Paging David Appell and Nick Stokes again: time to fess up and apologize

Quik-set epoxy! A marvellous analogy for the immovable mindset of some climate ‘scientists’ Made my day.

Delusional characters. GK

I vote for a Josh cartoon!

Chubb said he trusted the man who came to him. Which raises the question, who was that man? And is he being disciplined for outright lying to Chubb?
Aw forget it. Already know the answer to the second question. There will be an investigation and he will be exonerated. Not necessarily in that order.

They lie and they know that they lie.

Quik-set epoxy…. Thanks for the midnight chuckle Anthony. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for an apology but I am looking forward to a Josh Lampoon.

Chubb has once again skated over the real issue. He seems to be saying that all academics need to be protected by security measures like swipe cards because just anyone could walk in to their taxpayer funded offices.
As a long standing denizen of the ANU, I am mystified by this. To the best of my knowledge, no academic has ever been killed, or even assaulted, in the ANU’s history, because of a dispute about academic issues. Not one. Not ever.
I discount drunken brawls during/after wine and cheese nights, which are far more of a threat to the ‘elf and safety’ of academics than genuine disagreements about big issues. And, oh yes, there have been quite a few. Sexual infidelity and internal politics (including parking and office space) figure prominently.
What we see (apart from the lawyeresque sliding away) is the normalisation of the idea that publicly funded institutions are only accessible to those who have been pre-approved via a swipe card. Thanks, taxpayers!
As for Chubb, he is now the Chief Scientist, whose remit is to justify the carbon dioxide tax. Nuff said.

Chubby meant to set the record straight sooner, but just never got round to it. He should have kept his trap shut. Right, nicky?

“Otherwise, I see Josh cartoons in their future.” …
Aha! A threat that makes mere death seem like the soft option … less embarrassing, anyhow!

O PS love the correction they did on the piece.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-11/anu-releases-abusive-emails-sent-to-climate-scientists/4005132
first correction
“UPDATE (May 21): The release of these emails under Freedom of Information followed reports last year (see related stories above) that ANU scientists had received death threats. Climate change sceptics have claimed that the released emails contradict suggestions that any death threats were received, but a spokesperson for the ANU says the university is standing by its claims that death threats were received. Questions have also been raised about whether one of the released emails did, in fact, constitute a threat to use a gun, with a person involved in the kangaroo culling program claiming the comments were made by him, and were in no way intended as a threat.”
It bad but next correction really takes the cake
“Editor’s note (May 24): This story has been amended to clarify that the specific emails released under FOI were found by the Privacy Commissioner to contain abuse, but not overt threats.”
Really? “but not “overt” threats”…. how about no threats at all. These guys just refuse to move an inch.

‘What if climate change turns out to be a natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us all’
So, they decided emails were death threats?

“Humble in Victory, Gracious in Defeat” is what should apply here. I do not think demanding an apology is particularly humble, whatever the provocation.
Having said that…making an apology by the defeated would be gracious.

David Appell, if you’re reading this, I KNOW Anthony is making it hard for you, but – maybe precisely with that added reason – please do apologize. Short, but sweet, without qualifications and conditions, is best. I’ve been there, done that, and it’s worth it. I do remember your honest and non-Machiavellian reaction to Climategate II.

No death threats, but darn I want to see their whole ediface torn to the ground, and I want to see them suffer ignomy and despair at their total gullibility. I want to see their integrity and status ground into the dirt, the whole lot of them.
I want them to know and realise, deep in their soul, that they have been used ~!!!!!!!

I think I’ll run a book on how long it is before threats against the Team and its hangers-on start to appear. Of course they’ll be anonymous and not traceable back to the warmists who actually sent them. Glieck has shown the way, even though he’s so stupid he got caught.

