“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.
I’m surprised that Nick continues to engage in epoxology.
If I understand the situation correctly….
1. Anthony was attacked by Appell because he questioned the seriousness of the situation.
2. As evidence began to suggest that ANU had, in fact, exaggerated the seriousness of the situation, Nick Stokes argued against the evidence – implying that Anthony should still feel a sense of shame for originally questioning the seriousness of the situation.
3. ANU has now officially admitted that the seriousness of the situation had been exaggerated.
4. Nick Stokes seems to be arguing that the situation was, although less serious, still serious.
Nick, stop moving the goalpost. Even if the situation was somewhat serious, it is absolutely clear that it was less serious than had been originally claimed.
You should admit this and apologize to Anthony for ever implying that he should feel any sense of shame for originally questioning the seriousness of the situation.
The cone. The poster. Am I the only one seeing it?
It’s obvious that a lot of people here need to read the Canberra Times article by Rosalyn Beeby,and read it carefully.
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.
wobble says: May 29, 2012 at 5:22 pm
“As evidence began to suggest that ANU had, in fact, exaggerated the seriousness of the situation, Nick Stokes argued against the evidence – implying that Anthony should still feel a sense of shame”
Where on earth do you get that implication from? 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?
and so we come to:
“ANU has now officially admitted that the seriousness of the situation had been exaggerated. “
Where? Ian Chubb does not now speak for ANU. In fact, he made that very clear in responding to Christian Kerr at the NPC. He said that he felt it necessary in 2010 to move the staff based on information received. He has never said that involved death threats, and he made that explicit at the Senate hearing. But he was not speaking for the later period, and in particular for the period after he left ANU.
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.
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.
Irony is that anyone expected Nick Stokes to have credibility or honesty. He’s been a mealy mouth dishonest apologist for the cause from day one. He’ll obfuscate, lie, twist and do any contortions to that effect. He has always been one without any ethics or morals.
David Hoffer,
One reason why I keep on with this, probably longer than I should, is that people seem to make no effort to get the facts right. There are two successive V-Cs involved, two police forces etc. You need to know who said what.
Prof Chubb’s discussion with Sen Ryan is now available. 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. He first tries, as I have done, to try to get Sen Ryan to actually pin down what allegation he is talking about and who is supposed to have made it:
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.
Then the substantive exchange:
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. Senator, the story goes a bit like this. Somewhere early in 2010 I had a representation from a senior member of my then staff, as he was, saying that staff in his area were concerned about emails they had been getting. They had had a couple of visits from people who had walked in off the street. We looked at what we could do. We moved them. Senator, we did not make a fanfare. We did not go public. We simply moved them and got on with our business. I did it then. I would do it today if I were still Vice-Chancellor of the ANU and that individual came and told me that same story. I was pleased that I did it because I was a responsible employer.
Senator RYAN: Professor Chubb, I am not having a crack at you here. I did not have a crack at you earlier when you reacted to the initial line of questioning. So they brought to your attention emails that were, it is fair to describe, of a threatening nature?
Prof. Chubb: Well, they were at least abusive. But let me also be clear because, as I made clear to a journalist who asked me in the last couple of months, I did not read the emails. I trusted the man. He was a senior member of the staff and he represented the concerns of his staff to me.
Senator RYAN: And it was part of the research school or a particular department or faculty?
Prof. Chubb: It was in a particular building, yes.
Senator RYAN: And so you did not see the emails. I was not aware of your public comment on that, but I appreciate that. You took his concerns at face value and then you physically moved these people location-wise within the ANU. Is that what you are referring to?
Prof. Chubb: Well, I did not move them physically personally.
Senator RYAN: Their physical location—
Prof. Chubb: It was moved, yes.
Senator RYAN: That is what you mean when you say you moved them. You did not move them in or out of any particular school?
Prof. Chubb: I did not drive the truck, no. No. They just moved offices.
Senator RYAN: But it also was not moving departments or anything like that?
Prof. Chubb: No. They moved behind a door that had a swipe card access rather than were in a building with about four, maybe five, doorways open to the public.
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.
Note that the emails in question where not the ones covered by the FOI request. It was reported that he did not read those but that was for an obvious reason – he was no longer at ANU.
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.
Tsk Tsk said on May 29, 2012 at 5:31 pm:
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.
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
kim2ooo says:
May 29, 2012 at 4:31 pm
@ur momisugly me
Thank You! 🙂
PS My above post links (five links snipped in the interest of saving ‘lectrons)
Good grief — and you’re still sane after reading those?
From Nick Stokes on May 30, 2012 at 12:22 am:
Strange link, standard click doesn’t work, need to right-click and save the pdf.
Acually by Chubb’s official Chief Scientist biography he was Vice Chanchellor at ANU until February 2011.
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.”
