The ANU “Climate scientists get death threats”
story fabrication continues to unravel. Again, paging David Appell and Nick Stokes, your second helping of crow pie is served. And Mr. Appell, while you are eating that pie, maybe you’ll find the personal integrity to apologize for bringing my mother into your fantasy inflamed beyond all reason. (Update: apparently not) I’ll remind you of this writing on your blog:
Yes, except Mr. Appell’s viewpoint is the absurdity here, now even more so today.
The Telegraph’s Tim Blair reports that after a ruling last week that 10 of the 11 emails contained no death threats at all, and the 11 was a secondhand account of a dinner conversation on Kangaroo culling, verified as “not a death threat” by the person in the conversation, the story looks even sillier than before:
Retired Canberra public servant John Coochey attended a dinner two years ago at the Australian National University during a “deliberative democracy” project on climate change.
At the dinner, Coochey – a global warming sceptic – enjoyed a friendly discussion with fellow attendees, one of whom was aware that Coochey is involved in the ACT’s annual kangaroo cull. Asked how he’d fared in a recent culling licence test, Coochey proudly presented his licence as evidence that he had passed.
Conversation then moved on to how much better kangaroo might have been compared to the ANU’s food. All very unremarkable, as was the climate change project. Coochey didn’t bother attending subsequent days.
So Coochey was more than a little surprised to discover last week that he is now accused of issuing a terrifying death threat to climate scientists.
But the line that deserves the QOTW award is this:
As a bemused Coochey points out, if these people can’t get a simple conversation right, why should we trust them on complicated matters like global warming?
On a related note, Simon at Australian Climate Madness reports that another eyewitness has come forward and describes why Coochey didn’t bother to attend any more of the conference:
I was the other sceptic who left on the first day – the “stressed” one. You might have seen my comments at Catallaxy, Bishop Hill and Andrew Bolt on this. In case you haven’t this is what I said:
“I was the first sceptic referred to in the updates – the one that was “stressed”. That is a correct description. What I was stressed about was the incredibly manipulative way in which the so-called “forum” was conducted.
For example, Messrs Steffen and his team delivered presentations on various aspects of climate change. We were not allowed to ask questions, or to challenge the multifarious false statements made. Instead, we broke out into groups, with the idea that a group could ask a question. Of course, each group was dominated by “warmists”, and the lone sceptic in each group was a) abused, b) derided, c) not listened to.
The result was that Steffen and co were presented with soft questions that were based largely on ill-informed views, convenient to the organisers.
It is true that I was feeling stressed. But the reason was because while this was billed as an open-ranging discussion, in fact it was a tightly choreographed, manipulative discussion designed to capture an outcome favourable to the warmists. In no way was it a fair discussion.
All this soon became clear to me, and it was evident to me that it was fruitless and pointless to stay. I explained my issue to the organiser, and then left.
I met John Coochey at the forum. He is a knowledgeable and capable person, and I trust his account of the events relating to his gun license.
In fact, one of the aspects that I was annoyed about was that the forum had been billed as a “Citizen’s Jury” which implied that there would be opportunity for the “jury” to hear both sides, to cross-examine witnesses etc. Instead it was a tightly choreographed, controlled presentation of weak arguments from one side, with no opportunity (effectively) to ask questions.
Simon has much more here
Andrew Bolt weighs in:
Andrew Bolt May 14 2012 (9:03am)
IT was just too convenient, which is why some of us smelled a rat the day the story broke. It was June last year, and here’s the start of a Canberra Times story that went around the world.
“Australia’s leading climate change scientists are being targeted by a vicious, unrelenting email campaign that has resulted in police investigations of death threats.
“The Australian National University has confirmed it moved several high-profile climate scientists, economists and policy researchers into more secure buildings following explicit threats to their personal safety.”
We were told terrified ANU scientists had to strip their names from their office doors, turn down meetings unless accompanied and beef up their home security.
But it was weird. None of these “death threats” were detailed, yet Labor politicians, Greens, activist scientists and their media sympathisers flew instantly into synchronised hysteria.
UPDATE2: David Appell responds (it was those mean bullies that won’t listen to me!). Laughable, especially since he can’t bring himself to link to the latest revelations which proves his reasoning faulty. Instead, he again posts up the now discredited 11th email as if it were proof and an unrelated publicity stunt video by a Lyndon Larouche supporter who recorded a propaganda piece just a couple of hours after being rightly tossed out on his ear. Appell is unable to assimilate this new information on “Roogate” now making its way around the press of Australia. And this guy writes for science magazines?
Maybe I’ll have to have that crow pie delivered. Would that be considered a death threat?