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 Anthony David
    June 10, 2011

    Graeme Bird admits to “Here is the one that could be mine:” in the comments section replying to someone bringing up the threats to climate scientists . He recognised his style of swearing apparently. The blog post itself is a piece of scientific wonderment. He discusses the hollowing out of Phobos by some civilisation with an industrial outpost on Mars.

  2. #2 Don Wigan
    June 10, 2011

    Not sure if this had been linked, but a good read
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2754194.html

  3. #3 Don Wigan
    June 10, 2011

    Not sure if this had been linked, but a good read
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2754194.html

  4. #4 Don Wigan
    June 10, 2011

    Not sure if this had been linked, but a good read
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2754194.html

  5. #5 Don Wigan
    June 10, 2011

    Not sure if this had been linked, but a good read
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2754194.html

  6. #6 Don Wigan
    June 10, 2011

    Not sure if this had been linked, but a good read
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2754194.html

  7. #7 Don Wigan
    June 10, 2011

    Not sure if this had been linked, but a good read
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2754194.html

  8. #8 mike
    June 10, 2011

    frank,

    Yr no. 191

    PART 1

    frank, if you don’t mind, I’ll spread my reply over several comments.

    You know, frank, you’ve made quite a provocative and presumptuous statement. Especially since my view of rape, and most particularly child-rape has never been sought by you. So I’m not sure what that snot-nosed crack you directed at me was all about, but let me clear the air. I condemn rape without qualification to include the rape of climate scientists’ families. And when it comes to child-rape I don’t even want to tell you my desired dealings with some low-life pervert piece of shit that would rape a child. Because if I did, it would have some of the more sensitive Deltoids “clutching their pearls.”

    But I’m something of a prude, frank. For example, take the movie 10:10 which garnered honors here at Deltoid for its fine-spun hilarity. You know the film, right? I mean, the one where kids are killed when they show insufficient zeal for the greenshirt orthodoxy. The one where the kids’ heads explode in blood-splatter. That one. Well, I’m such an ol’ fuddy-duddy that I expressed my distaste for that little masterpiece of film-making on this very blog and for my troubles, I recall, I was denounced as a concern troll.

    So please excuse all the baggage I carry.

  9. #9 mike
    June 10, 2011

    PART 2

    And by the way, frank, while we’re discussing child-rape, let me point out an international organization with a “little problem” in this area (it seems the Catholic Church is not the only organization with its “little problem”):

    Google: “telegraph six-year-old sexually abused by un peacekeepers”

    “independent un shame over sex scandal” (Teaser: a somali tyke is roasted alive in this article 10:10 lovers!)

    “foreign policy blogs un peacekeepers and abuse of children” (Dig deeper Deltoids and you’ll find that some Belgian troops of the storied “Marc Dutroux” Brigade, along with some others of Europe’s finest, are mentioned in dispatches.)

    Let me add, frank, that in common with most stories about pedophilia the focus in the above articles is heavily weighted to discussions of the rape of young girls. I mean, it’s almost as if young boys are considered expendable fair-game for the pedos. This reticence to discuss the rape of young boys in respectable publications is a real curiosity to me, frank. It’s not some sort of courtesy extended to a segment of the lefty/greenshirt nomenklatura, is it? I mean, I don’t know, frank, do you? Any Deltoid with the answer, please chime in.

    Regardless, I condemn child-rape by UN Peacekeeping Troops and their fellow NGO pervert-scum. Care to join me in that condemnation, frank? How about the rest of you Deltoids?

  10. #10 Rick Bradford
    June 10, 2011

    @191 frank & @193 dhogaza.

    In my only 2 posts on this thread I have condemned the sending of death threats to scientists in the plainest terms.

    I have called it “cowardly, stupid and self-defeating” and “despicable”, so stop making unpleasant false accusations to try and gain brownie points from your cronies.

    @188 bill. “Decent people”, eh? Hah!

  11. #11 mike
    June 10, 2011

    PART 3

    Now, frank, let’s again relate, but from a different angle, child-rape and climate science, O. K.? I mean, I know this subject is dear to your bleeding lefty heart.

    Google: “washington post cancun horror story”

    “sun brutal reality I’m 14 and sold for sex”

    “fairtourismsa prostitution in south africa” (Deltoids may be astonished to learned there are an estimated 400,000 child prostitutes in South Africa–Durban gets some special mention.)

    Recognize anything of interest, frank, in the above articles–Cancun? South Africa? No? Well, believe it or not, frank the above locales are the immediate past and immediate future venues of the IPCC’s annual, high-carbon pig-out party. So do you share with me, frank, the sense of outrage that a tax-payer funded organization like the UN regularly holds one of its premier blow-outs in destinations favored by pedophile sex-tourists? Especially since the UN has a known “little problem.”

    I condemn the IPCC for its decision to hold its annual conferences in locales notorious for commercialized child-rape and I will boycott the IPCC’s next conference unless the venue is changed (I recommend Provo, Utah). So how about you, frank? Will you join with me in my condemnation and boycott? Deltoids, how about you?

  12. #12 bill
    June 10, 2011

    Re the above: while this may be a great forensic example of the pathology of what passes for an ‘analogy’ in some minds, why bother to rise to this kind of bait? Best simply ignored, for mine.

