The Canberra Times reports

Australia’s leading climate change scientists are being targeted by a vicious, unrelenting email campaign that has resulted in police investigations of death threats.

The Australian National University has confirmed it moved several high-profile climate scientists, economists and policy researchers into more secure buildings, following explicit threats to their personal safety.

Whoever could be inciting people to make such threats? Oh look, here’s Tim Blair’s response to the news:

But on the weekend we discovered that it only takes a few emails to scare climate scientists clean out of their laboratories. “It’s completely intolerable that people be subjected to this sort of abuse,” said the Australian National University’s Professor Ian Young, who claimed that scientists had been moved to a safer location due to what he described as death threats. “Academics and scientists are actually really not equipped to be treated in this way,” he said.

Well, that’s not the message we got from their climate rap. “Perhaps,” replied reader George Rock, “they shouldn’t call people motherf … ers if they don’t want to fight.”

Notice that he’s not even bothering to pay lip service to the notion that maybe there is something wrong with sending death threats?

Also in that column you’ll find Blair, who is the opinion editor for the Daily Telegraph, lambasting a PhD student for pitching a “climate change for dummies” opinion piece to him. Apparently that is insulting to Daily Telegraph readers who all understand radiation physics perfectly.

See also: Joe Romm, tigtog and my post last year on the hate mail campaign against climate scientists.

Comments

  1. #1 David Marjanović
    June 8, 2011

    For the record, I haven’t seen any evidence that totalitarian measures would be necessary to do something about AGW, and the only people I’ve seen claim that totalitarian measures would be necessary were denialists.

    All that’s necessary is that we act fast. I really don’t want us to have to evacuate Bangladesh.

    As a first step, I suggest that Americans start heaping scorn on those congresscritters who keep cutting and delaying Obama’s plans for building a First-World railway system. On average, Americans produce twice as much carbon dioxide per year and person as Germans, and that at a slightly lower average standard of living.

  2. #2 dhogaza
    June 8, 2011

    All that’s necessary is that we act fast. I really don’t want us to have to evacuate Bangladesh.

    We won’t … if it becomes necessary, AGW denialism will just get more rabid in order to justify inaction in the face of “natural variability”.

    Yes, I am a cynical curmudgeon, but what makes you think these people will change their spots? Judith Curry will still be spouting off about “uncertainty”, RPJr will use economics to show us that there’s little cost to humanity if those poor brown people’s suffering increases (remember, they’re already poor, brown and suffering!), Watts will insist that the flooding of Bangladesh is a sure sign of the next ice age, etc.

    You really think it will be different?

  3. #3 Bernard J.
    June 8, 2011

    I am in dhogaza’s camp.

    I seriously doubt that these recalcitrant Denialati will ever change their stance, [even when the impacts have been long manifesting in their extremes](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8IBnfkcrsM).

    We just have to hope that they don’t have too much impact on the rest of the world’s decision to act.

    Events to date suggest that they do.

  4. #4 mike
    June 8, 2011

    Deloids,

    As I read through the comments on this thread, I can’t help but think that too often we are talking past one another. That we fail ocassionally to assume the good-faith of our fellow commentators and that, sometimes, our comments even verge on incivility. And I also think we are sometimes too quick to seek to “label” one another. I, for example, have been unfairly categorized as a “skeptic” and even a “denier” simply because I do not want a world where the philosopher-kings and cull-masters are nothing but a bunch of booger-head nose-bleeders, with Buddy Holly birth-control glasses perched on their well-picked hooters, and with oat-breath and adult-acne and high-fiber flatulence issues.

    So, Deltoids, I recommend we all step back and take a deep breath and resolve to show a decent and kindly respect for one another however much we might disagree.

  5. #5 James Haughton
    June 8, 2011

    Blair and Bolt are now claiming, on the basis of [this story](http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/carbon-death-threats-go-cold/story-e6freuzr-1226071996499) by Andrew Carswell in the Daily Telegraph, that this story is a deliberate beatup by ANU about something that happened several years ago. I’m skeptical, because a) it’s News Ltd b) the story calls Jo Nova a “scientist” (admittedly, she does have a science degree, but still) and c) the ANU’s had those swipe cards for years. However, if Tim or someone wanted to check the veracity of the claim and counterclaim, I think that would be good.

    PS I am not the other James!

  6. #6 Lotharsson
    June 8, 2011

    > Joanne Nova pays lip service to the idea that death threats and threats of sexual vilence are bad…

    > …and then goes on to speculate that the threats were manufactured by climate activists to help scientists gain sympathy.

    In other (old) news, Joanne Nova pays lip service to the idea of good science…and then proceeds to butcher it in favour of deeply dodgy “science” instead.

    And in still other (old) news, Joanne Nova pays lip service to the idea that ad hominem arguments are bad and reveal a lack of an argument…and then proceeds to use ad homs – and falsely label other people’s comments ad hom in order to dismiss them.

    Why, it’s almost starting to look like a pattern…

  7. #7 John
    June 9, 2011

    Don’t be a tone troll Mike.

    >I do not want a world where the philosopher-kings and cull-masters are nothing but a bunch of booger-head nose-bleeders, with Buddy Holly birth-control glasses perched on their well-picked hooters, and with oat-breath and adult-acne and high-fiber flatulence issues.

    Of course for deniers civility can only extend one way.

  8. #8 David
    June 9, 2011

    “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.”

    Typical.

  9. #9 Ken Fabos
    June 9, 2011

    Some people might be more impressed by a strictly religious interpretation of how we got into our climate predicament –

    Devil: Wealth and Power unimaginable, great war machines to smite your enemies. These are what the treasures from my domain can give you. Um… sorry about the smell.
    Humanity: There has to be catch. Besides the smell.
    Devil: Well, yes. A very small change to the world’s energy budget. Very small. You’d have to burn thousands of millions of tons of the stuff each year continuously for decades to even notice. I mean, that would take the whole population of the civilised world digging full time. I’d be sceptical of anyone who tells you it could ever happen. But, yes, it can be Like a little bit of Hell’s heat leaks into the world if you overdo it –
    Humanity: Hang on a sec! What was that bit again –
    Devil: A very small change to the energy budget –
    Humanity: Not that! What was the bit about wealth and power and war machines to smite our enemies?