Why won’t you say there were death threats at ANU? The Australian reported on 24 May 2012:
The details of the threat(s) were clearly mentioned by the Canberra Times on 5 June 2011:
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:
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?
Nick Stokes says:
May 30, 2012 at 12:22 am
One reason why I keep on with this, probably longer than I should, is that people seem to make no effort to get the facts right. There are two successive V-Cs involved, two police forces etc. You need to know who said what.
Okay — let’s see who said what…
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.
No threats? Odd – Ian Young said that the scientists were moved *because* of the threats. And they were moved while Chubb was Vice-chancellor.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-04/death-threats-sent-to-top-climate-scientists/2745536
Prof Chubb’s discussion with Sen Ryan is now available. 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.
Well, all righty, then. Let’s go back to pre-2010 when Chubb *was* the Vice-chancellor: “Claims prominent climate change scientists had recently received death threats have been revealed as an opportunistic ploy, with the Australian National University admitting that they occurred up to five years ago. Only two of ANU’s climate change scientists allegedly received death threats, the first in a letter posted in 2006-2007 and the other an offhand remark made in person 12 months ago…” My bolding.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/carbon-death-threats-go-cold/story-e6freuzr-1226071996499
So, to recap: Chubb claims he moved the scientists because they were concerned, and there were no death threats during his tenure. Yet in 2011, we see a news report that ANU had been hyping that at least one *alleged* death threat arrived by mail sometime in the 2006-2007 time frame, which *was* during his tenure. And Ian Young stated that the scientists had been moved because of concern over the *alleged* death threats.
*sitting back to make popcorn*
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.”
And Bill Tuttle:
“there were no death threats during his tenure.”
Again it is clear that he is responding to questions about the move.
As to the ABC report, that was queried by Media Watch. They seem to have got the time sequence wrong. In fact, if you read carefully, Ian Young is <not quoted as saying that the scientists were moved because of death threats. So
“And Ian Young stated that the scientists had been moved because of concern over the *alleged* death threats. “
No, he didn’t.
Nick Stokes says:
May 30, 2012 at 5:08 am
And Bill Tuttle: “there were no death threats during his tenure.”
Again it is clear that he is responding to questions about the move.
No, he quite clearly stated that there were no death threats while he was Vice-chancellor. 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.
Neither Ryan nor Chubb were takining about the move — the subject was the threats, and Chubb stated there were no threats during his tenure.
As to the ABC report, that was queried by Media Watch. They seem to have got the time sequence wrong.
It’s your unsupported opinion that the ABC story was wrong on the time frame.
In fact, if you read carefully, Ian Young is <not quoted as saying that the scientists were moved because of death threats. So
“And Ian Young stated that the scientists had been moved because of concern over the *alleged* death threats. “
No, he didn’t.
“At the time of the reports, vice-chancellor Ian Young denounced what he called intolerable threats against his scientists. ‘Climate change staff approached university management about verbal and written harassment. The university acted to move them to more secure offices’.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/police-not-told-of-threats-to-anu-climate-scientists/story-e6frg6nf-1226346268884
and
“Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research. Vice-chancellor Professor Ian Young says the scientists have received large numbers of emails, including death threats and abusive phone calls, threatening to attack the academics in the street if they continue their research.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-04/death-threats-sent-to-top-climate-scientists/2745536
Chubb said, “I had a bunch of concerned staff and they thought they should be moved to a more secure place so I moved them.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/climate-scientists-claims-of-email-death-threats-go-up-in-smoke/story-e6frgcjx-1226345224816
So, Chubb stated that the scientists were concerned, so he moved them, and you’re claiming that Young said that wasn’t the reason Chubb moved them.
Yup. Got it.
From Nick Stokes on May 30, 2012 at 5:08 am:
So you are supporting the weaseling? You provided the link to the testimony that had it. Here it is with bold added:
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 1:59 pm
But there you go again. Quote them. Or set out your evidence before calling them liars.
– – – – – – – –
Nick Stokes,
Appreciate keeping the dialog alive.
There is one fact that cannot be in dispute. The ANU scientists who received the emails knew they were not death threats. So they knew the truth was not being told about the emails when the ANU admin and MSM started telling lies about the emails being death threats. When the ANU scientists when along with the lie they became liars.
The ANU scientists saw the ANU’s administration’s story and the media storm rage around the world for an extended period. The ANU scientists saw clear statements that they had received death threats, the statement of their death threats were openly discussed as an established fact by the ANU and the media for an extended period of time. You say quote them . . . yet we now know the emails did not contain death threats (info commissioner’s report) and the ANU scientists knew when they received them that the emails did not contain death threats.
Now why should there be any credibility to the ANU scientist’s current story of verbal abuse in their offices by citizens from the street unless there is plentiful corroborating evidence from the alleged verbal abusers and other witnesses?