  13. #13 rhwombat
    June 10, 2011

    Interesting. Mike=COINTELPRO

  14. #14 David Horton
    June 11, 2011

    The response (also abuse and threats and death threats) to Richard Glover’s satirical article on climate change deniers http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-climate-change-wave-of-hate-20110609-1ftix.html is quite frightening, like the earlier revelation that climate change scientists at ANU, like their British and American counterparts, were now receiving death threats. The whipping up of hate, by shock jocks and populist politicians, bodes very badly for all our democracies.

    There is another satirical look at them here http://davidhortonsblog.com/2011/06/11/over-the-cuckoos-nest/ but it is hard to retain a sense of humour about the kind of madness that appears on climate change threads these days.

  15. #16 mike
    June 11, 2011

    Interesting article, LB–thanks for the heads-up. I only picked Provo because I had a naive thought it would be pedophile-free. Do you know a better place, LB? If so, I’m with you.

  16. #17 dhogaza
    June 11, 2011

    I only picked Provo because I had a naive thought it would be pedophile-free. Do you know a better place, LB? If so, I’m with you.

    The Vatican? Maybe it’s pedophile-free (snicker).

    The notion that *any* place is “pedophile free” is naive belong belief. And Mormon country? How do you feel about anal sex? And the fact that in rural Utah it’s fairly common for young women to (technically) maintain their virginity by engaging in anal sex before marriage …

  17. #18 elspi
    June 11, 2011

    “Do you know a better place”

    Apparently anywhere but “Watts Up With That?”
    (but you already knew that)

  18. #19 mike
    June 11, 2011

    dhogaza and elspi,

    Let’s see now. No outrage directed at a vast industry that enslaves kids for the pleasure of western pedophile sex tourists. Rather, just some dumb-butt “debate-team” point scoring. Good show dhogaza and elspi! But let’s keep this simple, greenshirts: Everyone–keep your fucking hands off the kids! See that’s not hard, is it.

    I will say that there is no indication in LB’s article that Provo, Utah supports a “kiddie-slave” prostitution industry. Also, it is undoubtedly true that pedophiles “are everywhere” but the key difference is the community attitude to child-rape. Provo, Utah is pretty clearly not supporting of such crimes (victims receive restitution and by hook or crook the predators get justice). Not the sort of thing that appears to happen often in Cancun or the major cities of South Africa. But you knew that distinction didn’t you, d & e, but scoring points is all that matters when it’s for the “cause”, right?

    So here’s the solution greenshirts: Video-conference all IPCC conferences.

    Video conferences of IPCC meetings will reduce CO2 emissions–lots and lots of emissions. And that makes Gaia happy, right? And it allows the IPCC to show itself a leader in carbon reduction. And don’t greenshirts always want to lead from the front and by example when it comes to the fate of the earth?

    It will save taxpayer monies. Now we all know that the various lefty/greenshirt hustles are specifically designed to separate the taxpayer from his dough. But look at it this way, a video-conferenced IPCC would open up opportunities for some humbug PR which you greenshirts could exploit to paint yourselves as faithful stewards of the public purse.

    And finally, if there is even a one in a million chance that even one delegate to an IPCC conference in a locale that caters to child-rapists would end up in a local brothel raping a child, then the precautionary principle compels us to video-conference. Precautionary principle and for the children–get it?

  19. #20 mike
    June 11, 2011

    LB,

    Please let me reconsider my comment no. 209. In my over-eager desire to indicate that I condemn pedophilia whatever its source, I did not consider the article you provided carefully. As dhogaza noted, in his clever way, pedophilia is to be found to some degree most everywhere. However, there is no indication that the events in the article you provided are anything but isolated. Also, the victims were compensated and their predators received some measure of justice, however belatedly. Most importantly, the article you provided does not indicate that Provo, Utah supports a “kiddie” sex-slave industry.

    Regardless, the best solution for the IPCC annual conferences would be to video-conference them:

    Save on Co2

    Save taxpayer monies

    Possibly save a kid (precautionary principle)

  20. #21 mike
    June 11, 2011

    @dhogaza no. 209

    Don’t want to let your valuable insights into Mormon courtship practices pass without comment, dhogaza. The product of your own antrhopological research, perhaps? Any peer-reviewed literature?

  21. #22 dhogaza
    June 12, 2011

    The product of your own antrhopological research, perhaps?

    Actually, the clinical practice of a nurse practitioner who dealt with some of the physical consequences in rural Utah for some years.

    I suppose you’re totally unaware that this practice to preserver (technical) virginity is not limited to Mormons here in the US (much less the world)

    It’s a well-known phenomena, though the Christian-right is not terribly interested in publicizing the reality.

  22. #23 dhogaza
    June 12, 2011

    Also, the victims were compensated and their predators received some measure of justice, however belatedly.

    The identified victims of busted and prosecuted predators …

    You really haven’t understood my snarky reference to the Vatican, have you?

  23. #24 Michael
    June 12, 2011

    mike has provided a fascinating insight into the way the deniers minds’ work.

    While discussing the topic of death threats being directed towards scientists, he decides that instead of taking this tack, he’ll insinuate that people involved with climate science are into child prostitution.