  10. #10 ChrisC
    June 9, 2011

    Mike @ 104

    I sorta, kinda, maybe agree with you. We shouldn’t be quick to play the denier card. People who ask innocent questions should be given the benefit of the doubt (isn’t there the 3 strikes rule before one is named a “troll”?).

    That said, as an actual, real person working in something approximating climate science (I study internal variability of the atmosphere and ocean) I’ve been accused of being a:
    – Communist;
    – Liar and fraud;
    – Prostitute;
    – Thief;
    – Part of a grand conspiracy, together with the Queen of England, to use “So called climate change” to kill a large fraction of the worlds population, specifically poor people in Africa and Asia (no, really).

    In order to undertake work trying to understand that which those who deny AGW repeatedly claim to be responsible for current temperature trends (“natural variability”), I left a good job in that most holy institution, the private sector, took a pay cut of close to 50%, increased my working hours by 10-15%, so I can beaver away in a lab squinting at 2 meter long equations. These are not the actions of someone in it for the gold of research grants.

    If I’m to take people on good faith, why isn’t it returned? Why don’t those who clearly deny scientific evidence allow for one tiny second, the possibility there might be a reason Earth scientists are concerned about rising green house gases? No, I must say the things I say, do the things I do, because I’m hell bent on world domination! Why does saying “motherfucker” in a clearly tongue-cheek-video induce much pearl clutching, whilst accusing scientists of fraud (at the least) get a pass?

    Thanks to the work of those like Tim Blair, many ordinary people see climatologists as people who would sell their own child to Satan for a bit of that sweet, sweet grant money. Civility is a two way street. As such, I suggest you go repost your rant over on Tim Blair and Andrew bolts web site.

    /rant

  11. #11 ligne
    June 9, 2011

    > That’s fine mate, then don’t come crying to the taxpayers for money. [...] I do have contempt for a scientific method that excludes those who may question the veracity of certain scientific theories.

    i’ve just written to [the STFC](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Technology_Facilities_Council), suggesting that funding for astronomy research should be contingent on debating geocentrists and flat-earthers. their voices must not be suppressed!

    i’ve not yet heard back from them, but i’m hopeful.

  12. #12 SteveC
    June 9, 2011

    @ mike

    I recommend we all step back and take a deep breath and resolve to show a decent and kindly respect for one another however much we might disagree.

    Well said mike. Please do be sure to let us know how you get on spreading your message of peace and love over at Blot, WTFUWT, Marohasy’s bog, JoNova and BishopDill.

  13. #13 Paul UK
    June 9, 2011

    James:
    >I love science and scientists. They have been responsible for fixing a number of broken bones and curing a number of ills. In fact they’re responsible for pretty well most of the things I enjoy today.

    Then you love them for the wrong reason. You are looking for only positive outcomes, that is a mistake and isn’t what science is about. It explains why you are wrong in your outlook and in your philosophy.
    If science says humans are doing something wrong, you need to accept that and do something about what you are doing wrong. On a global scale, you have to take the rough with the smooth, life isn’t ever intended to be only positive.

    James:
    >What I detest are those who point to a bunch of letters after their name and seek to change the way people live, and the democratic way our nation is governed, and pay less than lip service to their obligation to explain why. Instead abuse those who ask why.

    You need to analyse why you think like that. You give the impression that you don’t ‘have letters after your name’. Actually many scientists don’t like putting letters after their name, they prefer to be judged on merit rather than letters. But the main issue is your own prejudices towards those with letters or qualifications. I suggest this issue has come up in other areas of your life, in which case your reaction has nothing to do with the subject.

    James:
    >The world has seen your type before. With horrenous consequences. Now “this time” you may well be right. Who can possibly tell, especially when your modelling doesn’t stack up and when the government reverts to telling outright falsehoods to implement the policies that you seek to be implemented.

    So because science says humans are doing something wrong, there must be a conspiracy?
    You need to analyse yourself and why you would think that.

    James:
    >But I can gaurantee you one thing, people like me won’t lie down in the face of your calls to authority, your attempts to stifle debate, and most importantly your abuse. We like our freedom and won’t surrender it on the whim of a small group of eggheads like you.

    This again relates to your prejudices regarding those that have letters or have a higher qualification. This has nothing to do with the debate.

  14. #14 Marion Delgado
    June 9, 2011

    Jesus. The usual rules apply, I see. 1 Troll (James) ties up what, 10 people?

    And it’s not like it’s intelligent trolling, it’s scripted trolling. Alas.

  15. #15 bill
    June 9, 2011

    Is ‘intelligent trolling’ an oxymoron?

    (Not much of a question to ponder perhaps, but it’s probably no more futile than debating the likes of ‘James’!)

  16. #16 mike
    June 9, 2011

    @SteveC

    Yr comment no. 111 “Well said Mike.”

    Thanks for the compliment, Steve. But you did read my comment no. 104, didn’t you? I mean read it carefully?

  17. #17 rhwombat
    June 9, 2011

    But Marion, troll-goring is fun, especially since this issue is a very public own-goal by the Murdocrats. The zeitgeist over here seems to be swinging in favour of reality – there were very large rallies in all the Oz capitals last weekend in favour of addressing climate change. That’s why the domestic Koch-suckers and IPA Sturm Abteilung are fulminating so hard.

  18. #18 rhwombat
    June 9, 2011

    Mike@115: Troll is irony-deficient.

  19. #19 mike
    June 9, 2011

    rhwombat,

    Yr. comment no. 117

    Not bad, at all. You’re getting better all the time “bat”-man.

  20. #20 Paul UK
    June 9, 2011

    OK I’m am guilty of feeding the troll…

    >What I detest are those who point to a bunch of letters after their name

    Isn’t the problem… people with letters before and after their name??

    eg:

    The Hon. Anthony (Tony) Abbott BEc, LLB (Syd), MA (Oxon).
    The Hon. Julia Gillard BA, LLB (Melb).

