“Death threats” story now proven false by ANU Chancellor Ian Chubb
The bizarre now laughable “climate scientists get death threats” at Australian National University has finally imploded completely with the former chancellor Ian Chubb going on record in the Australian today saying:
“For the record, there were no alleged death threats except when journalists picked up the story.”
That puts an end to the issue of there ever being any death threat. There weren’t ever any at ANU, then or now.
Now the issue of how the Australian media took annoying and rude emails (we’ve never questioned that) and turned those into a lie of international proportions will take the stage.
A screencap of the story:
Well that’s the end of that. Simon Turnill has more at Australian Climate Madness.
David Appell, who went on record to say I deny the existence of my own mother because I had the journalistic sense he didn’t and didn’t believe any of this was credible from the beginning is was recently whining that I’m a “bully” for pointing out the truth and calling him on his own childish behavior in this matter. His reputation as a science writer now lies in tatters, as he’s destroyed his credibility with his crusade of the non existent death threat issue.
Likewise, blogger/scientist Nick Stokes, who fancies himself as being cool and methodical, was completely taken in, and like Appell, seems unable to come to terms with his own quik-set epoxy position that seems to be a product of the tribalism he and Appell share.
They’ve earned a place in climate blog history right up there with “Vermin Supreme” for their inability to accept reality. I expect they’ll be making some sort or wardrobe change/fashion statement soon. In the Vermin Supreme style, I suggest wearing orange road cones:
-or-
They can be men, apologize for their errant and childish behavior towards me and other skeptics on this matter, and move on. I’ll be happy to accept their sincere apologies posted here or on their own blogs and put the matter behind us. Ball’s in your court fellas.
I hope it is the latter rather than the former. Otherwise, I see Josh cartoons in their future.
Related articles
- Paging David Appell – ‘death threats against climate scientists’ story even deader than yesterday (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Andrew Bolt: The perfect climate for hollow threats (junkscience.com)
- Lying climate scientists lie again – about death threats, this time (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
- ‘Death threats’ against climate scientists story deader still (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Quote of the week – Death by Coochey coup (wattsupwiththat.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Nick Stokes
As usual, you mix true and false to continue a misconstruction of events. How can we ever trust you, John Coochey did NOT produce a shooters licence at all, he was asked about kangaroo culling which requires passing a test and he produced his permit to cull Kangaroos – Not his shooters licence to possess/use a firearm, different thing entirely. and heck you have got to be joking when you say “investigated” by media watch…..worse than the UK whitewashs.
Now for your dissembling and ducking and weaving you should take yourself and a few of your colleagues to view the Heretic play in Melbourne, great acting, and centres around a threat to a UK professor who unfortunately wont toe the warmist line and pervert her understanding of science and the scientific method. You might also learn some climate science, have a few laughs and recognise some stereotypes in academic circles. So well acted its hardly a punishment, but go anyway…
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.
John Whitman says: May 29, 2012 at 6:53 am
John,
You recommend scepticism. I would too, to you, and a first tool is, as Willis recommends, just quoting what you are talking about. I’ve recommended that people who want me to apologize for something I said to do that. Just quote it. What is it?
“false claims of death threats showed them to not be telling the truth”
OK, which scientists falsely claimed what?
And Gail:
“Well Good ole Nicky just proved how sensitive and sequestered the ivory tower crowd is.”
Well, I linked to a stern condemnation by our host of office intrusions. It’s not just ivory towers.
Bill Tuttle
“And the “other stuff” going on reported by the Canberra Times and your link to it is…?”
Did you miss it? It’s the Media Watch report. It has links to the original Canberra Times report, which it discusses.
epoxology: the science of sticking (permanently) to an untenable position
“They had people walking in off the street…..”
Can you imagine a climate skeptic traveling half way around the country or world, searching out the campus, then searching out the department, then searching out the office, then the obscure professor and remain unchallenged by security the whole time?
Ludicrous. If that is the case then ANU students cannot be safe on campus if the chancellor is to be believed.
I hope ANU has got the camera footage, the subsequent arrests and prosecutions for these threatening street walkers. One suspects the people walking in off the street were really students from the climate department.
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 Stokes on May 29, 2012 at 2:33 am said:
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.
Chubb said a couple of visitors walked in off the street – not ” barging in” which implies intentional disruption.