D Appell comes on Real Science and will light up the board with 20 comments in an hour, insulting everyone in sight across multiple posts, seemingly on a search and destroy mission. Nevertheless, it seems many skeptics are somehow enamored with him, otherwise he’d be ignored as they wouldn’t stand for his insults. Here are some of D Appell’s posts over the last couple of days:
“Of course, it is implied in all denier discussions of the MWP.” [still using the “denier” term, even when talking to skeptics {the gall, really}]
“You must be another idiot whiner unable to understand the concept of “metaphor.” Do you have a dictionary handy?” [to Stark D.]
“Did you ever have to write a research paper in, say, junior high school? I honestly can’t tell… As I said, standards here are quite low.” [papiertigre]
My feeling is that Appell is a warmist with an agenda. He doesn’t go to skeptic sites for his own fun and edification. I think he wants to throw a wrecking ball into skeptic morale. He prods endlessly to incite a reaction, and then goes back to his blog or Scientific American to say how bad us skeptics are. So we lose when we let him in. Look at the type of articles he writes at Sci American, as: Stumbling Over Data: Mistakes Fuel Climate-Warming Skeptics. This is a man who strives to ferret out our weaknesses, and then uses this against us elsewhere. I don’t know why he’s allowed on any skeptic sites, imho. But, I understand, that some might like the interaction.

You assume these guys want to get to THE truth of the matter (reality)….they only care about THEIR “truth”, their reality, their fantasy land. They won’t be bothered with facts that don’t support their fantasy.

Seen any good porcine aviators lately?

Slightly off-topic but…..@Greg….The “AGW campaign” is not paying to forcibly sterilise people. As UK taxpayers WE are. And I do not think it is lacking in humility to demand an apology for that. S**tbags, they are. Ought to be ashamed of themselves

Keep digging Nick, it’s worked so many times for other people in the past.
If you don’t believe Anthony try: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/for_the_record_there_were_no_alleged_death_threats/
Money quote from the ANU head at the time “For the record, there were no alleged death threats except when journalists picked up the story.”

Good luck with extracting an apology from Appell. He might attempt to divert the discussion to a video of someone holding up a noose in front of a non-Australian (let alone ANU) scientist; that person never uttering anything even close to a threat of violence, let alone death.
As for Nick, I’ve never seen any claims that he needs to apologise for on this subject. Having said that, I don’t read every single utterance from him, either.

Nick Stokes says:
May 29, 2012 at 2:33 am
my goodness – what a poor excuse for a climbdown!
..”And indeed there was an email which in his terms described an incident that could be seen as possibly threatening.”
AN email? COULD be seen as POSSIBLY threatening? WTF? even now, you are trying to defend the indefensible.
..”Since then, Mr Coochey has come forward to explain in non-threatening terms how he came to be producing a shooting licence at an ANU gathering.”
Oh, and you came straight out and agreed that the ‘story’ was clearly overblown and written in such an alarmist way as to not warrant further defence?
Nick, on the reasonable assumption that you do indeed have the capability of rational thought – please retrace your steps, and the likely ‘impression’ that the whole STORY left upon you to result in you being in this situation! Note, the word STORY in caps deliberately – as that what it was!

“Indeed there was an email which in his terms described an incident that could be seen as possibly threatening”….HE THREATENED TO TURN ME INTO A NEWT !

Now we can add paranoia as a required qualification to be a “climate scientist”.

Nick Stokes on May 29, 2012 at 2:33 am said:
I respond without great hopes, because my responses at WUWT now just seem to disappear. However, if I’m paged, here’s hoping.
First, I’d note that having people barge in off the street to berate you in your office is serious business. So the relocation was indeed understandable.

– – – – – –
Nick Stokes,
Now you are still imagining skeptic threats toward academics, this time the academic threatened being yourself? Your first paragraph alludes to you being threatened with censorship by our worthy host (Anthony). Your support of academically made-up threats is rather consistent . . . I give you credit for that. But cheer up because incipient paranoia is treatable if you catch it in the early stages.
Your second paragraph would have us all believe that doors to Post Offices and DMVs (etc) should be locked during business hours because some dissatisfied citizen might want to make a stern complaint in person about gov’t employees. The professors at ANU can dish out complaints but are too milktoast to look critics in the eye? You guys need to participate more in the actual society of normal humans.
John