  21. #21 John
    June 9, 2011

    Poor old Mike can’t even play by his own rules of civility, the sniveling coward.

  22. #22 mike
    June 9, 2011

    John,

    Yr. no. 120.

    Oh brother, John. What can I say. It’s guys like you that give greenshirts their reputation as diaper-pail creep-outs.

    Look at me, John. Look at me. You’ve really got to learn to be less of a cheese-booger doofus. You know what I mean, John?

  23. #23 John
    June 9, 2011

    >So, Deltoids, I recommend we all step back and take a deep breath and resolve to show a decent and kindly respect for one another however much we might disagree.

    Come on Mike. Don’t be so easily rattled. Play by the rules you demand everyone else play by, or be branded a hypocrite. It’s your call.

  24. #24 James
    June 9, 2011

    Actually, if you go to my original post on the subject, I’ve derailed nothing. I was just interested in what your (and particularly Tim’s) standards are when it comes to levels of abuse. Bang on topic.

    OK. Now’s your chance. The basic science is that
    1. CO2 is transparent to visible radiation but absorbs infrared radiation (known for 150 years).
    2. Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will therefore tend to increase Earth’s average temperature (effect first calculated over 100 years ago).
    3. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing (known for 50 years).
    4. Most, if not all, of this increase is coming from human activity (also known for 50 years, from several sources).
    5. Therefore, anthropogenic global warming can be expected.
    6. Multiple lines of evidence indicate that Earth’s average temperature is increasing.
    7. In addition, increasing the level of atmospheric CO2 will increase the amount dissolved in oceans, resulting in them becoming more acidic.

    1. Would not have a clue.

    2. Perhaps, although I understand it also works the other way around. Not relevant (the other way around bit) unless you are Al Gore I guess.

    3. Accepted

    4. Wrong

    5. No, not really.

    6. For the three decades up until 2001 perhaps. The last decade has been largely stable.

    7. Not necessarily.

    It’s telling that not once did you mention water vapour in your summary of global warming. I also understand that water vapour is given scant regard in the IPCC reports. Why is that when I understand it is by far the most important of the greenhouse gases and ocean currents have such a large bearing on climate and weather?

  25. #25 James
    June 9, 2011

    By the way, seems I am so far half right on my conspiracy theory regarding the emails. Apparently it all happened some years ago. Why then would it be raised as an issue right now? Engender sympathy perhaps?

  26. #26 Robert Murphy
    June 9, 2011

    James the troll is spouting all the usual denialist talking points, even the ones most are too embarrassed to use like “the CO2 rise isn’t us”. He claims to “not have a clue” about the greenhouse gas properties of CO2. Continuing to feed his ego by replying to him will surely have “horrenous consequences” for this thread. JMHO

  27. #27 Wow
    June 9, 2011

    > Perhaps, although I understand it also works the other way around

    Now look at your earlier answer re: CO2:

    > Would not have a clue.

    So do you have an understanding that’s clueless or are you understanding you’re clueless?

    Or just making shit up?

    > 4 Wrong

    Uhm, why? Because you say so?

    > 5 No, not really.

    See “wouldn’t have a clue” again.

    > 6 For the three decades up until 2001 perhaps.

    So you’re clueless about statistics and graph trends too.

    > 7 Not necessarily.

    It is. Even if it isn’t necessarily so in the abstract, in the concrete world we live in, it is.

  28. #28 John
    June 9, 2011

    >Perhaps, although I understand it also works the other way around. Not relevant (the other way around bit) unless you are Al Gore I guess.

    James, are you saying that more Co2 in the atmosphere will decrease the world’s temperature? Or are you referring to ice ages when there were higher concentrations of Co2 in the atmosphere?

    I’m glad you brought this up.

    Wouldn’t common sense tell you that it was the high concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere that caused warming and brought us out of the ice age?

    Or is it like heating up a room – does the room heat instantly the second the heater is turned on? Or does it heat slowly?

    Does the heater being turned on high but the room being cold means the heater cools the room? Because this is what you are arguing.

    As for point four – we can read the isotopes so we know the extra Co2 is through burning fossil fuels. You are so incredibly wrong on this, as if you didn’t need to be discredited further.

    Kudos on 1 though. You really should have been honest and answered every question with that. You really have no idea.

  29. Marion Delgado:

    > Jesus. The usual rules apply, I see. 1 Troll (James) ties up what, 10 people?

    > And it’s not like it’s intelligent trolling, it’s scripted trolling. Alas.

    Yep. Apparently, some people have this idea that when some people threatens to , and other people cheer them on, then we can somehow persuade these other people to change their minds using calm dispassionate evidence and logic. Hello?!?!?!?

    If this is how ‘we’ are going to do climate change ‘activism’, then we’re screwed.

    — frank

  30. Let me try that again…

    * * *

    Marion Delgado:

    > Jesus. The usual rules apply, I see. 1 Troll (James) ties up what, 10 people?

    > And it’s not like it’s intelligent trolling, it’s scripted trolling. Alas.

    Yep. Apparently, some people have this idea that when some people threatens to sexually assault climate scientists’ families, and other people cheer them on, then we can somehow persuade these other people to change their minds using calm dispassionate evidence and logic. Hello?!?!?!?

    If this is how ‘we’ are going to do climate change ‘activism’, then we’re screwed.

    — frank

  31. #31 rhwombat
    June 9, 2011

    Mike @118&121: Oh. So you’re that Mike. Not just irony challenged then. Mikey boy: The frustrated-fantasy-USMC-wannabe-wingnut-welfare-wacko who trolls Oz climate blogs, presumably ’cause he has developed a taste for his own arse (that’s ass to you, Septic), whether or not it’s in a nappy-bucket.