Nick, Read the post again.
@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.
“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”
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com.au/
wayne says:
May 28, 2012 at 11:41 pm
At least Ian Chubb has some honesty to set the record straight.
====
After he was called on the carpet by the Senate. Did he attempt to correct the newspapers at the time? Where is this unnamed source that Chubb relied upon? Maybe he/she has a much different recollection of events – if he/she exists. Why has this source not come forward or been named?
Struth says:
May 29, 2012 at 7:20 am
“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.”
==========================
Put your big girl panties on…..I’ve receive hateful email – because I’m a Climate Realist [ and I’m a kid ].
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.
Nick Stokes says: @ur momisugly May 29, 2012 at 7:39 am
Well, I linked to a stern condemnation by our host of office intrusions. It’s not just ivory towers.
_________________
Oh good grief, GROW UP.
I have had death treats made, it came out in testimony in court because the idiot shot up the house down the street. Same person tried to run me over in her truck. Guess what Nick? The police did nothing except tell me not to rile the person. And BTW that was not the first time for me or for members of my family.
What I am saying is death threats happen to ordinary people so this should never have been news in the first place. Of the top of my head I can think of at least eight people I know who have received REAL death threats.
This whining because the public has figured out scientists have lied and are justifiably angry is pathetic. Especially when there are NO real death threats. SO GROW UP
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………your resemblence to the Black Knight from Monty Python gets stronger every time you open your mouth. You just are not credible anymore. When you act like a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar (“…it wasn’t me”) how can we be expected to listen to anything else you have to say. You have become the joke. If you want to have a fair hearing you need to start calling things as they are, not acting like some fancy lawyer with a silver tongue (maybe you and Gavin had the same teacher?)
Are you still unwilling to admit Manns hockeystick was bogus, or was that just another minor ‘flesh wound’?
Gixxerboy says:
May 29, 2012 at 3:50 am
Nick Stokes’s equivocation, dissembling and misconstruction of events is exactly what I expected. Typically vile tribalism and closed-mindedness. He doesn’t even begin to recognise that he has done anything wrong. What a pathetic little man. Obviously the product of an age of stupidity, vanity and selfishness.
^Repeated for effect.^
Stokes, any credibility you might have had before this fiasco is gone. Commenters are just about universally disgusted with you and your reprehensible sidekick Appell. If you had any sense of shame you would be hiding under your rock right now, instead of falsely claiming that you are censored here. But obviously, your Momma didn’t raise you to have any ethics. Or how to man-up and admit it when you are provably wrong.
Mr Stokes and Mr Appell
You are much cleverer than I no doubt, according to yourselves of course, however I knew absolutely that there were no death threats. Why? Well it’s like this see, when someone receives a death threat they contact the police and the police investigate. This didn’t happen now did it? Well lucky for the lie my Kangaroo down ANU that they didn’t make a complaiint, cos they would have been accused of wasting police time?
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.
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. ”
——————-
Poor baby!…
Many of my posts go “missing” here…Instead of paranoia – I attribute it to WordPress.
You might have a case – if like at RealClimate – your post showed up…and then went missing.?
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.
Showing someone your driver’s license can be considered a threat to run someone over if you’re not on the PC side of some given issue.
Nick and Appell you appear to have brought this upon yourselves … and this event should have been marked according to OSHA signage rules as follows:
.
C’mon Nick, even Harold Camping made a better retraction than that.
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 says:
May 29, 2012 at 7:39 am
John,
You recommend scepticism. I would too, to you, and a first tool is, as Willis recommends, just quoting what you are talking about. I’ve recommended that people who want me to apologize for something I said to do that. Just quote it. What is it?
“false claims of death threats showed them to not be telling the truth”
OK, which scientists falsely claimed what?
=== = = = = =
Nick Stokes,
I appreciate your reply. Thank you.
I was referring to the below quote of yours. I had your quote in my original comment to you. I am pointing out in my comment to you (John Whitman says: May 29, 2012 at 6:53 am ) that you are still prima fascia trusting, without corroboration, the ANU scientists (who falsely claimed death threats) when they are now claiming verbal abuse from citizens off the street. The ANU scientists knew there were no death threats and complied with the story of death threats anyway, that is a clear case of ANU scientists not telling the truth and being now prima fascia untrustworthy.
John