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:
Column – The terrible ‘death threats” that weren’t
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.
(Register free to read full story.)
UPDATE: Some readers asked about wanting to see the emails, and they are excerpted and discussed along with links here and you can get the documents here
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?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Pamela Gray says:
May 14, 2012 at 6:41 am
“Does shootin marmutts . . . ”
Background visuals and information:
http://dirttime.ws/Notebook/Marmot.htm
I don’t know how they compare with ‘roos’ – never had that.
This Delphi technique stuff is truly disturbing — not so much from its existence, but the implementation on such huge scales. I really begin to wonder if these people are from the same planet. Unfortunately, they are…
I find it remarkable, given the tremendous damage to the Australian economy caused by the legislation based on the BS the warmists have put out, that there haven’t been real death threats!
The Debunker No 2 BS (@No2BS) says:
May 14, 2012 at 7:27 am
– We have a new game IPCC Whispers : You whisper a prediction into the ear of the person of your LEFT, who then repeats the whisper into the ear of the next person of your LEFT & so on until the last person whispers it into the ear of the enviro section churnalist of ABC or BBC … The a year later someone gets to come back on the media and say “that’s not what we said at all”
You are (almost) correct. 8<)
Rather:
We have a new game called IPCC Screaming Press Releases : You publicize a propagandized press release about a pal-reviewed paper into the paper of the person to your LEFT, who then Screams that press release into the press release of the next person to your LEFT & so on until the last person screams it into the ear of the enviro section churnalist of the ABBCNNBCBS and UN-paid politician … Then, a year later, some so-called "scientist" gets to come back on the media and say “that’s not what we said at all because you can't find any "scientific paper" that says we ever printed anything like that at all."
And they are correct. The "scientific" press did not print the damning indictments and propagandist exaggerations. The PRESS RELEASE process by the so-called scientific publications did all that dirty work for the propagandist industry into the public press system. And people will only remember the press releases and news stories.
Me says:
May 14, 2012 at 3:46 am
@ur momisugly me (the Bill Tuttle me, not the “Me” me: May 14, 2012 at 3:21 am
“Just don’t get us angry. They wouldn’t like us when we’re angry.
Oh. Wait…”
==========================================================================
So what’s your point here?
Merely that that they don’t like us *now*, when we’re polite.
I’ll spell it out for ya next time, okey-doke?
gerrydorrian66 says:
May 14, 2012 at 6:33 am
Thomas Aquinas said it centuries ago in De Ente et Essentia: “A small error at the outset can lead to great errors in the final conclusions”. If I may tailor that for the present circumstance: “a lie at the outset leads to mass delusions”.
And the necessity for greater lies, told more often and more stridently, in an attempt to maintain those delusions — such as co-opting the narrative, re-defining words, and stacking the deck, then calling it “an exercise in participatory democracy”…
May 14, 2012 at 12:23 am
The original issue that brought all of this to light was of course the absurdly inflated claims of danger to scientists. Just like AGW, its all done “for the cause.”
Reading about this “deliberative democracy” project is extremely disturbing….
This needs to be looked into. Who set this up, who paid for the “study”, who is behind this? Are there other “deliberative democracy” projects like this going on in any other countries?
Sounds like “manipulative democracy”, not “deliberative democracy.” Scary stuff indeed.
________________________
It is rather common I am afraid. It is the method used to give “legitimacy” to pre-determined out comes. In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics.
David Appel’s remarks are typical: Make up a lie and scream it from the rooftops. When he gets called out on it he whines that YOU are unreasonable. In the words of…me, “Oh, brother.”
Pol Pot couldn’t do better than these yahoos .
The only scary thing is that they have a bottomless pit of money ( taxpayer money ) to use in their fight against the truth.
martinbrumby says:
Roogate.
Sounds good but they already have a Kangaroo-Gate of Ross Garnaut’s most excellent plan to abandon their sheep and cattle business for kangaroo farming and hunting:
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2008/10/kangaroo-gate-scientists-to-breath-test-sheep
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2008/s2379277.htm
And Simon Turnill won’t get the original credit as Kangaroo Gate-crasher because of this:
So little warming, so many gates.
Gail that comment of yours looked interesting but the formatting on my normal browser made it illegible (ever-shorter lines).
This project was funded “$378,500 in 2008-10 grants … to work out ways to browbeat climate sceptics” as Quadrant magazine wrote.