    James @ 123: “1. Would not have a clue” summarises you perfectly: Denialist. Even a DK troll should have the insight to spot the flaw in the water vapour trolling point ( though perhaps I credit you with too much intelligence – hmm, wonder if you can work out what it is?). To quote GBS (allegedly to one of the Astor’s about to marry another peer, when she took umbrage at being compared to a prostitute): “Madame, we have already agreed what you are, now we are merely haggling about the price”.

  32. #32 Wow
    June 9, 2011

    > seems I am so far half right on my conspiracy theory regarding the emails.

    Yes, you’re right that there are emails. Emails exist.

    The conspiracy not so much.

  33. #33 Wow
    June 9, 2011

    > Or is it like heating up a room – does the room heat instantly the second the heater is turned on? Or does it heat slowly?

    Read on SkS an equivalent:

    James, turn on your oven, set it for 400F. Wait ten seconds. If it isn’t at 400F, then the theory of ovens is false.

  34. #34 James
    June 9, 2011

    You guys should first start by dealing with what I do write rather than inserting your own meanings to suit yourselves then arguing aginst those.

    Frank, I really don’t get what you are on about with that raping families stuff. If you are implying that I have made that threat or “cheered on” someone else who has done so perhaps you would like to make that allegation in person?

    Anyway, didn’t the Institute of Physics have something to say about this whole business?

  35. #35 James
    June 9, 2011

    “James, turn on your oven, set it for 400F. Wait ten seconds. If it isn’t at 400F, then the theory of ovens is false.”

    You guys really do love your false analogies don’t you. I think you allow about 20mins for an oven to preheat.

    So if I turned it on then checked it after say 5 minutes and it was at 100F, then checked it after 10mins and it was still at 100F, I’d be checking whether I had turned the knob to the right spot and if so, I’d be looking for a new oven.

  36. James, then maybe you can tell us why, even as you claim to oppose death threats and rape threats, you keep blaming the climate scientists, when the only people who are known to have been threatening sexual harassment are global warming denialists.

    > Anyway, didn’t the Institute of Physics have something to say about this whole business?

    About what? Your vague allusions to vague stuff? Stop talking about everything and nothing at the same time. Talk about the death threats, because it’s what this very thread is about.

    You say that the scientists themselves faked the death threats. Do you have any evidence at all?

    — frank

  37. #37 James
    June 9, 2011

    James, are you saying that more Co2 in the atmosphere will decrease the world’s temperature? Or are you referring to ice ages when there were higher concentrations of Co2 in the atmosphere?

    I’m glad you brought this up.

    Wouldn’t common sense tell you that it was the high concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere that caused warming and brought us out of the ice age?

    John I don’t think you are up with the science. The warming preceded the CO2 by some 800 years.

    I thought we had moved beyond arguments of linear warming and historical CO2 levels matching temperature lines.

  38. #38 Wow
    June 9, 2011

    “I think you allow about 20mins for an oven to preheat.”

    And you have to allow how long to see how far the earth will heat..?

    You see, you know that your point about cooling is a load of bullshit, but you won’t admit it in the context of AGW, just admit it in the context of something mundane like your oven.

    “So if I turned it on then checked it after say 5 minutes and it was at 100F, then checked it after 10mins and it was still at 100F”

    But you’re checking after 6 minutes, seeing it at 100F when your error of estimation is +/- 20F and going “It’s cooling” when you state that it’s been the same temperature since 1998.

  39. #39 SteveC
    June 9, 2011

    @ frank:

    Apparently, some people have this idea that when some people threatens to sexually assault climate scientists’ families, and other people cheer them on, then we can somehow persuade these other people to change their minds using calm dispassionate evidence and logic. Hello?!?!?!?

    If this is how ‘we’ are going to do climate change ‘activism’, then we’re screwed.

    I take your point, it’s a bit like swatting flies when the most effective action is to get the dung that’s their breeding ground out of the room.

    We need more dung beetles and fewer fly-swatters I guess.

  40. #40 Wow
    June 9, 2011

    > If you are implying that I have made that threat or “cheered on” someone else who has done so

    Frank isn’t saying anything of the sort.

    But you’ve never said you don’t agree with them and you’ve never said that their actions are killing their stance of skepticism.

    Silent approval:

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tacit
    3. Archaic Not speaking; silent.

    Or, in other words, if you’re not against the child rapists, you’re for them.

    You haven’t been against them, so you must be for them.

  41. #41 James
    June 9, 2011

    You see, you know that your point about cooling is a load of bullshit, but you won’t admit it in the context of AGW, just admit it in the context of something mundane like your oven.

    I don’t think I said anything about cooling, although I did say something about manufacturing my points to make it easier for you to argue with.

  42. #42 John
    June 9, 2011

    >Anyway, didn’t the Institute of Physics have something to say about this whole business?

    Yes:

    >The institute’s position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing, and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change.

    Back to you:

    >You guys should first start by dealing with what I do write rather than inserting your own meanings to suit yourselves then arguing aginst those.

    You said that adding Co2 to the atmosphere “works the other way round” i.e. causes cooling. This is fantasy. At equilibrium with no other forcings, adding Co2 to the atmosphere will only cause warming.

    My analogy is perfectly correct.

  43. Wow:

    OK, I stand corrected… James did say,

    > I’m not sure that anything I have written would suggest that I would condone any sort of harrassment and/or abuse.

    > For the record, I am entirely opposed to such behaviour. And I am entirely opposed to those who would condone it.

    But, just like Joanne Nova, he miraculously manages to blame the current spate of death threats and rape threats on … scientists.

    (Of course, if they’re all the scientists’ fault, then these threats won’t undermine denialism, at least in the denialists’ minds…)

    — frank

  44. #44 Wow
    June 9, 2011

    > John I don’t think you are up with the science. The warming preceded the CO2 by some 800 years.

    Not in the PETM.

    (But I wouldn’t expect honesty from a supporter of child rapists.)

    So, if you take the trend for the past 11 years the error in determination of the final endpoint 800 years in the future would be 800/11 or 72x as high as the sampled error in trend. You DID do an error bar on that level trend since 1998, didn’t you?