Tom in Florida says:
May 29, 2012 at 5:00 am
Tilting at emails…..
____________________________________
Now all we need is Josh to do the cartoons that go with the words.

kev in uk
I demand that you retract your comment immediately. If I rearrange your words, turn some upside down and ignore every fourth letter then when I half close my eyes and squint at what remains I consider that, in some lights, and with a following wind, it could be argued that they could be seen as possibly a threat of some sort if the reader were of a feeble disposition and prone anyway to a touch of the vapours. . Shame on you sir
tonyb

@glenn thompson
I am hugging myself with glee that Chubb is so actually …..Chubby!
The word could have been invented for him. He clearly has no issues with anorexic tendencies.

Dear Anthony
Please be careful as you have shown that their credibility is dead in the water and no doubt they will squeal and say you, are sort of, kinda making death threats? 🙂
To Mr Appell and Mr Stokes please note: “As empty vessels make the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest blabbers,”

I would agree with many. The skeptic’s position being one of preventing tax dollars from being spent down a climate sink hole, we are, in essence threatening the livelihoods of climate scientiests who believe in CAGW. Job security has its benefits and when removed, leaves one feeling rather exposed to the whims of the buying private citizen. Not unlike private sector jobs I would imagine.

Nick “Mr Amnesia” Stokes has now produced his response: “Death threats – who said anything about death threats?”
Mr Stokes, please read the previous thread on how scientifically literate people can delude themselves. There can be no cure until you admit there is a problem.

Anthony – simply outrageous stuff and dangerously simplistic if you want to delude yourself.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/15/another-day-another-death-thre-1/ try this video
or sample some of the choice material received http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1216_scientist.pdf (warning that language here is rank) from an larger analysis at http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/21/death-threat-denial/
My colleagues in BoM and CSIRO have told me of the vilest threats made against person and family in email and postal mail, and sometimes in person at presentations.
Having sat through various anti-carbon tax rallies I’m not surprised – some of the informal audience chatter is off the meter. And the way the audience is whipped up by agitators I’m not surprised.
In fact why would any of us imagine that extreme views do not exist on both sides of the AGW debate. If you told me that you had received hate mail or threats I’d have no trouble taking your word for it.
Are you naive enough to think this is not going on – or are on entrenched that you cannot imagine any anti-AGW person never making such comments ? Really ….
REPLY: I and other skeptics do get hate mail, I don’t whine about it since none of it is credible. The issue is about death threats, of which there were none. I’ve never disputed there were angry emails. I’ll say the same thing to you that I’ve said to David Appell, show me some evidence of death threats. Hearsay on angry Deltoid isn’t evidence of death threats. The http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1216_scientist.pdf is about the same level of stuff that I get, and Morano gets. Morano recently posted an email that reads just like that against him, but it isn’t a death threat.
People vent when they feel lied to and threatened. Given the Gillard situation in Australia, I would not be surprised if the Gillard administration gets letters like these every day. Maybe an FOIA request will tell. When I worked at the TV station we’d get phone calls and anonymous letters like this from time to time, all anonymous. We didn’t worry about it except for the one time one person signed their name to it. And that time we did call the police. The person backed down, claimed it was a “joke”. We didn’t press charges, and never heard from him again.
Appell points out that he doesn’t consider comments from anonymous people credible, on that we agree, and some anonymous angry rants sent via email are also difficult to take seriously. Yours included, since your email address is obviously an obfuscation – Anthony

Nick’s transparent untruth about the phony death threats is typical fanatic behavior. When the prophecy is found to be lacking, or the eveidence turns out to be phony, the fanatic simply denies there ever was a prophecy or claims that the phony evidence was never important anyway.

epoxology: the science of sticking (permanently) to an untenable position

Mickey Reno says:
May 29, 2012 at 5:42 am
The endeavour of CAGW Alarmism is SO bereft of integrity that it’ll be staining and discrediting it’s promoters for a long, long time.
____________________________
It is doing that to ALL science. With the Royal Society, the US National Science Foundation. American Chemical Society and all the rest jumping on the consensus bandwagon, it will be a long time before science recovers from this black eye.