It makes me feel sick.
One request here please. Just don’t totally equate “political left” with “evil” because that exists on both sides, and so does good. Name it by organizations and people, and goose-step techniques developed eg this Delphi technique, Stockholm Syndrome, and – I suspect – Common Purpose.
Lucy Skywalker says:
May 14, 2012 at 10:47 am
“…One request here please. Just don’t totally equate “political left” with “evil” because that exists on both sides, and so does good.”
Sorry to have to disagree, Lucy. I’ve been watching the political left, including media, manipulate and deceive us for almost 50 years. They have long ago exhausted any patience I had once felt toward them. By their friends and their utterances ye shall know them. We need to stop appeasing, and take an assertive position against the corruption that’s become a hallmark of the left.
Gail Combs, thanks for pointing out it’s the Delphi Technique. I actually found the original document that woke me up to this:
http://www.vlrc.org/articles/110.html
Again, it is a despicable tactic that people NEED to be aware of. It is a game. It is a way to pretend to be getting public input but actually cows people into a predetermined way of thinking.
Developed by the Rand Corporation in the 50s to manipulate Cold War defense thinking… then adopted and perfected by the boomer generation who probably watched it being used so successfully on their parents…
An interesting coda to this story.
“The organiser of the Deliberative Forum in May 2010 at ANU, published a piece in the Sydney Morning Herald on 16 June 2010, shortly after the Deliberative Forum. The piece was titled “Helping unlikely sceptics see that climate change is real”
The piece includes the following paragraph:
Part of our research involved engaging a sample of participants in a three-day dialogue on climate science and adaptation. It began as a simulation of the public sphere, with fulmination and the use of homily and rhetorical traps rather than genuine discourse. We lost a couple of our ‘’climate sceptics’’, one of whom (quite rightly, I think) felt admonished by some with the opposite view. But, as the process went on there was a more genuine engagement with a wider set of views by all participants. The public sphere flourished, albeit for just a moment and with just a few.
it is clear that Simon is referring to the first day of scientific presentations to the Forum, led by Dr Steffen. And in fact, Simon’s description is one that I would agree with. However, I doubt very much that Dr Steffen would be so happy with that description. So far as I could see, the science presentations were the usual IPCC/Steffen/ANU presentations that have been seen often, both before and since the Forum. It is also evident that Simon doesn’t refer at all to this framing of the first day in his detailed report of the Forum.
As well, it is clear from the detailed agenda for the forum that all the following events on the program were predicated on the presentations given on the first day.
I wonder why he felt moved to write that piece?”
From http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/this_is_how_climate_alarmists_do_polling/
As well, people who know about these things are saying that this Deliberative Conference is a demonstration of The Delphi technique.
Richard M,
Thanks for link to the emails!
linearthinker said @ur momisugly May 14, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Australian conservative PM Sir Robert Menzies claimed that he had sent Australian troops to Vietnam in response to a request for “further military assistance” by the Government of South Vietnam, a request we now know was never made.
Australian conservative Prime Miniature John Howard made an election promise to “never ever” introduce a consumption tax and then claimed an election win as a mandate to introduce the GST.
I suppose you are going to tell me they weren’t really conservative politicians; they were only pretending and were in reality Bolsheviks or something…
Paul Ehrlich began The Population Bomb with this statement:
Oh noes! A death threat!
Re: The Pompous Git says:
May 14, 2012 at 2:28 pm & 2:35 pm
Some comments deserve replies, others don’t.
Cheers.
[Note to moderator–if this comment is considered off topic and needless troll feeding, I’ll understand if it’s snipped. LT]
Between the Delphi Technique and Cloward-Piven, it’s pretty hard to take any excuse of even “Noble Cause Corruption” seriously. This is pure power politics and sedition.
Brian H said @ur momisugly May 14, 2012 at 8:55 pm
Sedition: “Conduct or language inciting to rebellion against the constituted authority in a state.”
It’s a bit of a stretch to claim that government funded lackeys of the state manipulating the public to further the state’s agenda is “sedition”. It’s certainly power politicz.
The Pompous Git says:
May 14, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Sedition: “Conduct or language inciting to rebellion against the constituted authority in a state.”
It’s a bit of a stretch to claim that government funded lackeys of the state manipulating the public to further the state’s agenda is “sedition”. It’s certainly power politicz.
