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.
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…
Said government and lackeys are already substantially compromised by the Progressive infiltration; it controls the WH, DoJ, DoE, EPA, and much more, already. It is working feverishly to sedit the rest. 😉
Ben, either you believe in democracy or you don’t. There is nothing new about governments, or other powerful groups, trying to influence public opinion. You must have missed the history of the Reformation.
Using arguments about sedition or its first cousin, treason, are usually a refusal to accept the challenge of battling it out in the marketplace of ideas. It looks like a shortcut to success.
In fact, prices in the marketplace of ideas have shifted significantly in the last few years, for good reason, and cries of ‘sedition’ and ‘treason’ have nothing to do with it.
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”.
—————————————————–
Who knew that St Thomas was a seer about computer models? He was a very wise man, which is why even non-believers like me still read his stuff today.
As for the Delphi thing, I think people need to get a grip. Any half-competent tent preacher and earlier collector of followers in Europe knew those techniques long ago. Just because someone wrote it down and gave it a fancy name doesn’t mean that some new, sinister conspiracy is afoot.
The Left & Right discussion is not fruitful because they are both names for no particulate philosophy, representing mixed bags of often conflicting concepts within Left & within Right. So I suggest beginning the discussion again but with the question: Does a person or group of people within a country advocate that the government should in general as a principle make laws that allow one group of its citizens to take anything from a citizen involuntarily for the benefit of another citizen? They would be some variant of pro-collectivists. Those that oppose variations of involuntary taking would be called some variant of pro-individualists.
If a particular person is an explicit collectivist that will imply they advocate a government with high levels of authoritarianism in principle with no restriction on its use. Likewise if a particular person is an explicit individualist that will imply a government of minimalist and strictly contained authoritarianism. You can find both in the Left and both in the Right.
The key for discussion is what is the nature of human beings as homo sapiens; what enhances our species existence as knowing animals? What government principles support the specific nature of a human and what government works against a human’s nature?
One cannot avoid these questions if one is to make sense of what either the Left or Right are proposing.
John
@the pompous git,
I did give examples of how this could be used for sedition against local Governments and frankly it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if this technique was indeed used to subvert the will of the elected or appointed local adminstrators for certain areas. In this case, I am not talking the “will of the people” but actual sedition as the dictionary definition states it.
I am not saying its used like this, but this technique is dangerous because of this and I think we all need to be aware of it, know how to combat it, and let others know. As long as you educate yourself and others, this technique is rather worthless as just a few people can turn the technique against those who use it.
@Johanna,
Peddling influence is one thing, but using malicious and manipulative techniques that are borderline brain-washing is another. Whether or not this is a conspiracy is besides the point. I never pointed to the how it is a conspiracy, I just pointed to how it could be bad, and this in itself is why people need to educate themselves on this technique.
We know for a fact that this technique was used on climate scientists and yes it is not a new technique by any stretch of the imagination to get people to “all believe the same ways and to ostracize anyone who is different.”
But you would expect that society would be beyond going into religious bents like that nowadays within science itself. That is not science….and just because some people are aware of it and are immune to it, others are not. So there you go. We have science being manipulated by other people for their own purposes by manipulating the scientists themselves.
As for your assumption that talking about this as sedition is missing the point. I did not state that this is sedition by just using this technique, I showed how it “could be used” in that fashion. As with any technique that is somewhat unsavory, the purpose to which it is used determines whether it can be classified as X or Y.
And by stating “Using arguments about sedition or its first cousin, treason, are usually a refusal to accept the challenge of battling it out in the marketplace of ideas” You are guilty of the same thing you are accusing me of. You are shutting down the argument by stating that I am unwilling to accept any other ideas with no proof except that by just simply bringing up a certain topic I am wrong.
Correction.
My comment should read,
“The Left & Right discussion is not fruitful because they are both names for no
particulateparticular philosophy . . . ”John
Excuse me, but, if you haven’t prepared “your case” beforehand and ‘worked the politics’ with (as in ‘met with’, written letters to, corresponded with and maybe even prepared reports for) those involved (ever heard of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making as issued by a regulating arm of our federal government? The FCC does this with regularity in a process I have some familiarity with), you’re going to find out in short order that there are those persons and individuals that have made those kinds of preparations! Getting up to speak at the podium anecdotally (as most people are prone to do) at the last ‘moment’ is not really the way to ‘handle’ these matters; this is not a court, nor does a public event like this represent a ‘parade’ of expert witnesses appearing appearing before the panel that has rule-making authority. Those things have taken place in most cases already, and indeed that event may be to simply gauge public sentiment (a few grumblers notwithstanding, of which there will always be a few johnny-come-latelys to these events.)
So, in closing, I would contend there is nothing ‘nefarious’ going on in these cases, in these public-meet events, except, perhaps one’s perception of same …
.
Gail Combs says on May 14, 2012 at 9:06 am:
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.
_________________________
_Jim says: @ur momisugly May 15, 2012 at 7:37 pm
Excuse me, but, if you haven’t prepared “your case” beforehand and ‘worked the politics’ with……
_________________________
_jim,
Quit trying to teach your Grand Mother to Suck Eggs.
How the [SNIP: !!!!! I didn’t think Grand Mothers even knew about those words!!!!!! -REP] do you think I am became aware of all this crap? It is not in the news papers or on TV or on radio. I learned it from dealing with politicians et al. over a long period of time.
OH, and _jim? I am a PROFESSIONALLY TRAINED FACILITATOR!