@Nick
First and foremost, thanks for showing up and reading through some pretty insulting stuff. Goes with being visible and speaking up. Clearly people feel the real situation has been misrepresented (alleged threats) and that offends people’s sense of justice. It is a form of emotional theft, I believe.
I didn’t dig into the why’s and heretofore’s of what you should apologize for and don’t care to. But I certainly remember Anthony being loudly and wrongly insulted for no good reason. That can’t sit well on one’s conscience. I often find his moderating unbearably lenient.
@Andrew30
>They lie and they know that they lie.
What surprises me is that in cases like the CRU’s work and the hockey stick, they know that we know that they are lying yet still they lie, as if there is another audience who still believes them. It means they hold that thousands of interested parties – skeptical climate realists – are not relevant.
@Pamela Gray
>The skeptic’s position being one of preventing tax dollars from being spent down a climate sink hole, we are, in essence threatening the livelihoods of climate scientiests who believe in CAGW.
Relevant to Andrew30 above, I am not convinced they believe in CAGW. There is a large and accumulating amount of evidence that they to not believe it; they are just selling it. The Yamal exposure during the past 10 days is a case in point. The trees were all added into the statistical blender and the result was sour soup so the majority of the trees were left out yielding a temperature hockey stick. It means the Team was fully aware of the realities that a) trees make lousy thermometers, b) there was an MWP and c) there is nothing alarming about the ramping of temperature from 1976-1996.
To continue to market CAGW while aware that the ‘best and most marketed evidence’ (the hockey stick) was a cherry-picked lie means there is no ‘belief’ save in the warped ’cause’ of the ‘team’.
Teams of scientists should have no other cause than the truth as far as they are able to determine it at the time. Conclusions are all conditional upon, one could say relative to, the state of understanding that prevailed at that moment. CO2 has a slight warming potential at the present concentration; water vapour has a negative feedback response to an increase in temperature, hence the Stable Earth Hypothesis. Time to ditch the carbon coyboys and get back to improving the lives of the multitudes.

Anthony Watts: “quik-set epoxy position”
Nick Stokes says:
May 29, 2012 at 2:33 am
“I respond without great hopes, because my responses at WUWT now just seem to disappear.”
Tom in Florida says:
May 29, 2012 at 5:00 am
“Tilting at emails.”
You gents are good. Almost as funny as “Who’s on First?”
—————————————————————-
John Whitman says:
May 29, 2012 at 5:07 am
“Your second paragraph would have us all believe that doors to Post Offices and DMVs (etc) should be locked during business hours because some dissatisfied citizen might want to make a stern complaint in person about gov’t employees.”
In December of 2009 I had to make a visit to the local US Social Security Office. At the entry way I was greeted by an armed officer and, I suspect but did not notice, a camera taking my picture. After a short wait I was directed to a booth and got to do business with a nice young lady behind an inch thick sheet of glass. The SS offices fit your “etc” and indicate their better funding, perhaps, than the quasi-govt. and money-losing Post Office and the state-govt. operating DMVs.
As ‘Ian E’ and ‘wayne Job’ have noted – “more idiots per square mile”!
Unlike CAGW, apparently “idiots” are a threat to be taken seriously.

The only threats I have ever heard came from warmists and environmental fanatics, who are hell-bent on giving their lives some sort of meaning and purpose. They see all resistance to the movement as causing the death of millions. It is a short walk, to calling for our demise or banishment.
It is a shame that these people find no purpose and meaning within their own lives and family. GK

Nick Stokes: “I respond without great hopes, because my responses at WUWT now just seem to disappear.”
Nick, are you suggesting that your posts are being deleted/censored? Or just ignored? The former is a significant claim that differs, I think, from most of our experience here.