John
Do you agree that the seriousness of the situation had been exaggerated? Yes or No?
Certainly, you seem to be implying that the seriousness of the situation had been exaggerated. Admit it.
John Whitman says: May 30, 2012 at 7:46 am
“The ANU scientists who received the emails knew they were not death threats. So they knew the truth was not being told about the emails when the ANU admin and MSM started telling lies about the emails being death threats. “
“ANU scientists” is not an organism. It is a rather large collection of individuals. Each scientist knows what is in his email, but not in others. No ANU scientist was in a position to know that no other scientists had received death threats (if true).
wobble says: May 30, 2012 at 8:17 am
“Do you agree that the seriousness of the situation had been exaggerated? Yes or No?”
By whom? Yes, I’ve said that the Media Watch report traces how a tangential reference to death threats in the original Canberra Times report was expanded in the derivative media reports, without apparent justification. This seems to have lead to a serious situation being mis-characterized.
And Bill Tuttle, KDK,
Reference to the earlier incident is a red herring. If you look at Chubb’s statement in context he says:
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: …
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.
His “for the record” statement, trumpeted in this post, is clearly referring to the staff that were moved.
However, KDK,
“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?”
There’s no indication that the earlier person did not already have keycard security, which is common at ANU. In fact, the Law building would be a very safe place.
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?
Nick Stokes says:
May 30, 2012 at 11:34 am
“ANU scientists” is not an organism. It is a rather large collection of individuals. Each scientist knows what is in his email, but not in others. No ANU scientist was in a position to know that no other scientists had received death threats (if true).
= = = = = = =
Nick Stokes,
You actually claim the ANU scientists, whose emails were extensively reported worldwide over an extended period of time by ANU admin and MSM to contain ‘death threats’, did not know that their own emails actually did not contain death threats. Also, you actually claim those ANU scientists did not know that it was their emails that were being referred to in the alarming ANU admin and MSM reports of ‘death threat’ emails; those reports being made worldwide over an extended period of time.
The ANU scientists who received the ‘death threat’ emails knew they were not death threats and said NOTHING publically during the PR blitz on the ‘death threat’ emails that was supported by ANU admin and the MSM. That makes them liars in a chain of lying.
Their current story about being verbally abused by people off the street cannot be credible without extensive corroboration by the people who allegedly abused them verbally.
John
Nick, this would be so much easier if you’d simply admit that:
1. There were no death threats
2. You were taken in by the lies ABC promoted
3. You are thus defending an indefensible position
You are now acting like Bill Clinton arguing the definition of what “is” is. Everybody else (well excerpt your cohort in gullibility, the feckless David Appell who won’t touch the issue now) sees that you’ve lost this argument.
Can you really be this dense? C’mon you are a smart guy, act like it.
If you want to continue, please post a photo for Josh, so we can get the parody cartoon accurate. We already have picture of Appell.
Anthony,
I’m sorry that I took some time to see this – I had thought the thread had become inactive.
I have asked above and would ask again – if you think I have said something I should apologize for, you should quote it. Say what it is. You have not been doing that.
You say I was taken in by the ABC report? Where? I don’t believe I have said anything that relies on it. I have quoted above, favorably, the Media Watch report, which is quite critical of the ABC report, and has in fact prompted some corrections.
Generally, despite what you have been saying, I have not been affirming the existence of death threats at ANU. I have been sceptical of your case that there were none. For my part, I don’t know, and have never claimed to.
I think you have been taken in by spurious reports in the Australian. In your first offering of crow pie, where you quoted a report which merely repeated a year-old statement that the ANU had not reported the licence incident to police (as I had acknowledged). A report which had furthermore foolishly contacted the wrong police force (ACT Policing).
And in this latest post, you have, via the Australian, taken Prof Chubb’s statement out of context. It’s linked here:
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.
He is being quizzed about a specific allegation. He says emphatically that it was not he who said that the staff were moved (Feb 2010) in response to death threats. Sen Ryan asks him to summarize the issue. At that point he says:
“For the record, there were no alleged death threats except… “
He’s very clearly referring to that incident, not death threats in general.
Now I haven’t been claiming that there were ANU death threats – again I just don’t know. I’m just pointing to inadequacies in your case. I have agreed that the gun licence incident has been satisfactorily explained. I note that the ANU V-C seems to be still saying that there were death threats. I make no judgment.
If you want a photo of me, googling ‘”Nick Stokes” CSIRO’ should turn up something.
REPLY:Ok thanks. Next time I’ll suggest 50 words or less…this reads like a novel. Your perception of being “taken in” obviously doesn’t jibe with that of others here.
At your suggestion, I did find this. http://www.cmis.csiro.au/Nick.Stokes/index.htm – Anthony