  45. #45 John
    June 9, 2011

    >I don’t think I said anything about cooling, although I did say something about manufacturing my points to make it easier for you to argue with.

    Explain to us what Co2 “works the other way round” means if not causing cooling instead of warming.

  46. SteveC:

    > We need more dung beetles and fewer fly-swatters I guess.

    Heheh… I like that analogy. :)

    — frank

  47. #47 James
    June 9, 2011

    Frank isn’t saying anything of the sort.

    But you’ve never said you don’t agree with them and you’ve never said that their actions are killing their stance of skepticism.

    Silent approval:

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tacit 3. Archaic Not speaking; silent.

    What a contemptible conclusion to come to, even if I had remained silent on the subject. I did not, by the way.

    You guys are really pretty poor at this.

    Or, in other words, if you’re not against the child rapists, you’re for them.

    You haven’t been against them, so you must be for them.

  48. #48 John
    June 9, 2011

    >I thought we had moved beyond arguments of linear warming and historical CO2 levels matching temperature lines.

    Expect I’m saying precisely that they didn’t match.

  49. #49 James
    June 9, 2011

    Explain to us what Co2 “works the other way round” means if not causing cooling instead of warming.

    Heating begets CO2.

  50. #50 Wow
    June 9, 2011

    > What a contemptible conclusion to come to

    Why? You don’t seem to care about the future generations if it’s you that has to pay for it.

    And (to Frank), he’s only *Hypothetically* stated he’s against such threats. *IF* the threats came from denialists, he’d tell them off. But he’s actually blaming the scientists themselves and insists that this is all a scam to gain sympathy, ergo, he’s not actually against the threats made, he’s dismissive of their existence.

  51. #51 rhwombat
    June 9, 2011

    Oh, come on James. No one older than 7 is that facile. You’re being paid to troll aren’t you?

  52. #52 James
    June 9, 2011

    My post at 146 should have read thus…

    Frank isn’t saying anything of the sort.

    But you’ve never said you don’t agree with them and you’ve never said that their actions are killing their stance of skepticism.

    Silent approval:

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tacit 3. Archaic Not speaking; silent.

    Or, in other words, if you’re not against the child rapists, you’re for them.

    You haven’t been against them, so you must be for them.

    What a contemptible conclusion to come to, even if I had remained silent on the subject. I did not, by the way.

    You guys are really pretty poor at this.

    Keyboard Warrior Wow. Any chance you might say that in person? I think you illustrate my original point very nicely. Twit.

  53. #53 James
    June 9, 2011

    “You’re being paid to troll aren’t you?”

    Nope, on the contrary, it’s just a little personal thing of mine. But have a look above. Lambert gets on his high horse about abuse. I mention that Lambert and others on this blog didn’t appear to have much of a concern about such abuse in March 2010. And Lookey here, I’m being called a supporter of child rapists all of a sudden.

    Now you tell me where the abuse is most likely to originate.

  54. #54 Wow
    June 9, 2011

    > Heating begets CO2.

    How? Combustion is usually done at a few hundred degrees C. Are you saying that the earth was a few hundred degrees C recently?

  55. #55 Wow
    June 9, 2011

    > didn’t appear to have much of a concern about such abuse in March 2010

    Which was what?

    Or are you thinking that satire is as bad as threatening to rape kids?

  56. #56 John
    June 9, 2011

    >Heating begets CO2.

    Right but so wrong.

    >This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

    The part I emphasised sounds remarkably familiar to what I wrote above.

  57. #57 Wow
    June 9, 2011

    > Now you tell me where the abuse is most likely to originate.

    From denialists when they have nothing other than hate to hold back their fears.

  58. #58 Wow
    June 9, 2011

    John, it’s not even getting that far before being wrong.

    That outgassing was from the oceans. That reduction in CO2 would cause the oceans to become more alkaline.

    Since the oceans are becoming more acidic, the CO2 can’t be coming from there.

    Combustion must be James’ source for CO2.

    Unless he’s thinking of temperatures enough to create carbon and oxygen atoms from nuclear processes…

  59. #59 John
    June 9, 2011

    This is the part where James furiously Googles to prove me wrong, because he knows deep in his heart that AGW is “garbage” and he simply *must* be right.

  60. #60 Jeff Harvey
    June 9, 2011

    James,

    Its not about abuse but about physical threats. But, just for the record, in the literature the deniers/contrarians/shills/astroturfers have been far, far worse in smearing, insulting and threatening scientists than the other side has ever been towards them. I can give you a list of books/articles where scientists and environmentalists have been called stuff by groups like ‘Wise Use’ and others in the anti-environmental arena that would (or should) shock you. These vile smears even appear in books that are supposed to be ‘Rational’ and ‘Balanced’ but are anything but. Try reading ‘Rational Readings ofn Environmental Concerns’ (1991) with chapters authored by a number of contrarians, most of whom are hardly experts in the fields on which they write. And look at the way they describe people or groups with opposing views. I can give you examples if you like. This was occurring only at the dawn of what we now understand about the recent climate change – these people were writing about acid rain, biodiversity, forest loss, and other areas that were topical back then (as they are now). Its hardly surprising that many of these people jumped onto the climate change denier bandwagon as well when that got rolling. And, as I have said before, it had nothing to do with ‘sound science’ but about a desire to eviscerate the role of the government in the economy in pursuit of private profit. The song remains the same in various fields of environmental and Earth science as far as these people are concerned. Most of them are ‘wholsale’ deniers – they not only vehemently oppose the argument that humans are primarily responsible for climate warming, but also downplay or ridicule other areas that I have described. Are scientists therefore wrong in every field of environmental science when we raise the alarm about potential anthropogenic threats? And why are the same people often seen time and time again involved in such wide-ranging debates as deniers?

    I used to give lectures on this subject at Universities in Europe and the United States – and when I began researching the field in the 1990s I began to accrue evidence showing a concerted and well-organized effort by the well-funded denial lobby aimed at smearing scientists, as well as using greenwashing techniques aimed at legitimizing some pretty wretched organizations and groups.