Nothing to see here boys but lying attention grubbers shooting for a cheap headline in a long forgotten news cycle. The very idea that the activist pseudoscientists behind AGW alarmism are not FULLY aware of using cheap PR tricks to garner attention at critical times in their conference or funding cycles can no longer pass the laugh test.
That the distinction between private office work vs. academic office hours is ignored by our apologist comes off as naive and worthy of sympathy, but this is by design. Our charlatan is fully aware of such a distinction, one of the strongest that still exists in the West: the Academy is open whereas Commerce is private. Oily masochism may be at work here and a transferred longing for love out onto thousands of dearly earned readers, and again it goes, pushing them away at the one point real affection and camaraderie threaten to take away the sweetest battle of his life. Passive-aggression is strong in this one as he dangles the potential of being a future convert in front of others in public, presenting a challenge. One underdeveloped man on a planet of 6,840,507,003 now has tens of thousands of people hanging on his every word, berating him, blissfully! The environmental policy debate has thus taken a fetishistic and masturbatory turn down the muddled road to obscurity. All those kids who rebel against their grade school indoctrination will thus be rebelling not against anti-science forces but against silly old folk, merely, and justifiably.

So Chubb, as head of ANU, was happy to let accusations of death threats circle the media – threats of criminal, nay, murderous intent – and did nothing to persue them or investigate? Did he even contact the cops? Was that question even asked of Chubb, even by the coppers, after the event?
“I’ll just let my man take care of it and hope no-one gets blown away on my watch”.
My my and he is now the Chief scientist of Australia – not very curious is he?

Nick Stokes;
“false claims of death threats showed them to not be telling the truth”
OK, which scientists falsely claimed what?
>>>>>>>
Well we don’t know, do we Nick? Professor Chubb said he was told their were death threats. He’s quoted to that effect above. He claims he took the word of the person who told him, but doesn’t say who that person is. So, there are two possibilities:
1. Chubb lied about being told by someone else, or
2. Someone else lied to Chubb and he hasn’t said who.
So I don’t know which scientist made the false claim. Chubb, or the person Chubb says told him that Chubb hasn’t identified. But either way….someone lied. Instead of trying to obfuscate the matter, perhaps you should be just as angered about being mislead as the rest of us and put some time and effort into finding out the answer to your own question, just who is the liar? Pretending that there was no lie because at this point we don’t know exactly who the liar was is as weak a misdirection from the core issues as I’ve seen of late.

Some time ago, Mr Watts didn’t your offices in chico get invaded by an uptight femal antagonist.? Do i not remember correctly that you were very upset by this event?
More threats to scientists:
Warning graphic language in emails!
http://www.readfearn.com/2011/06/emails-reveal-nature-of-attacks-on-climate-scientists/
I understand there were several incidents at the ANU in early 2010. On two separate occasions, individuals had walked into institute premises demanding to see particular staff members. Both individuals were acting “aggressively”, professor Steffen said. The institute’s offices were on the ground floor with open access with no security restrictions. The institute’s website had also been subjected to what professor Steffen described as a “cyber attack”.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/05/07/hate-campaign-against-climate-scientists-went-beyond-emails/?wpmp_switcher=mobile&wpmp_tp=1
MIT Climate Scientist’s Wife Threatened In A “Frenzy of Hate”
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/01/mit-climate-scientists-wife-threatened-frenzy-hate
“I have hundreds” of threatening emails, Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University in California, told Tierramérica.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50607
Dr Wigley what can you tell me about these death threats?
TOM WIGLEY: Well there’ve been a number of abusive and threatening emails that have been sent to a number of the protagonists here, and I’m not going to mention the names of the individuals but it does include me, and those things are very worrying.
I’ve been asked not to say anything about the details of these threats but I can at least say that the FBI in the USA and the police in England are taking these things seriously and are investigating the sources of the threatening emails as well as they can.
And you know, while the investigation is going on it’s really not possible for me to say any more and I’ve been asked not to say any more.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2766202.htm
REPLY: The ANU is a public place, open to everyone, with generally free access. For example, here in Chico, Chico State University is open access, and if I wished to, I could walk right into CSUC and visit any professor’s office at any time. My private office is not a public place, but my own private property, which I hold title to. Big difference. – Anthony

Nick your integrity dies every time you defend something utterly untrue, The Hockey Stick and the Death threats were fabrications. Lies to influence the gullible. Keep it up, it hurts and ridicules climatology and keeps reminding people who the charlatans are.