    What a despicable little grub.

    It’s bizarre to see the kind of pathology that arises when people feel threatened by objective reality.

    Back under your rock mike(or maybe it’s time for disemvowelling?).

  24. #25 Rick Bradford
    June 12, 2011

    *mike has provided a fascinating insight into the way the deniers minds’ work.*

    No, he hasn’t, any more than ‘frank’ has provided a fascinating insight into the way the warmists minds’ work with his comment #191 charging that I “apparently have no problem with people threatening to rape climate scientists’ families” when I have in fact have denounced the sending of death threats very clearly.

    There’s a despicable little grub, if you’re looking for one.

  25. #26 mike
    June 12, 2011

    @dhogaza no. 214

    Hey, guy, not really sure what you’re talking about. Actually, not really sure you know what you’re talking about. But to help you out, the line you quoted from my comment no. 211 was in response to one of LB’s comments and was in reference to some Boy Scout victims of pedophilia from Utah.

    So yes, I missed your “snarky” reference to the Vatican. Indeed, I’m still not sure I “get it.” Maybe you’re “snarkily” suggesting that since Mormons have pre-marital anal-sex and the Catholic Church has a well-publicized history of pedophilia, then child sex-slavery is no big deal and the IPCC should patronize locales that host child-rape industries, without the slightest hesitation. Is that it, dhogaza? I mean, understanding your “snark” is very important to me, so I want to get it right.

    Incidentally, while I’ve got you on the hook, dhogaza, I want you to know that you’re the very first person in my entire blogospheric experience to ask me “How do you feel about anal sex?” (yr no. 209) More snark? I hope you don’t mind if I draw the veil of modesty on my thoughts on that delicate subject. But you might ask rhwombat the question. He likes talking about himself and will probably give you an answer. Ol’ rhwombat is a bit of a chatterbox, but he thinks I’m the “Secret Agent Man” and anyone who thinks that is all right in my book.

    @Michael no. 215

    You’re really on top of your game with that last, Michael, ol’ buddy. Some top-notch booger-flicking. But you take yourself a little too seriousily to be taken seriously.

  26. #27 Michael
    June 12, 2011

    mike displays the other common characteristic of the denier/delusionist – the penchant to ramble along irrelevant tangents (to the science that is, these tangents are very relevant to their goals)and avoid, whenever possible, any substantive discussion of the science.

  27. #28 rhwombat
    June 12, 2011

    That took you a while, mike. What are the hourly rates for Koch-sucking in Utah?

  28. #29 bill
    June 12, 2011

    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.

    a zit-popper well into middle-age

    Some top-notch booger-flicking.

    And this isn’t an insight into how denier minds work? I beg to differ! A call-out box in the DSM V awaits!

    What is it about deniers and this crass, oafish sub-Rodney-Dangerfield ‘wit’? And then we’re meant to credit the incongruous hysterical self-righteousness… sheesh!…

  29. #30 Rick Bradford
    June 12, 2011

    Gee, the blokes at ScienceBlogs must be thrilled with the scientific quality of this thread….

  30. #31 Michael
    June 12, 2011

    Troll infestations tend to do that Rick.

  31. #32 Rick Bradford
    June 12, 2011

    True.

  32. #33 Bernard J.
    June 12, 2011

    >Gee, the blokes at ScienceBlogs must be thrilled with the scientific quality of this thread….

    Not to worry.

    The scientific quality of the thread will pick up when you, James, mike, and your mates depart.

  33. #34 dhogaza
    June 12, 2011

    The scientific quality of the thread will pick up when you, James, mike, and your mates depart.

    And we promise not to pry into whatever it is those guys choose to do in private. Just as long as it’s in private, not here.

  34. #35 Rick Bradford
    June 12, 2011

    > And we promise not to pry into whatever it is those guys choose to do in private. Just as long as it’s in private, not here.

    Raising the level of debate on your own, I see…

  35. #36 chek
    June 12, 2011

    … except you and your misled cronies don’t have any relevant debate, do you “Rick”?

    Jess scared li’ll critters whistling loudly into a darkness you don’t even comprehend yet

  36. #37 bill
    June 12, 2011

    ScienceBlogs must be thrilled with the scientific quality of this thread….

    Do we assume Rick hasn’t spent much time over at PZ Myer’s place?

  37. #38 rhwombat
    June 12, 2011

    Rick hasn’t yet worked out the raison d’etre of ScienceBlogs. He still thinks it’s about Daddy’s approval, like everything else in his life.

  38. #39 John
    June 12, 2011

    rhwombat wins.

  39. #40 James
    June 13, 2011

    BernardJ nails it above. Everyone will talk nice again when those nasty deniers go away. It’s their fault after all that we are calling them child rapists. What else can we do when people come here, completely uninvited and start DISAGREEING WITH US! How can we possibly respond other than with personal abuse? We’re not expected to actually address their arguments are we?
    Those bloody deniers make us play nasty….. MUUUUMMMMYYY!!!!

  40. #41 duckste
    June 13, 2011

    Rick, Mike and all of those others who have kindly condemned use of threats of violence against climate scientists here are to be congratulated on their courage. Obviously it takes some considerable courage to come here and debate (however obtusely) with those who are not threatening violence against you.

