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.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/05/fwd-dumb-and-dumber.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Link should be:
http://www.necn.com/07/28/11/Do-you-know-about-your-digital-fingerpri/landing.html?blockID=544286&feedID=4213
[fixed ~ac]
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…
One of the more annoying denizens in the Internet Bestiary is the spambot. By publishing people’s e-addys in open sight, Appell has fed them — which opens him up to a valid complaint to his internet provider that he is a spam facilitator, which is only one step removed from being a spammer.
RockyRoad says:
May 3, 2012 at 10:51 pm
My gosh! An honest-to-goodness recipient of cash from Big Oil!
And what do WE get from that? We get gas for the car, that’s what. Thanks, PiperPaul!
(So next time anybody in the CAGW crowd complains about “Big Oil”, remember those that get paid by “Big Oil” are a LOT more useful than ALL the CAGW crowd.)
They’re not only more useful, their models actually *work*!
David Ball says:
May 3, 2012 at 9:31 pm
Pokerguy, I do understand what you are saying. Fight with pigs and you will get dirty, if I’m not mistaken. Cheers,….
When the pig’s loose in the garden, you’re not going to get him back where he belongs using sweet reason. First, you have to whack him with a two-by-four to get his attention…
PiperPaul says:
May 3, 2012 at 9:08 pm
In UNIX shell scripting one might do the following…
> Gun | Shoot | Foot | Screaming> /dev/null
IN UNIX no one can hear you scream…
Of course, there is one dish that is famously “best served cold”.
And I think it shall be.
🙂
Still only 3 comments on his page?
I’d be curious to see how his traffic stacks up to WUWT.
The pettiness in showing email address’s is typical of the”cultists” mentality, Appell is nothing more than a school ground bully who when on the recieving end plays dirtier,
Anthony keep the moral high ground and don’t play into this liar,fools hands he want you to loose your cool.
Loving that the only comments on his post that publishes Anthony’s email are taking David to task over his immature and dishonest behaviour. I wonder how long they’ll stay around before they’re deleted…
Bill Tuttle:
Thankyou for your post at May 4, 2012 at 2:43 am. I laughed out loud.
But then I thought, “Oh dear, that constitutes a death threat against ‘climate scientists’ in Australia”.
Richard
“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”
You’re misunderstanding me Anthony, and I’m sorry for that. I hold you and other leading skeptics to a higher standard. Again ,I understand the appeal of kicking him when he’s down. Which is what he’d have done to you. But you’re smarter than that.
I will not click any of those Appell links, as that would up his traffic numbers.
Even when they cry wolf no one listens. Appell is denser than a bag of diamonds.
just a thought here…. he titles his post ‘dumb and dumber’…. seems like he is referring to himself and stokes, if you ask me.
“Rule #1: You can never ask too many questions.”
/snort
I’m curious about what has Nike Stokes so fired up about this that he’s oblivious to his looking like an ass.
How does the saying go? Better to keep silent and look like a fool than speak up and confirm it.
“Is your pride of choosing to believe that death threats were launched by skeptics against climate scientists so important to you that it blinds you to the point of not accepting overwhelming evidence to the contrary?”
Er, he’s that way with CAGW, so why not CADT?
(That’s “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Death Threats”.)
Nick Strokes is a huge loser. I am extremely unimpressed by the Blackboard. Lucia put me under heavy moderations because I told her it was misleading to post about arctic ice loss without posting the temperature. She would not post the temperature because there was almost no change, meaning ice loss was due to natural variability.
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. says:
May 4, 2012 at 10:14 am
“Nick Strokes is a huge loser. I am extremely unimpressed by the Blackboard.”
I agree. I posted at The Blackboard maybe twice, several years ago. That’s all. But I have copied Lucia’s charts and posted them here several times, with attribution. There was no problem until early this year, when I tried to post her chart showing that Hansen’s predictions were wrong.
Now, I can no longer access her blog. When I click on Lucia’s charts in my chart folder, I get: “Access Denied”. I have been blacklisted. Why?
I suspect that since folks like Nick Stokes and Zeke Hausfather are Lucia’s pals, they or someone like them has convinced her to blacklist my IP address. Typical alarmist censorship. Lucia should be ashamed of herself. As for her pals, censorship is a way of life for them, so I get a chuckle out of seeing the hypocritical Nick Stokes sniveling about a minor moderation delay.
pokerguy says:
Again ,I understand the appeal of kicking him when he’s down. Which is what he’d have done to you. But you’re smarter than that.
When someone keeps coming back to engage over and over, “kicking him while he’s down” is sometimes the only way to put an end to things.
Yesterday there were 16 comments on Appell’s page, almost all were calling him out, saying he’s been “owned” and the like. Today there are only 9 comments, of which 2 say “removed by site administrator”, and all but one are supportive. There were many more than 2 removed, that much is clear!!