No Surprises here the Socialist Doom and Gloom, CAGW crowd will do and say anything to promote their lying agenda, lie’s stacked on lie’s. This is a classic example.
1. Chubb lied about being told by someone else, or
2. Someone else lied to Chubb and he hasn’t said who.
3. The MSM media pushes the lie over and over again.
4. This is a small pathetic but example of how the AGW industry/movement has operated since day one!

jjthoms says:
May 29, 2012 at 9:34 am
Some time ago, Mr Watts didn’t your offices in chico get invaded by an uptight femal antagonist.?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, you’re trying to equate something that actually happened with a lie about something that didn’t actually happen? Oh my.

“Threats” of a sort, are everywhere and in every field. I witnessed or was told about a few between employees at a large radio station, one being an exchange between the tower rigger and an electrical engineer. I don’t condone *any* type threat, but what some of the AGW crowd was trying to do was to use those real or perceived incidents as a way of tarring the skeptics. In a way, I think they *wanted* the threats in one form or another.

Everyone watched and understood the Media Watch report, raise your hand. If it’s more than 10 I’ll buy a weather gadget from Anthony Watts.

tonyb says:
May 29, 2012 at 5:55 am
damn, damn, damn and DAMN! And I thought I’d disguised my threats very well, but you smarty pants saw right through…….!

%$#@! Dropped the Canberra Times cite too far.
Disclaimer: the 500,000 Pak rupees info did *not* appear in the Canberra Times…

“My colleagues in BoM and CSIRO have told me of the vilest threats made against person and family in email and postal mail, and sometimes in person at presentations.”
50 years ago people whould throw rotten eggs and tomatoes at those they didn’t like. What a bunch of baby girls. Form the Climate Scientist Rugby team and scrum down with some real men.

Rob Crawford says:
May 29, 2012 at 9:39 am

Isn’t it odd how there’s all this furor over threats to warmists, while Green terrorists are actually attacking people?

Yep.
http://the-scientist.com/2012/05/29/attacks-on-nuclear-and-nano-science/
Of course, I’m sure our intreprid “journalist” (Appell) has heavily reported on this.

Bill Tuttle says:
Thank You! 🙂
PS My above post links
http://www.readfearn.com/2011/06/emails-reveal-nature-of-attacks-on-climate-scientists/
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/05/07/hate-campaign-against-climate-scientists-went-beyond-emails/?wpmp_switcher=mobile&wpmp_tp=1
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/01/mit-climate-scientists-wife-threatened-frenzy-hate
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50607
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/06/australia-climate-scientists-death-threats

The cone. The poster. Am I the only one seeing it?

Nick Stokes;
No, in fact Prof Chubb is careful not to say that.>>>
Let’s see… according to the article:
“Professor Chubb admitted that he never saw the threatening emails. However, he denied any of them included death threats as was widely reported. “They were at least abusive but let me be clear…I didn’t read the emails. I trusted the man who came to me.” ”
Now here’s the thing Nick. That’s what he is saying NOW. But some things don’t add up.
1. He never asked to see the emails and admits he doesn’t know what was in them AT THE TIME.
2. He says they were at least abusive…. OK, trust again? Or did he finally read them?
3. This controversy isn’t exactly a few hours old. A responsible manager would have taken steps to clear up the misunderstanding reported in the news immediately.
4. His replacement, ALSO said nothing. While Chubb could argue that he was no longer in the position (which doesn’t actually change his responsibility to do the right thing) neither did his successor. His successor appears to not have checked with Chubb, not to have checked the emails himself, or if he did either, didn’t bother to set the record straight.
People in positions of public trust have a duty on matters such as this. By remaining silent in the face of media reports they claim they knew were wrong, they said nothing. By doing so they implicitly approved what was being said for publication.
So one again Nick, who lied and when? You can spin this in circles, but either someone lied to Chubb and he is covering for them, or Chubb lied, or Chubb and his successor both supported the dissemination of false information when they knew full well it was wrong. Pick which sin you think they are guilty of, but don’t ask us to believe they are guilty of none. You’ve got both feet stuck in your mouth right up to the knee caps and if you shove any harder you will be in danger of swallowing your arse.

