Bishop Hill is reporting that some ugly emails have been published due to FOI requests. He writes:
In the wake of the death threats that weren’t at ANU, several people sent FOI requests to the University of East Anglia asking for copies of the death threats that they said Phil Jones had received. The relevant emails have now been released and can be seen here
Be warned, this is very, very ugly stuff, and there are several messages in there that seem to me to be criminal.
Colour me disgusted
I agree, they are vile and disgusting. Nobody should have to endure these. And, no credible climate skeptic would send them. These are the work of cowards.
From the perspective of these mild mannered scientists, I know these sorts of things come as a complete shock to them. I can see how Dr. Jones would have been driven to depression right after Climategate broke.
From my perspective, having been in television and radio newsrooms for 25 years, this is pretty run of the mill stuff. I’ve also gotten emails like this in my work on TV and radio, as well as during my publication of WUWT. I described my experience with this sort of stuff previously when I took the overly excitable David Appell to task for bringing my deceased mother into the argument in David Appell denies he has any class.
Note that all of the email sender addresses have been redacted. That probably wasn’t necessary, as it is highly unlikely any of these vile little cowards that wrote this stuff used a real email address. In my experience, people generally don’t write such things when they have their real name attached to such vile prose.
As I’ve always said about the Internet and electronic communications in general, anonymity breeds contempt.
This doesn’t change the ANU argument, which has been clearly and completely debunked. No death threats were sent there. I suppose that there will be another round of the story now that these have been published, because small minded people like Appell have a driven need to paint skeptics in the worst possible light, so I’m sure all sorts of associations will be made. He’s gone silent since he came out on the wronger than wrong side of the ANU argument, expect a fresh set of hateful prose from him now.
As for this thread. I’m not going to tolerate much in the way of off color commentary. Moderators – snip at will anything that doesn’t meet policy.
The emails are vile and ignorant. As a climate change crisis skeptic I completely renounce the views expressed in these emails. There is no place for these ad-homs-on-steriods, or any ad hominems at all, in the debate.
(sarc) Almost all climate change crisis skeptics agree with the above statement, creating an overwhelming consensus. Therefore, the issue is settled and should not be brought up by David Appell, or any other warmist, ever again! (sarc off)
Seriously…I do have one question about this that I believe would be of interest. How long did it take for the UEA to comply with this FIO, compared to requests for climate related data and emails?
Perhaps I am completely jaded, but I am skeptical of these e-mails. Twenty-six emails over seven days of the week works out to an expectation of 4 per week day. But the actual distribution is so peaked at four per day that I’m suspicious. I’ll bet Hugoson is right–these are straight from a certain playbook.
Cannot read them as it wont DL at the moment.
But already some are taking them as genuine, others are (with good reason given the Climategate etc), taking the position tha these are ‘false-flag’ attacks by ‘The team’
So around and around we go, still trying to get the truth to the public in a believable way – truly it was said that the first casualty of war is Truth .. and this is quite definitely a war
Anthony, I was the person being responded to in the post mentioned above [in my BBC username of many years standing]. Being in the UK and not the person named, my response was to let it stand, as I later said. I had second thoughts when I read the Bishop Hill post, but if you’re OK with it…
Anthony, you’re correct about this sort of garbage being all too common for public personalities. My observation is that female bloggers, journalists, etc get it the worst. You kind of expect this sort of thing from the Left, but it’s a damn shame when skeptics or people on the right do it. Whether in science or in politics, there are mountainsful of good honest criticisms to be made. Why do the hateful garbage, when you have perfectly legitimate arguments to make? I’ve said for some time that for all the good teh interwebz has brought, the anonymity, or at least non face to face contact, bring out the worst in people, on all subjects and all political flavors. Commenters, when you shoot off an email, or make a phone call, be logical and calm. No place for the hatefulness that goes on.