    However, I would ask you to up the stakes. Instead of trolling here, why don’t you pop on over to some of the sites which are promoting (or at least not actively condemning) the use of violence against scientists. This way you can actually put your money where your mouth is.

    And we can all get back to the science.

  41. #42 rhwombat
    June 13, 2011

    @231: Mummy? I think I’ve struck a nerve.

  42. #43 Dave R
    June 13, 2011

    James:
    >We’re not expected to actually address their arguments are we?

    What arguments do you think you’ve made that haven’t been addressed? All I’ve seen from you is personal abuse and [zombie talking points](http://www.skepticalscience.com/fixednum.php), which commenters here have kindly taken the trouble to address for you yet again while you stick your fingers in your ears.

  43. #44 Wow
    June 13, 2011

    > What else can we do when people come here, completely uninvited and start DISAGREEING WITH US!

    Jimmy, you’re rather like the Monty Python sketch about the five-minute argument.

    Hey, maybe you should consider that we’re just disagreeing with you and just accept it. Or is nobody allowed to disagree with you?

  44. #45 Chris O'Neill
    June 13, 2011

    James:

    We’re not expected to actually address their arguments are we?

    I did address your argument. Since you’re now being deliberately dense, I’ll repeat it:

    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.

  45. #46 John
    June 13, 2011

    Let’s not forget that James was arguing that the Co2 increase caused by man wasn’t actually caused by man – an argument I can’t recall any other denier making.

    People, if you keep on using evidence to prove James wrong he’s only going to fake another five day trip.

  46. #47 Dave R
    June 13, 2011

    BTW:
    >>2. Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will therefore tend to increase Earth’s average temperature

    >Perhaps

    Are you the same James who [said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2314267):
    >No sceptic (or very few) denies the greenhouse effect of CO2.

    Are you one of the “very few” who denies the greenhouse effect? Or are you just one of the very many who “accepts” the greenhouse effect and just denies that it has any effect?

  47. #48 Dave R
    June 13, 2011

    >Let’s not forget that James was arguing that the Co2 increase caused by man wasn’t actually caused by man – an argument I can’t recall any other denier making.

    Br*nt made that argument on the empirical evidence thread and/or his subsequent jail thread.

    I’ve also seen it from others e.g. over at BAUT.

  48. #49 John
    June 13, 2011

    By proving me wrong you are abusing me. Stop or I will go away and not come back for five days.

  49. #50 Dave R
    June 13, 2011

    >I’ve also seen it from others e.g. over at BAUT.

    e.g. [here](http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/70431-General-AGW-discussion-thread?p=1404023#post1404023).

  50. #51 James
    June 13, 2011

    Not sure I argued any of those things attributed to me. But you guys keep right on constructing the debate in terms that suit you.

    Mummy they are causing me to say mean things!!!!!

  51. #52 Dave R
    June 13, 2011

    >Not sure I argued any of those things attributed to me.

    [Yes you did](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.php#comment-4093890).

  52. #53 Dave R
    June 13, 2011

    Besides, you claimed that your arguments had not been addressed. I asked you which arguments you had made that hadn’t been addressed. Answer that question or withdraw the claim.

  53. #54 bill
    June 13, 2011

    Many of us remember James’ performance over at Hot Topic, where he was apparently kidnapped by disgruntled Patagonian beaver-herds and subsequently forcibly deprived of internet access at a crucial stage in the development of his argument.

    He also claimed to have a life, which I guess is strictly true.

    Certainly there was no question of running away.

    Whatever the reason, he didn’t show up again, and there was much rejoicing!

  54. #55 John
    June 13, 2011

    James, you were asked:

    >4. Most, if not all, of this increase is coming from human activity (also known for 50 years, from several sources).

    You said:

    >4. Wrong.

    Now you deny this. How unsurprising.

  55. #56 Rick Bradford
    June 13, 2011

    > Instead of trolling here…

    Oh, I’m not trolling, in the sense that the word is normally used, that of deliberately trying to derail discussions.

    I post here in order to learn what makes you all tick. It is more like a Freudian analyst gently probing a distressed patient.

    Of course, I receive unpleasant abuse from time to time, but that is always the case when dealing with troubled, angry people.

    It’s not what y’all say, but how you say it, that is the most revealing aspect.

    I thank whatever powers there are that I don’t have to live with the levels of rage and pessimism that seem to inhabit so many regular posters here.

  56. #57 dhogaza
    June 13, 2011

    Ah, I get it, Rick is concern trolling in the sense that *that* phrase is commonly used.

    Thanks for clarifying, Rick!

  57. #58 James
    June 13, 2011

    Bill. You have the wrong James. Have never visited a place called Hot Topic. Dave it was question 4 not 1 and the cause of the increase in CO2 in the last decade has not been known for 50 years. That is self evident and a dumb thing to assert. And Dave, if you are going to quote me then use the entire quote. I believe I said that what was at issue was the extent to which greenhouse gases caused any warming over recent decades. Add that in and you find nothing contradictory at all. But that would be honesty now wouldn’t it.

    What do all you blokes actually do? You seem incapable of even presenting your own case, about which you are at least passionate though apparently not expert.