Monty Python captured it in “Quest for the Holy Grail” with the Black Knight. He kept coming back long after it was obvious to everyone else that he had lost. As the King is riding away shaking his head and the Black Knight sits limbless, the knight finally accepts “reality”… “All right, we’ll call it a draw.” When one can’t accept that they are wrong they can still do damage to you. If they’re delusional, it’s best not to turn your back to them.
It’s a question of accumulated volume …
/8-\
Oh Gawd! The first one had me chuckling, but this one had me literally laughing out loud…
Though ought not the “Screaming” be a dev 2 output (or stderr?) redirect /dev/null? Then again, the “Screaming” script might be different under Linux 😉
OK, since I’m making a comment:
Never expect the Warmers to admit any wrong, no matter how horrid. It’s just not in them. True believers one and all, absolved of all sin by Pope Puchari. In fact, you are wicked and evil for damaging their self esteem by pointing out when they have borked it.
@Smokey:
I was invited to do a ‘guest posting’ at the Blackboard. When I declined (pointing out that I was interested in forwarding my search for the truth, not in facilitating argument, and that Lucia’s site was more interested in some spicy argument; that would take more time than I wanted to sink: I found a comment on Blackboard from Lucia announcing me as “uninteresting” and to be ignored (in essence). Perhaps it was the analogy I used…
I often explain the philosophy I learned in our family restaurant; that everyone has their own sense of taste and it is not up to YOU to decide what is good / better with the example of one customer who regularly ordered “Runny eggs and Tabasco sauce”. When I first saw that order (at about 8 years old) my response was “Yuck!” as runny near raw eggs are not attractive to me and eggs that are firebreathing even less so. My Dad explained to me that the job was to deliver what the customer wanted, the way they wanted it, without criticism. I’d used the “runny eggs and Tabasco” metaphor for how her site (that relishes spice and conflict) was different from mine (where I do more pondering and ‘quiet digging’). I think it may have hurt her feelings. Or maybe being non-spicy and not willing to help drive traffic I was just “not interesting” to her… At any rate, I’m not about starting fights to watch the fur fly; I’m much more about finding what truth can be found, so I don’t go to the Blackboard now either. Not blacklisted as near as I can tell…
FWIW, if you do want to ‘take a peek’, just go to a ‘cyber cafe’ and launch a different browser (i.e. no cookie history, etc. Download Opera or Firefox for example). I have a ‘disposable’ email address for sites that need one as well. Easy to pick up on a dozen places like gmail.
THE thing I’ve notice more than all else from the “Warmers” vs the “Skeptics” is that Skeptics like to explore a wide range of possibles and weigh them against each other. Relishing the new learning, the compare and contrast. The weighting likely truths. “Warmers” are far more focused on The Agenda. Stray from The Dogma and you get a load of Dogma Excrement flung at you. “Fling Poo” seems built into their nature, unable to rise past it. Insult, invective, character assassination, etc. Oh, and a very strong tendency to “Edit for effect” and delete anything they don’t like.
On my site I tried at first to be wide open on comments. Got a load of folks who I think were “professional trolls” doing the old Fling Poo and attack on just about everything. So I had to go to a moderation model. My #1 rule is “be polite” and don’t be insulting. Turns out that alone gets most of the Hypercritical Warmers pushed out of shape. They either leave after being put on moderation or can’t control themselves and end up as Carping Comments fodder ( a place where I let their comment through, but only after dissecting it and providing context…) or on a very short ‘banned’ list. Can’t think of even one person ‘banned’ for what they believe or desiring to say “I think this matters and was not in your analysis”. Lot of personal insults, though, from the ones that went to the ‘bin’. FWIW, Nick Stokes is on a ‘straight through’ to post comments setting; so that shows where I’ve set the bar. Folks have to be much worse than his style to “have issues”. ( I’ve generally found him dedicated to the verge of fixated; but reasonably polite.) Yet there are plenty of folks on the Warmers side who can’t meet that bar.
Yet they are happy to delete my comments on their sites just asking inconvenient questions. I started several years ago at realclimate asking things like “putting thermometers at airports will give high readings, how do you adjust for that?” I was an innocent who thought “Global Warming could be a bad, I need to learn more” and ran into a wall of scorn there. Later ran into WUWT and asked some stupid questions. Got polite and clear answers. The rest, as they say, was history… Eventually realized that AGW had more holes in it than Swiss Cheese and started my own “digging in” that surfaced how crappy GIStemp was.
The sharp contrast between the two approaches was a major deal for me. One ridiculed me for wanting to clarify where things seemed to “not fit”, the other said “Well, it doesn’t fit because this bit is wrong; unless that guy has something new…”)
At any rate, there’s a particular “mind print” to the Warmistas. They “suck their own exhaust” enough that the “style” just reeks and it shows very fast. Much of it has to do with “attack the messenger” and “embarrass for effect” along with liberal application of ridicule and censorship. Self destructive, if you ask me.
Ends up in things like Gleick.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/9250707/Farmer-gets-death-threats-after-killing-rat.html