Nick Stokes is now the Black Knight with the bottom half of his torso cut off. Don’t worry, Nick, It’s only a flesh wound.

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
May 30, 2012 at 12:30 am
Tsk Tsk said on May 29, 2012 at 5:31 pm: “The cone. The poster. Am I the only one seeing it?”
I noticed too, but if I had mentioned that I would have felt obliged to also note Obama and Biden are apparently in the closet.
According to Newsweek, Obie is now out of the closet.
http://i.usatoday.net/communitymanager/_photos/on-politics/2012/05/14/obama-newsweekx-large.jpg

From Nick Stokes on May 30, 2012 at 12:22 am:

Prof Chubb’s discussion with Sen Ryan is now available.

Strange link, standard click doesn’t work, need to right-click and save the pdf.

He makes clear that he has never alleged death threats, and that his statement about the absence of death threats covers the period of his time at ANU – up to end 2010.

Acually by Chubb’s official Chief Scientist biography he was Vice Chanchellor at ANU until February 2011.

So there it is. At the time of moving the staff, there were emails that were bothering them, but no allegation of death threats at that time. There had been intrusions. So he moved them.

Ever the alarmist, eh? You quoted Chubb: “They had had a couple of visits from people who had walked in off the street.” That rises to the level of “intrusions”? That’s what the police say when someone illegally breaks in, “There was an intrusion.”

And note that he specifically says that his comment about emails applies to the time when he was V-C. In fact, from the context, to the period leading up to the move. It is not a statement, as this post would have it, that there were never death threats at ANU.
Now that I’m not saying there were. I’m just exercising a bit of scepticism. Prof Chubb is not saying what has been claimed.

Why won’t you say there were death threats at ANU? The Australian reported on 24 May 2012:

… It is now clear that the move to more secure buildings at ANU had nothing to do with death threats. The move took place in February 2010, 16 months before it was linked in The Canberra Times to death threats.
…
ANU vice-chancellor Ian Young, when asked about the circumstances of the move, said there had been no death threats just before scientists moved offices.
“The threats that we know of just prior to the move were threats to physical safety,” he said.
“A more serious threat came some months after the move. Prior to that, however, we know of at least one direct death threat to an ANU staff member.”
That threat concerned Andrew Macintosh of the Centre for Climate Law and Policy, he said.
…

The details of the threat(s) were clearly mentioned by the Canberra Times on 5 June 2011:

…
Andrew Macintosh, associate director of the ANU Centre for Climate Law and Policy, said the scientists had been targeted for years but it had worsened. ”I received a few a couple of years ago. It was three letters, with pictures of dead animals and print cut out from newspapers. There was a variety of ways I was going to die. They were going to shoot me, gut me and so on. Since then I’ve had lots of abusive emails and phone calls.”
…

Come on Nicky! The current VC said there was “at least one direct death threat to an ANU staff member”. Mr. Macintosh detailed three separate letters. Granted that was a mere “staff member” and seemingly not one of the moved scientists, but still… Why not come out and say there were death threats at ANU?
And on the timeline, in June 2011 Mr. Macintosh says the letters were received “a couple of years ago”. Chubb was VC until February 2011. Doesn’t that indicate Mr. Macintosh received those letters while Chubb was still VC? Why doesn’t Prof. Chubb come out and say that death threats were received while he was VC? He did say in his testimony:

Prof. Chubb: For the record, there were no alleged death threats except when journalists picked up the story later that those death threats applied to scientists at the ANU.

So was he speaking truthfully, in your opinion, because he only referred to the scientists and not “staff members”? How thin do you want to slice this baloney, Nicky?

From Nick Stokes on May 30, 2012 at 5:08 am:

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: May 30, 2012 at 4:11 am
“Why won’t you say there were death threats at ANU? “
Why won’t you? Or do you?
Chubb’s reference to death threats (non-existent) is clearly in the context that he is being asked about – the move of the CCI staff members. His previous statement is:
“As a responsibility to staff, I moved them. That is it. I do not think you can find a quote attributed to me where I said they had received death threats.”