  58. #59 Rick Bradford
    June 13, 2011

    > Ah, I get it, Rick is concern trolling in the sense that that phrase is commonly used.

    No, you don’t get it at all.

  59. #60 chek
    June 13, 2011

    “Rick” said: “I post here in order to learn what makes you all tick. It is more like a Freudian analyst gently probing a distressed patient”.

    What “Rick” means is that he once read the first paragraph or two of an introduction to pop psychology in a Reader’s Digest while passing the time in a waiting room somewhere a long time ago.

    Of course, in comparison his familiarity with climate science is nowhere near so detailed.

  60. #61 Rick Bradford
    June 13, 2011

    Good to see you confirming my point that it’s not what you say, but how you say it, that is the most revealing aspect.

  61. #62 luminous beauty
    June 13, 2011

    Jaime,

    >…the cause of the increase in CO2 in the last decade has not been known for 50 years.

    [Wrong.](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Revelle.htm)

    It was true 50 years ago and it is still true today.

  62. #63 Bernard J.
    June 13, 2011

    [Rick Bradford](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.php#comment-4127916).

    >I post here in order to learn what makes you all tick. It is more like a Freudian analyst gently probing a distressed patient.

    Sorry, but to use [Lotharsson's turn of phrase](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/shorter_clive_james.php#comment-4046297), that post hoc rationalisation has [already been proffered](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/shorter_clive_james.php#comment-4045700).

    And whatever your excuse, it doesn’t in any way improve the very poor understanding that you have of science. Disagree? Then link us to your best killer comment on Deltoid – or elsewhere – where you have demolished any accepted part of the mainstream climatological science.

  63. #64 John
    June 13, 2011

    I’m aware it was question 4, but the formatting reformatted it to 1. Either way it was still the question and answer. And I’m John, not Dave.

    >the cause of the increase in CO2 in the last decade has not been known for 50 years. That is self evident and a dumb thing to assert.

    Wrong.

    >I said that what was at issue was the extent to which greenhouse gases caused any warming over recent decades.

    Based on what?

  64. #65 Dave R
    June 13, 2011

    >Dave it was question 4 not 1

    I didn’t say anything about a question 4 or 1. If you deny that too, cite the post. Otherwise apologise.

    >the cause of the increase in CO2 in the last decade has not been known for 50 years

    I didn’t say anything about the increase in CO2 during the last decade. If you deny that too, cite the post. Otherwise apologise.

    The cause of the increase in CO2 during industrial era is demonstrated by Suess 1955, and Revelle and Suess 1957.

    >And Dave, if you are going to quote me

    Hypocritical moron.

  65. #66 Wow
    June 13, 2011

    > And Dave, if you are going to quote me then use the entire quote. I believe I said …

    If you have to “believe” what you said, then you can’t even quote yourself. Making your demand to Dave rather ironic.

    > what was at issue was the extent to which greenhouse gases caused any warming over recent decades.

    Almost all of the 0.8C average change seen. Sun has gotten cooler, so that means more “other” forcing that CO2 has to take up. Black carbon deposits can’t change an awful lot because there isn’t that much black increasing on the earth (else it would be very obvious from space), so unless you can assert something different, most of that warming is from CO2.

    If that really is the issue, then you will have to come up with a more rigorous and evidence-filled attribution of the 0.8C warming than you have done so far.

  66. #67 FrankD
    June 13, 2011

    >I believe I said that what was at issue was the extent to which greenhouse gases caused any warming over recent decades.

    Just another thing that James believes that is false – James has never made any statement about the cuase of rising CO2 in recent decades in this thread. His simply replied to the proposition “Most, if not all, of this increase [the increase in CO2] is coming from human activity” with this single word “Wrong”. No timeframe was mentioned until it became useful for him to try to wriggle away from an earlier stupidity. John’s original diagnosis – denial – is spot on.

    First James doesn’t think he said what he did say (Not sure I argued any of those things attributed to me”). Then he thinks he says what he didn’t say. The gap between James’ reality and real reality continues to grow…

  67. #68 FrankD
    June 13, 2011

    >I believe I said that what was at issue was the extent to which greenhouse gases caused any warming over recent decades.

    Just another thing that James believes that is false. No timeframe was mentioned regarding CO2 until it became useful for him to try to wriggle away from an earlier stupidity. John’s original diagnosis – denial – is spot on.

    First James doesn’t think he said what he did say (“Not sure I argued any of those things attributed to me”). Then he thinks he says what he didn’t say. The gap between James’ reality and real reality continues to grow…

  68. #69 luminous beauty
    June 13, 2011

    Rick,

    >I post here in order to learn what makes you all tick. It is more like a Freudian analyst gently probing a distressed patient.

    You have an odd way of establishing trust, which is the first thing a Freudian analyst would do, but only in a clinical setting. Blog comment threads aren’t the best place for this.

    I, too, have an interest in Freudian analysis. However, in my case, it would be Anna rather than Sigmund. Particularly the mechanism of denial.

    1. Denial is usually motivated by a desire to suppress the emotional response arising from a frightening or disturbing environmental occurrence and the necessity of taking responsibility for one’s own actions, or the actions of others with whom the subject has a strong emotional attachment as being the cause for such an occurrence, or for the need of responding sensibly to the threat represented by the occurrence.

