiterate. Fair dinkum! It followed a pod cast by this pair at the Sydney Institute that accused me and others of being like holocaust and climate change deniers and JFK assassination disbelievers. (I wonder they did not add Elvis Presley is still alive believers). And one of my friends as being guilty of fisty cuffs in the street because of his beliefs. Completely untrue, he is 78. I and him complained to the university, who so far haven’t done anything to reprimand this pair. Academics live in Ivory towers they think they can say anything, but don’t realise when they say things publicly or in writing they are open to criticism. I was refused a supervisor when I applied to write a post graduate paper that would have shown up their research as a sham. I was using primary sources too, not like theirs using secondary sources. So God help those that strive to be heard and offer a more scientific explanation in contrast to theirs. Just because they are academic they think they are beyond criticism and should automatically think they are above the law and be presumed correct. Elitists eh? When the truth comes out, I wonder if they will return all their grants.

I thought Anthony’s email was appropriate. Did you read the comments [all 3 of them] on Appell’s link? None are supportive of Appell.


As a postscript to my above comment, It’s people like Anthony, Joanne Nova and Tory Aardvark that have done so much to uncover the lies these people and others are relaying universally.
Keep at it all of you.

Nick Stokes

Gail Combs says: May 3, 2012 at 7:13 pm
“The cops could be aware of the issue because they read about it in the newspaper”

No, that quote, and the more complete statement in the Canberra Times, are from the very first reports on 4 June, 2011. They didn’t read about it in the newspaper. In the CT they said “they were aware that threats had been made”, which, since police are careful about using “alleged”, suggests that they had done enough investigation to verify that much.

Or one or more of whiners that created this fabricated story called the police, and the police laughed at them, which is more likely than any investigation by the police, especially since there’s no complaint. Here’s a super Nick-o-cranial exercise for you, call up the police and ask them if they’ll investigate something for you without you filing a complaint first. – Anthony

Nick Stokes

I have to say that calling me out in a post and then putting me on troll moderation which makes replying difficult, is hardly playing fair.
REPLY: You were put on troll moderation YESTERDAY, not after I made this post, and you know this. Both you and Appell can’t seem to embrace humility, or to even admit you’ve been wrong, try it sometime. Until then, you get the slow lane. – Anthony

Nick Stokes

I made a comment earlier, which doesn’t seem to have appeared. Being on troll moderation, I don’t get an acknowledgement of whether my post is received and awaiting moderation. Anyway, it was just to note that the report in the Australian is lazy recycling – their own report of June 4 2011 said exactly this, as (noted here) did the Canberra Times.
If you’re paging me, you could make it easier to respond.

So what? It proves nothing. You’re still wrong on this issue. There’s no death threats, no sworn complaint, and no investigation. All we have are a few rude emails over 6 months and delusional thinking that you and others have elevated for the purpose of smearing people. As for your being stuck in the slow lane, be as upset as you wish. – Anthony