/rant off
not nearly as gripping as the videos of blowing up schoolchildren and soccer players, the suicidal animals or little girls clinging the the last tree on earth.
much less credible than agenda 21
however, they indicate that at least a few people got mad about being screwed.
apart from those few, the perpetrators of the fraud and the robbers of your rights have no resistance that matters.
but talk is just talk.
40% of american income down the tubes in the last 3 years isnt’ enough to get a true believer to doubt the system he supports. doesn’t even get him mad. that indicates that he agrees that he’s suitable as fodder and has no claim to rights.
I watched a tsunami vid yesterday. there were some who could not be so undignified as to run like hell. they walked as if they were balancing books on their heads – gracefully. they died.
i’d hate to have to depend on anybody like that in the trenches, but that’s all there is.
that’s why a ussr is all but assured.
the meek shall inherit the grave.
that’s justice. darwin says so.
Because just the pdf of these allegedly real emails has been disclosed at BH’s blog and nothing else related to the FOI request, then I am skeptical of the pdf file containing the emails. I will remain skeptical until I see:
1) the original FOI request made to UEA/CRU by the person who made the FOI request
2) the original UEA/CRU acknowledgement of receiving the FOI request that they are required to send to the FOI requester.
3) any response by the requestor to UEA/CRU receipt acknowledgement notice
4) the actual UEA/CRU transmittal letter/email sent to the requestor which contained the release of the requested emails/info.
Also, I would like to see the Information Commissioner in the UK (I sorry if I got the title wrong) review the credibility that these are real emails.
John
mrmethane said: onJune 13, 2012 at 7:52 am “… Glieckenspool, anyone?”
How about Gliechendoof? seems more apropos.
“From the perspective of these mild mannered scientists, I know these sorts of things come as a complete shock to them. I can see how Dr. Jones would have been driven to depression right after Climategate broke.”
Really? You suggesting his actions (lying and theiving) had nothing to do with driving him to depression? Are you saying that those who defraud the public should not have to endure any pushback by those about to lose their money and liberty?
Mild mannered or not, the fraud must be exposed and those who committed it, Phil Jones included, should pay a very heavy and expensive price.
The emails are vile. But I had to laugh at the illogic of the one that said…
So which is it, “slowly” or “firing squad?”
Holy Cow!
These emails just don’t ring true to me. Two, three groupings that have similarities, as well as really stupid inexplicable misspellings, the deliberate kind of misspellings you see in letters designed to make the sender appear to be an idiot. I think the Team is perfectably capable of generating this sort of stuff to make themselves appear rightfully aggrieved. I could be wrong. Best thing would be for someone with access and the requisite tools to follow these emails down the rabbit hole, see where they lead.
A lot of the emails will be from teenagers. This the norm in many modern sub cultures.
e.g. Anyone who does online gaming will be exposed to similar constant abuse.
Personally I can’t take it seriously, and so can find it somewhat funny. Although I wouldn’t post anything like that myself for fear of job security. Kids don’t have that worry, I kinda envy them for their freedom in this respect.
Hell, I’ve heard worst from my mother-in-law.
And all I did was take the last chicken leg.
I think the emails can be broadly divided into three categories.
There’s one set which is clearly the work of a loon, or several similar loons. Crack-head, meth-head, or merely unfortunately mentally ill, but, whilst distasteful, not subject to rational analysis beyond saying that if you’re in the public eye, you’re likely to attract rants from the odd nutter. Essentially, they have nothing whatsoever to do with the debate. Of course they’re deplorable, and possibly even the highest risk as far as someone actually putting them into action, but they’re not politically motivated in any way that makes sense to sane people. Some of the long rambling rants contain actual threats, but they’re buried in lunatic babble.
There’s another set which expresses the wish that the recipient would die, or kill themself, but which aren’t actually threatening. There’s one which ends by wishing Phil would crawl away and rot in a ditch, and then adds ‘(Please don’t take the black humour to heart.)’, which whilst not a threat as such is a bit like saying ‘no offence’ instead of avoiding giving offence…
The third set is the one consisting of the emails which are relatively short, relatively coherent, and have a clear, unambiguous threat. It’s a small minority, but they’re certainly there. As Anthony Watts points out, such things are almost always merely venting, but that doesn’t mean a recipient of them isn’t entitled to call them death threats. Personally, I don’t find receiving death threats to be particularly serious when they’re of this unspecific nature and in this quantity, but there are some there.