  61. #61 Bernard J.
    June 9, 2011

    James tries to dissemble yet again:

    >Wouldn’t common sense tell you that it was the high concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere that caused warming and brought us out of the ice age?

    >John I don’t think you are up with the science. The warming preceded the CO2 by some 800 years.

    So? That was then.

    Are you seriously trying to tell us that current atmospheric CO2 is increasing only in response to warming? If not, then your whole point in the quote above is spurious… I therefore assume that you really are trying to claim that current CO2 is increasing only in response to warming resulting from other factors.

    And in doing so you are wrong.

    The fundamental mistake misrepresentation that you are making is that CO2 is merely a feedback, and not also a forcing. Unfortunately for you it is both, and in the contemporary warming event it is first and foremost a forcing.

    Your homework is to learn to distinguish between forcing and feedback.

    For poorly-educated/perniciously dissembling people such as yourself, James, twelve minutes spent watching [this video by Peter Sinclair](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/c/029130BFDC78FA33/0/8nrvrkVBt24) will demonstrate to you why only the naïve, the foolish, the lying and the deluded would make the point that you did.

    Watch it and report back, and explain to us why you are wrong in what you said. Failure to do so in your next post will be taken as explicit admission that you are indeed wrong, and James believe me when I say that I will use this admission in any further replies directed at you and your inept trolling…

  62. #62 lord_sidcup
    June 9, 2011

    Heating begets CO2.

    Good grief James! Understanding the difference between CO2 as a feedback mechanism and CO2 as a climate forcing is such elementary stuff! Please, go and do some reading.

  63. #63 Lotharsson
    June 9, 2011

    Oh, FFS, at the risk of feeding a stupid troll:

    Shorter James, by analogy:

    > Since lighting a match produces heat, heating a match cannot cause it to burn.

    Somehow I doubt the analogy will be within his comprehension. After all, mere _primary school kids_ can point out why it’s false.

  64. #64 MapleLeaf
    June 9, 2011

    @ James

    “Now you tell me where the abuse is most likely to originate.”

    With people like kick-them-while-they-are-down Morano, Inhofe (his black list of 17). Really this is stupid, and I have no idea while we are feeding a troll while scientists are having their lives threatened.

    Yes, it it might be fun to show how misguided and wrong James is, but it misses the very important point of this post.

    Also, he could simply be here mining/trolling for quotes. Incite, bait and aggravate, people then get frustrated and say something silly and then he’s off to some denier blog saying “Look how mean they are to skeptics, and they say that we are bad”.

    Can we keep our eyes on the ball please?

    PS: As for the T leading CO2 in the past refuting AGW, maybe James ought to actually read Caillon et al. (2003), or maybe Peter Sinclair can help.

  65. #65 dhogaza
    June 9, 2011

    lord_sidcup:

    Heating begets CO2.

    Good grief James! Understanding the difference between CO2 as a feedback mechanism and CO2 as a climate forcing is such elementary stuff!

    Hey, we do usually *burn* fossil fuels! He’s right!

    (does James really warrant any comment more serious than this? Just think of all the disk storage being wasted by feeding this exceptionally voracious troll!)

  66. MapleLeaf:

    > With people like kick-them-while-they-are-down Morano, Inhofe (his black list of 17). Really this is stupid, and I have no idea while we are feeding a troll while scientists are having their lives threatened.

    > Yes, it it might be fun to show how misguided and wrong James is, but it misses the very important point of this post.

    OK, now that I’ve protested enough against these nonsensical threats, here’s what I think we should try to do: find ways to beef up the physical security and the cybersecurity of climate scientists and people associated with them.

    I’m not sure about the physical security part, but for cybersecurity, I suspect part of the answer lies in providing knowledge and tools to good scientists and activists to help them secure their machines.

    (Yep, I know the Obama administration is interested in achieving “cybersecurity” by dropping bombs. But I digress.)

    — frank

  67. #67 MapleLeaf
    June 9, 2011

    Hi frank @165,

    Thanks. I (sadly) agree, the resource that you suggest would be useful to many. For example, I have noticed my Mac doing some odd things a few times now after rustling some feathers at denier/contrarian blogs. Yes, I might be being paranoid, but the fact that I do not have the skills to assess why my machine suddenly starts behaving oddly at those particular times does makes me nervous.

  68. MapleLeaf:

    I hope you’re not using MacDefender. :)

    (True story: I did actually stumble upon a fake anti-virus web site once. In the end I didn’t download any software from them, but in retrospect I should’ve terminated the browser process with greater extreme prejudice than I did…)

    I’ll see if I can kick-start something more substantial in the cybersecurity direction.

    — frank

  69. #69 James
    June 9, 2011

    Hey guys, I didn’t set the level of the climate debate here, don’t blame me for poor analagious examples. Look where the standard was set and have a go at the likes of Wow etc.

    I’m just here to point out that the abuse lamented by Lambert above exists right in his very blog. Now I’m heading off for 5 days, it’s none of your business of course but note this when the sychophants start screaming that I’ve “run away”.

  70. #70 bill
    June 9, 2011

    Hooray! He’s run away!

  71. #71 Tom R
    June 9, 2011

    James claimed

    “I’m not sure that anything I have written would suggest that I would condone any sort of harrassment and/or abuse.

    For the record, I am entirely opposed to such behaviour. And I am entirely opposed to those who would condone it.”

    Unless of course someone has called you names already?

    “Marcel, I’ll quite happily respond to your posts in person in a bar. Or a park. Or wherever. ”

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2318398

    It’s certainly not the first time either

    ‘You would never do it in person, because you know you would wind up in hospital. That makes you a coward.’

    http://guttertrash.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/tony-abbott-at-an-all-time-low/#comment-56797

    Which is kind of remarkable, for somebody who has a reputation for the same thing Marcel is guilty of (ie, abuse)

    ‘You are a prized dumb fuck,’

    http://guttertrash.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/latest-poll-results-choose-your-own-headline/#comment-32655

    Also, it’s kind of remarkable that, for someone who claims to be so interested in logic, that he has failed to notice that the scientists’ receiving these threats are not entered into an anonymous srgument on a blog site. They are just doing their job. But, logic has never been his strong point

  72. #72 el Gordo
    June 9, 2011

    May I take James place while he’s away…I’m familiar with the science.