    2. The initial response is to intellectualize or rationalize away the occurrence, with the pretense that it either does not exist, or that if it does exist, it isn’t threatening, or else that it isn’t one’s own responsibility to face the threat.

    3. When confronted by others that the subject is rationalizing away a very real environmental threat, it is common for one in denial to project his own suppressed emotional response upon those confronting him and claim that those confronting him are engaging in personal abuse. A behavior known as DARVO: Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender.

    >Of course, I receive unpleasant abuse from time to time, but that is always the case when dealing with troubled, angry people.

    >I thank whatever powers there are that I don’t have to live with the levels of rage and pessimism that seem to inhabit so many regular posters here.

    In common parlance this is known as ‘blaming the messenger’.

  69. #70 Wow
    June 13, 2011

    > I post here in order to learn what makes you all tick.

    Why?

    Frottaging internet-style?

  70. #71 James Haughton
    June 13, 2011

    To return back to the topic of the thread, for a moment; the Canberra Times have published a [follow-up article](http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/change-of-attitude-needed-as-debate-overheats/2194216.aspx?storypage=0) providing more detail on the abuse suffered by our scientific community and refuting claims by Bolt and (shamefully, and astoundingly) Opposition science spokeswoman Sophie Mirabella that the threats were a tailored beat-up by the ANU and the media.

    An extended quote:
    “Various bloggers have accused us of ”beating up” our front-page story from a handful of complaints. Not so. We spoke to more than 30 scientists, in all states and territories, to ascertain if threats were confined to pockets of high-profile scientists regularly quoted by the media. They were not. It seems anyone speaking up on climate change – however briefly – is fair game in this trolling campaign.

    Two of the most shocking cases involved young women who have had little media experience or exposure. One was invited to speak on climate change at a suburban library. Her brief was simple – talk about everyday things people can do to cut their carbon footprint, talk about climate books available at the library (list provided), leave time for questions, and mingle afterwards. The other woman was asked by a local newspaper to pose with her young children for a photograph to illustrate an article promoting a community tree-planting event. She was briefly quoted as saying planting trees could help mitigate climate change. Two days after the article appeared, she received emails containing threats of sexual assault and violence against her children.

    As for the woman speaking at the library, her car windscreen was smeared with excrement – animal or human, does it matter? – and the words ”climate turd” written (also in excrement) across the car bonnet. Proof perhaps, of a climate dissenter with a Freudian complex indicating arrested development.”

  71. #72 rhwombat
    June 13, 2011

    James H: Thanks for that. What say you James the Troll and Rick Bradford? I agree with the Freudian take – and find it revealing how both Troll James and Bradford reacted to the Daddy issues jibe: Bradford by transference (look it up, amateur), and Jimmy the Troll by scripting a psychodrama in which the rest of the commentariat call for their mother. Neither of you are very self-aware are you?

  72. #73 Lotharsson
    June 14, 2011

    > Neither of you are very self-aware are you?

    rhwombat FTW!

  73. #74 Chris
    June 14, 2011

    The Telegraph story that there were only two threats and that they dated back years has been thoroughly discredited by the Canberra Times, which broke the original story. Several instances, and confirmation that the threats and the action by the ANU were within the last twelve months and that threats are continuing, form part of the Canberra Times follow-up story. As a computer illiterate I have not inserted the link but I am sure the Canberra Times site will give the follow up story readily; it published yesterday.

  74. #75 James Haughton
    June 14, 2011

    Sophie Mirabella’s speech demanding (to summarise) that scientists explain why they dared to receive death threats is [here](http://www.sophiemirabella.com.au/Media/PortfolioMedia/MediaReleases/tabid/78/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/423/EXPLANATION-NEEDED-FROM-CHIEF-SCIENTIST.aspx), and her contact page is [here](http://www.sophiemirabella.com.au/Contact/tabid/62/Default.aspx).

    I am going to write to her to ask that she reconsider her public statements and I urge everyone here to do the same. Some points which might be relevant:
    Her electorate is Indi in Northeastern Victoria, which includes the headwaters of the river Murray, already badly affected by climate change, and was badly damaged by the record bushfires of 2003. These are both linked to climate change according to [recent research](http://www.seaci.org/publications/publications-journals.html).

    She is a mother of three daughters who has campaigned against negative portrayals of women in the media (and so IMHO should have more sympathy for the young female scientists victimised in this case).

  75. #77 Rick Bradford
    June 14, 2011

    @luminous beauty

    > You have an odd way of establishing trust, which is the first thing a Freudian analyst would do…

    With certain categories of patient — particularly narcissists — trust is not an achievable goal, as they do not see other people as distinct individuals, but as ‘fodder’; impersonalised helpers or hinderers of the narcissists’ lifelong grandiosity project.

    Your description of denial is solid, but remember that ‘denial’ is not limited to people who deny the notion of CAGW; it also applies to people who deny that CAGW is the biggest scientific fraud in the history of the planet.

  76. And once more, our favourite group of scholars think that people who threaten to rape climate scientists’ families, and people who tell lies to defend such people, can somehow be reached by calm, rational discourse:

    http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/time-for-accountability/

    Facepalm.