So you are supporting the weaseling? You provided the link to the testimony that had it. Here it is with bold added:

Senator RYAN: I turn now to an issue that has arisen lately as a result of a newspaper investigation and media reports last year, which is the alleged death threats to scientists or staff at the ANU regarding—
Prof. Chubb: Excuse me, Senator. Can we get the question right first? Where were the alleged death threats to scientists at the ANU? Who made that allegation? You?
Senator RYAN: Me?
Prof. Chubb: Well, you just did.
Senator RYAN: Sorry, I apologise if I am careless with my words.
Prof. Chubb: Okay.
Senator RYAN: I am trying to summarise a legal document.
Prof. Chubb: There is a line, Senator, which we should not cross.
Senator RYAN: Sorry?
Prof. Chubb: There is a line we should not cross.
Senator RYAN: Yes, I know.
Prof. Chubb: That is good.
Senator STERLE: Woops!
Senator RYAN: No woops on my part, Senator Sterle.
CHAIR: Order! Senator Sterle!
Senator RYAN: There were media stories about alleged death threats to scientists at the ANU.
CHAIR: Known very well to you.
Prof. Chubb: No.
Senator RYAN: They were not?
Prof. Chubb: The original article contained a comment about death threats to scientists in Australia. The journalist had spoken to 30 or so people, she said. Towards the end of the article, she quoted me as saying I had moved some people within the ANU. I was Vice-Chancellor of the ANU, not Chief Scientist, at the time.
Senator RYAN: I appreciate that.
Prof. Chubb: As a responsibility to staff, I moved them. That is it. I do not think you can find a quote attributed to me where I said they had received death threats.
Senator RYAN: Professor Chubb, maybe this is the reason you reacted before. At no point have I mentioned your name in respect of this at this point. I am merely trying to summarise the issue. So I am not mentioning— and I have not, for the record—your name. I have talked about there being media reports.
Prof. Chubb: For the record, there were no alleged death threats except when journalists picked up the story later that those death threats applied to scientists at the ANU.
Senator RYAN: Before that story broke, in terms of your dealings with it at the ANU, there were no death threats over the emails that were referred to in that media story?
Prof. Chubb: While I was Vice-Chancellor there, yes. (…)

So there it is, quite a clever weaseling. The 5 June 2011 Canberra Times piece clearly said there was a death threat. But it was a staff member at ANU who was targeted. Then when Chubb gave his testimony, he quickly twisted the questioning to focus only on the scientists. So although death threats were received at ANU, as confirmed by the later VC Ian Young, Chubb got off saying with a straight face that there were no death threats during his tenure because he was only talking about the scientists.
For added intrigue, as you noted the moved personnel were from ANU’s Climate Change Institute. Mr. Macintosh, whom Ian Young has confirmed did receive at least one death threat, the mere staff member, belonged to ANU’s Centre for Climate Law and Policy, which is part of ANU’s College of Law.
So how come the CCI people got moved to more secure offices, while the person (and his department) that got a verified-by-VC death threat wasn’t moved? Is a climate scientist more valuable than a lawyer?

Nick Stokes says:
May 29, 2012 at 6:31 pm
In all the posts this month the message has been emphatic – the death threats were non-existent. And I was sceptical of that claim. Is that not allowed?

Do you agree that the seriousness of the situation had been exaggerated? Yes or No?

The fact is, as Media Watch has documented, there was inflation of death threat talk as press reports circulated. And the later V-C in an on-air interview seems to have said something about death threats that may not have been well based – though as MW says, there doesn’t even seem to be a record of what he actually said. Beyond that, we really don’t know.

Certainly, you seem to be implying that the seriousness of the situation had been exaggerated. Admit it.

Nick Stokes says:
This seems to have lead to a serious situation being mis-characterized.

Do you agree that the seriousness of the situation had been exaggerated (regardless of who did the exaggerating)? Or, are you going to refuse to admit this?