  73. James:

    > I’m just here to point out that the abuse lamented by Lambert above exists right in his very blog.

    Which, as pointed out to him again and again, is patently false. Nobody has threatened to rape James’s family and friends, for one thing, so why does this lying idiot keep idiotically lying?

    > Now I’m heading off for 5 days,

    Dollars to doughnuts “5 days” actually means something like “less than 10 hours”, and he’ll miraculously find time to answer our “libelous” and “abusive” replies or some such, and then make up some bullshit excuse.

    — frank

  74. > May I take James place while he’s away…I’m familiar with the science.

    El Gordo, are you also a supporter of child rapists like James? What excuse can you give for people who threaten to rape climate scientists’ family members?

    — frank

  75. #75 Ian Forrester
    June 9, 2011

    El Gordo said:

    I’m as unfamiliar with the science as James is

    There I have corrected it for you.

  76. #76 el Gordo
    June 9, 2011

    Is that a yes? I need your support to comment because Tim or his minder usually snip my comments.

  77. #77 Chris O'Neill
    June 9, 2011

    James:

    John I don’t think you are up with the science. The warming preceded the CO2 by some 800 years.

    Which Lorius et al predicted in 1990 before it was observed in the ice-cores:

    changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by AMPLIFYING, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak ORBITAL FORCING

    So, the orbital forcing comes first, THEN it’s AMPLIFIED by the consequential CO2, CH4 and Northern Hemisphere ice sheet changes.

    Denialists like James go deliberately dense at this point.

  78. #78 el Gordo
    June 9, 2011

    CON, greetings!

    You haven’t heard of Nasif Nahle and his CO2 coolant theory?

  79. #79 mike
    June 9, 2011

    rhwombat,

    Yr. no. 130

    Good to hear from you, rhwombat ol’man. Your zany mental-illness always produces comments that are a source of real insight into the latest greenshirt thinking. Not to mention a refreshing contrast to Wow’s studied hysterics and Bernard J’s oat and umlaut orotundities.

    Incidentally, I’m not a “USMC wannabe”. Sorry to disappoint you, guy.

    You know, rhwombat, if I understood your comments on another blog, you’re not some kid after all, but a zit-popper well into middle-age. Also, if I read your comments on that other blog correctly, you’re even some sort of heroic provider of lefty medical care to the masses.

    Deltoids, rhwombat is not altogether reliable or stable, so I ask you, is ol’ ‘dingbat really the face of socialized medicine? If so: Good Golly Miss Molly!

  80. #80 Rick Bradford
    June 9, 2011

    Who would want to do such a despicable thing as sending death threats to climate scientists when they’re all doing such a lousy job of communicating their alarmist message?

    Even the Greens recently had to disappear their Web poll after it showed 80% of Australians opposed to their emissions trading scheme.

    Time for another struggle meeting, perhaps?

    Leave the scientists alone and let them get on with it!

  81. #81 rhwombat
    June 9, 2011

    @176: Bows. You’re a puzzle mikey. You put up all the Koch-sucking agitprop bluster, but you use words like orotundities. I suspect you’re another bitter ex-Trot Arts graduate who jumped the fence into the UnterMurdocracy, or some other fascist fantasy factory, when the Cheney administration demonstrated that whoring for the filthy rich was the only way to feed yourself. That’s why you are trolling in defence of outraged jellyfish like James. It’s all going pear shaped for you guys, isn’t it?

  82. #82 John
    June 9, 2011

    >Even the Greens recently had to disappear their Web poll after it showed 80% of Australians opposed to their emissions trading scheme.

    Not even you believe that one.

    It’s interesting that this issue has the nutters out in force to defend their denier buddies.

    In fact Rick 72% of Australians (according to either News or Essential) believe that AGW is happening. Only 6% don’t.

    I shouldn’t be surprised that you claim an internet poll represents all of Australia. Just keep the lies coming.

  83. #83 ChrisC
    June 9, 2011

    I might try to answer James’ question.

    Why does CO2 lag warming when we’re coming out of an Ice Age?

    1. Ice Ages (Glacial Maximums) are triggers primarily by variations in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, and it’s “tilt” over long periods of time. These cycles are called “Milankovitch Cycles”, and they effect the amount of the sun’s energy reaching Earth, and how that energy is distributed over the Earth’s surface;
    2. Cold water dissolves more CO2 than warm water. When some cooling occurs on the Earth due to a cold phase Milankovitch Cycle, the ocean’s suck up more of the gas. Likewise, when there is warming, they expel it. In the case of a Milankovitch Cycle, CO2 (and water vapour) act as a feedback to orbital forcing ;
    3. When we go from an ice age to a warm period, the first thing that happens is we get a bit more energy from the Sun, which melts a bit of ice, and warms the oceans. The oceans, after warming, expel some CO2. CO2, being a green house gas, heats up the atmosphere a little more, releasing ever more CO2. This cycle carries on until the climate finds a new equilibrium;
    4. It takes warming to release CO2 in an ice age. This is why CO2 lags the warming in the ice core records. After about 800 years, CO2 starts to lead the warming. CO2 Once in the atmosphere, the CO2 can do its thing. It amplifies the warming, it does not initiate it. Many scientists argue that without CO2, solar forcing along is insufficient to change the climate from an ice age to a warm period.

    Currently, we’re dumping tons and tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is the forcing . Water vapour, melting ice sheets and such are the feedback . As CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it will warm the atmosphere, just as it does during ice age transitions.

  84. #84 James Haughton
    June 9, 2011
  85. #85 Bernard J.
    June 10, 2011

    Back at [#136](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.php#comment-4094369) Jimmy-boy brought up (and reinforced [at #148](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.php#comment-4094504)) the canard that CO2 is not responsible for the contemporary warming event.