    – frank

  77. #79 dhogaza
    June 14, 2011

    frank – I think you’re misunderstanding who they hope to reach.

  78. > frank – I think you’re misunderstanding who they hope to reach.

    Then I wonder who that’ll be. Is it the group of people who are too dumb, or too busy, or too apathetic to realize that inactivists have been full of illogic all this while, and that they’re threatening to rape children — yet the same group of people are willing to sit down and read a reasonably detailed account of how climate science works?

    – frank

  79. #81 luminous beauty
    June 14, 2011

    frank,

    [From](http://theconversation.edu.au/bullies-beware-youre-now-stalkers-under-victorian-law-1767) Mandia’s link.

    The possibility of prosecution may be more effective on those unreachable by calm, rational discourse, but that doesn’t mean calm, rational discourse should be abandoned, does it?

  80. #82 SteveC
    June 14, 2011

    @ luminous

    but that doesn’t mean calm, rational discourse should be abandoned, does it?

    The point being that those amenable to calm, rational discourse are unlikely to be those issuing the threats of violence. Secondly, I think what frank is expressing (if he will forgive me for the presumption) is the sheer bloody frustration and futility of it all. With the best will in the world, Prof Mandia and all those other eminent names on the list (Karoly, Enting, England, Lewandowsky etc) seem to assume that them putting their names to a strongly worded “conversation” will have any real effect at all on the “opinion makers” and the sheeples that unthinkingly follow them. This is not to say I discourage any attempt by those with the expertise to speak on the issues to a wider audience – far from it – but there does seem to be an assumption by Prof Mandia et al that anyone on the “sceptical” “side” of the fence will take any notice of it all, save to scorn.

    As demonstrated by the responses of some on this one thread (out of many on this one blog alone, let alone the multitudes of others), the political arena associated with climate change overtook the science several laps ago. It’s now about politics (no matter what some would have you believe otherwise) and money and influence and PR and massaging the message, and that (regreattably) is where the rubber hits the road.

    IMO in some sense it doesn’t matter how much more the scientific evidence piles up, this is now (and has been for some years) a political stoush between those of us who know we’re screwing the one life-support system we have, and those who will defend whatever corner they occupy at any expense. And for all that I wholeheartedly respect and admire the Mandias, Karolys and Quiggins of the world, I just don’t think their passionate pleadings on a uni website (or even in a national newspaper) will cut much ice any more.

  81. #83 SteveC
    June 14, 2011

    And as if to reinforce the point, just go have a look at the “debating points” several “sceptics” who have posted on that The Conversation thread. I’ve not been involved in this stuff very long, but I must have seen identical “arguments” raised hundreds of times here on Tim’s blog, at RC, Eli’s, Bart’s place, Stoat etc etc., all of them shot down in flames several times over. In truth this isn’t quibbles about the science, it’s politics, and it’s about time the science got political.

    IMO the biggest hypocrites of the lot (no names, no pack drill) are those with some science chops who, backed by their legions of fawning admirers, make a lot of noise about climate scientists dabbling in political positions, yet who conveniently sidestep the fact that in doing so they adopt a political position.

  82. #84 Chris O'Neill
    June 14, 2011

    Sophie Mirabella’s speech demanding (to summarise) that scientists explain why they dared to receive death threats

    She helpfully pointed out that 2 of them received their death threats before the Gillard government announced a carbon tax. Therefore their death threats have nothing to do with the current carbon tax debate.

    What sort of mentality does it take to come up with that sort of logic?

  83. #85 rhwombat
    June 14, 2011

    James@231: It’ll do no good for Rupert to call for his Mummy: she’s just cosigned a letter to the SMH pointing out the evil bullshit the Deniers are spreading.

  84. #86 Jeff Harvey
    June 15, 2011

    *it also applies to people who deny that CAGW is the biggest scientific fraud in the history of the planet*

    You have to hand it to Rick for writing comic-book level stuff. His latest musings are up there with some of the dumbest stuff I have yet read on Deltoid. History of the planet? What kind of babble is this? Homo sapiens has only been around 200,000 years or so, and so-called civilization for the past 8,000 years. So stretching this out to include the ‘history of the planet’ is farcical, to say the least. But exactly what one would expect from a true denier.

    Lastly, old Rick mistakes that the real interpretation of the term ‘ denial’ is based on a *denial of empirical evidence*. In other words, in the face of a large and growing body of scientific evidence, deniers are those who, for reasons that should be patently obvious, downplay, ignore or distort the science. Most of the deniers also have little scientific pedigree in related fields, making their views even more ridiculous.

  85. #87 mike
    June 15, 2011

    WARNING TO DELTOIDS:

    rhwombat is a creation of Dr. Evil. He is a weaponized weener-head. We have activated him. He is your problem now. Deal with it.

  86. #88 Wow
    June 15, 2011

    Fair enough, mike, now please fook off and let us deal with him.

    Feel free to grace WTFUWT with your presence.

  87. #89 rhwombat
    June 15, 2011

    mike: I did warn you about stopping your medications.

  88. #90 zoot
    June 15, 2011

    Your description of denial is solid, but remember that ‘denial’ is not limited to people who deny the notion of CAGW; it also applies to people who deny that CAGW is the biggest scientific fraud in the history of the planet.