Where’s Sherlock Mosher?
Seriously, whoever these people are, they need help beyond anger management courses.
And why is it assumed they are right-wingers? Several of the mails refer (vaguely, in between the expletives and the spleen) to the economic damage done by the AGW crowd, including “dead children”. This is a common complaint by both right- and left-wing critics of The Cause.
Ironically, none of this would have happened if the CRU crew had paid attention to FOI requests in the first place.
Still, utterly sick.
I call bs on this. Your typical person who is interested in climate issues generally knows how to spell. These are false flag attacks. This is exactly the kind of thing I’ve come to expect from the team. Like has been said upthread, I’d look for Glieks fingerprints on this.
Max Hugoson says:
June 13, 2012 at 7:24 am
David Ball says:
June 13, 2012 at 7:37 am
How many “victim” cards are in that deck?
Kaboom says:
June 13, 2012 at 7:47 am
One can only hope for Gleick’s sake that he isn’t getting fingered for writing these, too.
mrmethane says:
June 13, 2012 at 7:52 am
John Whitman says:
June 13, 2012 at 9:23 am
=========================
As to the comments noted above, count me in this camp. What I would say has been said.
I agree that this type garbage is out of order. I would also say that if these emails are in fact real and were fabricated for political purpose by someone for the purpose of garnering sympathy for Jones, then heads should roll (this is a figure of speech and not a threat).
Death threats are over the line, however, calling for these people to be jailed because of their participation in outright fraud, is not. People will be held accountable, regardless of some unverifiable ‘hate’ mail from dubious sources. I have no sympathy for scam artist who have (IMHO) brazenly committed scientific fraud and malfeasance in pursuit of political power and/or self-enrichment. The cost of this scam to the people of this country is incalculable. We won’t forget or forgive, and they won’t be let off the hook so easily.
After resorting to cussing and threats; the debate is lost. Either some really stupid people sent the emails, or they are scam emails designed to gain sympathy for Mr. Jones.
I think the well-known pro-AGW troll Vendicar Decarian posts similar messages in tone and quantity every day.
I have had a Chief Petty Officer stand one inch from my face and hurl expletives and abuse at me for 5 solid minutes and then make me lie face down in the mud while he stood on me and hurled abuse at the rest of the squad. That’s abusive. Three large Gentlemen carrying an axe amongst other things pursued me for about ten minutes in West Wego before I lost them. That is a death threat. A Captain friend of mine was a protestant living in a particular area of Belfast in 1973. Two well dressed men came to his door one night and told him to leave. He moved to Scotland the following day and left everything except his personal effects behind. That was a death threat.
If a few abusive e-mails from loonies is the worst that these wussy “scientists” have ever had to worry about then pardon me for not feeling at all sympathetic.
Are there any death threats in this stuff?
Put me in the “false flag” camp as well. As stated earlier, I also see 3 different writing styles, There is a definite American feel for the emails.
But, these are definitely not the work of the typical skeptic. Recall, that after Climategate emails, skeptics weren’t angry, heck many were darn near euphoric!
In spite of the content of some of those emails, I had to “LOL” at some of them….. one signed “Chaos Deathwalker”. Aparently, that’s a reference to a Babylon 5 episode?
But, here’s what really jumped out at me….. bottom of page 7, “dodgy emails that were hacked…“. Uhmm….. oops! That’s not how us skeptics term the “release” of the emails.
BTW, Anthony et al, the comment referenced earlier at the BBC has been removed.
Yep, the left would never stoop to such levels. http://scoamf.us/Hass
The AGW people are in the business of faking data! Probably an inside job.