    He was taken to task about this not once, or twice, but many times – at [#155](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.php#comment-4094629), at [#160](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.php#comment-4095411), at [#161](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.php#comment-4095502), at [#163](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.php#comment-4095763), at [#175](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.php#comment-4099233), and at [#180](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.php#comment-4100276).

    Further, James entered into an explicit contract with me, when I put forward at [#160](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.php#comment-4095411) that he watch Peter Sinclair’s video and report back, and explain to us why he was wrong in what he said about CO2 and warming, and that failure to do so in his next post would be taken as explicit admission that he was indeed wrong. James’ next post was at [#168](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.php#comment-4098408) where he says nothing about the physics of forcings and of feedbacks and how these pertain to CO2 and warming. Rather, all he could manage was a petulant:

    Now I’m heading off for 5 days, it’s none of your business of course but note this when the sychophants start screaming that I’ve “run away”.

    which constitutes about as spectacular an admission of defeat, in fulfillment of his contract, as he could have managed given his state of denial.

    There you have it people. James, a troll of climate physics denialism, [acknowledges that he was w-w-w-w-rong](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkqgDoo_eZE).

    Science 1, James 0.

  86. #86 Donald Oats
    June 10, 2011

    James stops, el Gordo starts…same person, perhaps? :-)

  87. #87 Lotharsson
    June 10, 2011

    > …same person, perhaps?

    Or simply that there’s <= 1 working brain between them? (And that upper bound appears to be generous.)

  88. #88 SteveC
    June 10, 2011

    fat boy knows he is only supposed to post on his own thread, hence his crawling, whining, toadying plea for permission to post on this one.

  89. #89 Wow
    June 10, 2011

    > I’m just here to point out that the abuse lamented by Lambert above exists right in his very blog.

    You have nothing to fear except that which you bring with you.

    So, Jimmy, how does warming create CO2? You haven’t answered yet whether you think it’s being combusted, meaning that sometime in the past the earth got to several hundred degrees Celsius.

    Maybe during your time off you can check the required temperature for combustion and see if your thesis is correct.

  90. #90 Tom R
    June 10, 2011

    I tried posting this earlier, so sorry if it appears twice.

    sancty/james is nothing more than a troll like grodo, as exposed by his crocodile tears of being threatened by someone whom he had threatened. And it is a pattern with him

    http://guttertrash.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/tony-abbott-at-an-all-time-low/#comment-56797

    “You would never do it in person, because you know you would wind up in hospital. That makes you a coward.”

    He also fails to comprehend the difference between threats between anonymous posters in heated arguments on blogs, compared to threats to public people just going about their jobs from anonymous sources. But, as has been pointed out, logic is not his strong point

  91. #91 bill
    June 10, 2011

    Even the Greens recently had to disappear their Web poll after it showed 80% of Australians opposed to their emissions trading scheme.

    You wouldn’t have had any involvement in gaming that poll, by any chance? Or know the people who did? Because I’m kind of curious about how you would know that…

    What do you know, I googled your phrase and got a hit on Jo Nova – you really must try to be a bit more creative – where she openly boasts about having gamed the poll. Here you’ll find –

    Even though this poll started on May 4th, 2009, within 2 hours of the link being posted here, a dreadful accident must have occurred and the page disappeared to a 403 error.

    Follow the link and in the quote to ‘Skeptics rule online polls’ and you’ll find the first prompt to pay the Greens a visit. And this charming little gloat –

    UPDATE: And they are running scared.

    The Greens poll has been up for around 2 weeks, and I linked to it today, and within hours it’s gone (h/t cohenite, alan and andy)

    But you knew that already. And you just had to run right over here to tell us all…

    The trouble, of course, is that the Greens are basically decent people, which puts them at a distinct disadvantage. What they don’t understand is the kind of person who really has the mentality to succeed in this sad, venal little world.

  92. #92 silkworm
    June 10, 2011

    Violence has always been a tool of the political right, and denialists have proven over and over that they are ideologically committed to the political right, so these threats should come as no surprise to political observers.

  93. #93 Lotharsson
    June 10, 2011

    bill, I had a suspicion that The (Google) Galileo Movement is also gaming their own poll, but no solid evidence. Wouldn’t put it past them – but I also don’t underestimate the self-selection bias that is an entirely plausible hypothesis.

  94. Inactivists “el Gordo”, “mike”, and “Rick Bradford” apparently have no problem with people threatening to rape climate scientists’ families. That says it all.

    — frank

  95. MapleLeaf and others,

    I’m starting a new Twitter hashtag #antiswifthack for discussion on improving scientists’ and activists’ cybersecurity.

    — frank

  96. #96 dhogaza
    June 10, 2011

    frank:

    Inactivists “el Gordo”, “mike”, and “Rick Bradford” apparently have no problem with people threatening to rape climate scientists’ families. That says it all.

    I’d say it makes them activists, at heart, in a very disturbing way …

  97. #97 SteveC
    June 10, 2011

    @ frank

    I made the mistake of READING that JoNova page you linked to a few days back. I’m still trying to get rid of the sensation of being infected with something, perhaps I should bathe in a bath of bleach.

    If there’s a slimier, more dishonest webpage out there on the interwebz on this subject, I don’t want to know about it.

    And to think Nova got some sort of tertiary science qualification. Anyone know which institution it was that permanently tainted itself by doing so?

  98. There seems to be a weird attempt by the Daily Telegraph to downplay the threats by injecting a bogus ‘news’ story which somehow manages to contradict the Canberra Times and the ABC at the same time.

    — frank

  99. In fact, the Telegraph account also directly contradicts that of the Sydney Morning Herald

    * * *

    SteveC: Tom Harris (of the International Climate ‘Science’ Coalition) might be a candidate, but then again he’s not as scurrilous as JoNova…

    — frank

  100. #100 Pete Dunkelberg
    June 10, 2011

    Australian climate fans, this looks like a good time to drop a comment or two at
    http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2011/06/08/3226946.htm.