—————————————————————————————-
It can easilly be used as a form of sedition. Take it from this angle…if this technique is used against local Government to bypass elected representatives and get a referendum passed that no one wants and is harmful to the state….and likewise circumvents the authority of local authorities, I think you could argue very easilly that this can and probably is used as a form of sedition.
In this form, the Government funded lackeys of the state bypass laws in order to basically incite rebellion at local levels against local Governments to push their own agenda down the throats of local Governments. And that assumes that this is Government funded lackeys using this technique and not activists who are not paid by the Government but are using the Government for their own purposes…..
Its a very fine line we are talking about here, and the delphi technique itself as malicious and as insidious as it is as a form of coercision basically just pushes people into a pre-ordained direction so as to force an issue a certain direction. It is not right, and the fact that climate scientists had this done to them does explain quite a bit once you start to think about it.
Consensus? Well there you go. Why is there so little argument from the scientists themselves? After years of this kind of insidious behavior, the scientists think that any doubts about AGW are crazy and insane. No wonder they call all sceptics “deniers” and other terms, if you had been subjected to this technique as a propaganda tool, I am sure you would think the same thing. (I would stand to argue that this technique is probably fairly wide-spread in climate science if I had to guess…because it would explain sooo much.)
But perhaps we could find more proof that its widespread and from there show these scientists that they have been manipulated and otherwise made to think a certain way using propaganda tricks. Then we can get them to turn against those who would do such things….This is just so malicious and evil that I can not believe this technique would ever be allowed and above all else this technique should be taught to children so that they realize what is happening if this does ever happen to them.
benfrommo said @ur momisugly May 14, 2012 at 11:03 pm
A number of things I agree with and a repeat of the erroneous use of the word sedition.
Encyclopedia Britannica XXI. 620/1:
I suspect what you reach for is a word indicating the undermining of the will of the people, but the will of the people is not the state. By state I mean the body politic as organised for supreme civil rule and government. FWIW, it is my opinion that the state is treating its electors as the enemy in what I fondly recall being called The Free World.
Lucy Skywalker says:
May 14, 2012 at 10:47 am
Gail that comment of yours looked interesting but the formatting on my normal browser made it illegible (ever-shorter lines)….
One request here please. Just don’t totally equate “political left” with “evil” because that exists on both sides, and so does good. Name it by organizations and people, and goose-step techniques developed eg this Delphi technique, Stockholm Syndrome, and – I suspect – Common Purpose.
___________________________________
Sorry about the formatting my computer has been flakey lately. (I checked the draft copy for bad blockquotes and it was OK. some how the / got dropped a couple of time betwixt and between)
I do not equate the “left” with evil. As a matter of fact it was people on the “Left” who first told me about the Delphi technique. My division is “us” vs the Regulating Class I think Dr. Evans nailed it.
Unfortunately naive good hearted people both on the left and on the right are exploited by the regulating class. It is only when we all wake up to the fact we are being exploited by the blood suckers in government and their buddies, that we have a hope of cleaning up the mess their greed for power and money have made.
H.L. Mencken had it right:
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself… Almost inevitably, he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable.
The worst government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression.”
It is the fanatics I fear, and having lived in Boston MA I met some very scary ones. Hearing from a square-dance partner “When We take over we are going to kill people like you” and knowing he means it does not endear one to the “Far Left” and the religious fanatics “Far Right?” were almost as scary.
The Pompous Git says:
May 14, 2012 at 2:28 pm
….I suppose you are going to tell me they weren’t really conservative politicians; they were only pretending and were in reality Bolsheviks or something…
____________________________
As I said to Lucy the real divide is the politicians and their blood sucking friends vs the rest of us who slave for them for a certain part of the year. Once the “Left” and the “Right” finally realize that and quit doing the Rah Rah Rah for the home team, (another excellent brainwashing technique BTW) we as a people will watch our politicians more closely and kick their butts when they get out of line.
Personally the only two politicians I like are Congressman Lous McFadden (R) and Congressman Wright Patman (D) The rest remind me of something I scrapped off the bottom of my boots after walking around the farm.
The Pompous Git says:
May 14, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Paul Ehrlich began The Population Bomb with this statement…
___________________________
Ehrlich’s Co-Author Holdren is now Obama’s Science advisor. All three are considered “Left” (I really disliked Bush too) As Lucy said there is “Evil” on both sides and from what I can tell “evil” rises to the top because they are wiling to stab people in the back and hide the bodies.