    Memo Rick: You really should put your mind in gear before you hit “Post”.

  89. #91 Rick Bradford
    June 15, 2011

    > Most of the deniers also have little scientific pedigree in related fields

    Gee, that’s no good is it? It’s nearly as bad as getting Greenpeace activists to write formal IPCC reports on renewable energy, a piece of deception so egregious that even Mark Lynas is disgusted.

    Take the morally superior smirk off your face — it looks ridiculous.

  90. #92 Wow
    June 15, 2011

    > Gee, that’s no good is it?

    Maybe you’d take the exhortations of your local priest that to cure your infection, all you need to do is pray hard, and can ignore the doctor because he only knows about infections, and how can THAT help him ascertain the best course of action in medicine, huh?

    Just because your priest doesn’t have an MD after his name, refusing his advice on your medical condition would be as bad as getting Greenpeace activists to write a report on something they know about.

  91. #93 Rick Bradford
    June 15, 2011

    I would certainly ignore the doctor if I knew he stood to make millions from an alarmist diagnosis.

    In fact, I wouldn’t go to him in the first place.

    But the IPCC does, time after embarrassing time.

  92. Rick Bradford:

    When people threaten to rape other people’s families, I put the blame squarely on them. There is simply no excuse whatsoever.

    You, in contrast, want to put the blame on the people who are being threatened.

    Three words: Shame on you!

    * * *

    > Secondly, I think what frank is expressing (if he will forgive me for the presumption) is the sheer bloody frustration and futility of it all. With the best will in the world, Prof Mandia and all those other eminent names on the list (Karoly, Enting, England, Lewandowsky etc) seem to assume that them putting their names to a strongly worded “conversation” will have any real effect at all on the “opinion makers” and the sheeples that unthinkingly follow them. [...]

    > [...] In truth this isn’t quibbles about the science, it’s politics, and it’s about time the science got political.

    SteveC, that’s exactly what I think. More precisely, I think it’s time that scientists get political, even as they continue to do science as objectively as they can.

    Everyone has the right to do their job without being hounded by death threats and rape threats against them or their families. Why do our scholars repeatedly refuse to defend what’s rightfully theirs?

    They should take some time off their book-reading, their tree ring analysis, their Fortran programming, whatever, and get on some real political action. Pool their money together and sue Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair, and the whole gang of crazies for libel. Call for those police officers who insist on doing nothing to resign. Protest at the Daily Telegraph for defending people who threaten child rape. Things like that.

    Writing another series of essays isn’t “Accountability”, it’s slacktivism.

    – frank

  93. #95 Wow
    June 15, 2011

    > I would certainly ignore the doctor if I knew he stood to make millions from an alarmist diagnosis.

    GSK makes billions.

    So why are you believing your doctor? Go out there and use some healing crystals!

    > But the IPCC does, time after embarrassing time.

    I think you’re mistaking the NIPCC. They’re the ones going to bogus studies.

    There are things that Greenpeace have printed that they know about.

    YOU have to prove what it is you believe with your whole heart that the IPCC used that Greenpeace didn’t know anything about.

    I’d wish you luck, but you’re a prick.

  94. #96 luminous beauty
    June 15, 2011

    Rick,

    Mark Lynas’ misrepresentation of Sven Teske’s contribution to one chapter of eleven in the IPCC report is highly exaggerated, (He is one of nine contributing lead authors and not a co-ordinating lead author. He did not personally write the chapter, much less the entire report. Teske’s affiliation is declared in Annex IV, so the charge of deception is baseless.) and entirely due to being filtered through the disingenuous maunderings of one Steve McIntyre.

    The fact that you’ll repeat anything that agrees with your pre-conceived opinion without examination of the underlying facts is damning evidence of your inability to apply proper scientific skepticism.

    “Take the morally superior smirk off your face — it looks ridiculous.”

    Back atcha.

  95. #97 caerbannog
    June 15, 2011


    I would certainly ignore the doctor if I knew he stood to make millions from an alarmist diagnosis.

    In fact, I wouldn’t go to him in the first place.

    But the IPCC does, time after embarrassing time.

    The IPCC, with a paid staff of about a dozen, and which relies on volunteers to perform the lion’s share of its work, stands to “make millions from an alarmist diagnosis”?

    Is there something in tinfoil-hats that destroys brain cells?

  96. #98 caerbannog
    June 15, 2011

    #$! tags! Everything looked ok in preview mode!

  97. #99 SteveC
    June 15, 2011

    @ Rick bradford

    I would certainly ignore the doctor if I knew he stood to make millions from an alarmist diagnosis

    So you get the diagnosis and dismiss it. Later it turns out the “alarmist” diagnosis was right, and the doctor makes a small fortune on the back of a bet he had with another specialist in the same field. You, meanwhile, are dead because you ignored the diagnosis.

    Remind me, who’s the winner here?

  98. #100 Chris O'Neill
    June 15, 2011

    Bradford:

    I would certainly ignore the doctor if I knew he stood to make millions from an alarmist diagnosis.

    Surgeons do make millions actually.

    In fact, I wouldn’t go to him in the first place.

    You can be stupid if you like just don’t take the rest of us down with you.