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 Mike
    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.

    Could you explain to me exactly how Greenpeace will “make millions” over climate change?

    And could you clarify whether you seriously believe that Greenpeace is the predominant, or even a “major” source of information for the IPCC? Because I’ve read the IPCC reports, and there is very little to do with Greenpeace in any of them.

    And as far as the doctor goes, what if that “alarmist” diagnosis is actually quite correct? Are you the one to judge whether it is correct or not? There are plenty of people who thought they knew better and ignored advice to their permanent detriment. I should know, my wife is a surgeon and sees it every day. When they come crawling back to her asking her to fix the results of their own ignorance and arrogance (despite them having been warned in advance), she has very little sympathy.

    Sheesh, and I’m not even a fan of Greenpeace at all.

  2. #2 DaveMcRae
    June 16, 2011

    A follow on article of The Canberra times by same author http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/change-of-attitude-needed-as-debate-overheats/2194216.aspx?storypage=0 providing more detail into the abuse suffered by our scientific community. (Faeces smeared on a young researchers car after she gave an invited talk at a suburban library – FFS)

    Article on this at Science News and the comments are, just like here, flooded by nutters who at least implicitly condone this behaviour. http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/06/threats-sent-to-australian-climate.html

  3. #3 Rick Bradford
    June 16, 2011

    > And as far as the doctor goes, what if that “alarmist” diagnosis is actually quite correct? Are you the one to judge whether it is correct or not?

    If the doctor has form as a manipulator of data, a falsifier of data, a record of trying to suppress other opinions and of breaking the law, then I certainly am the one to judge.

    To make the climate parallel, shonky scientists inevitably do shonky science and you can’t trust them. Step forward Jones, Mann, Briffa et al.

  4. #4 Robert Murphy
    June 16, 2011

    “If the doctor has form as a manipulator of data, a falsifier of data, a record of trying to suppress other opinions and of breaking the law, then I certainly am the one to judge.”

    Since those charges are nonsense as applied to climate scientists, your point has no edge.

    Rick, you certainly *are* giving us a psychology lesson on this thread, it’s just not the one you intended. :)

  5. #5 Wow
    June 16, 2011

    > If the doctor has form as a manipulator of data, a falsifier of data, a record of trying to suppress other opinions and of breaking the law

    And if, instead, the people calling the doctor wrong has form of manipulation, falsification and suppression as well as breaking the law (see the topic of the thread), whilst the doctor is innocent, you will still judge the doctor wrong because you don’t like what the doctor is telling you.

    > Step forward Jones, Mann, Briffa et al.

    What? To correct the shonky scientists like McIntyre, Wegman et al?

  6. #6 chek
    June 16, 2011

    In short “Rick”, as Wow points out, you’ve been had.

    And the people you’ve been had by were careful to aim at a constituency who wouldn’t have the chops to realise they’ve been had, and indeed will continue to deny they’ve been had long after it’s been pointed out to them.

    It’s an admirably clever con really, if you’re willing to believe screwing disadvantaged people can be either clever or admirable.

  7. #7 Jeff Harvey
    June 16, 2011

    *To make the climate parallel, shonky scientists inevitably do shonky science and you can’t trust them. Step forward Jones, Mann, Briffa et al*

    So, Rick, you must be some kind of scientific authority to be able to judge (and dismiss) the published work of others. At least on the basis of your remark about ‘shonky science’. So perchance please tell me: how many scientific articles have you (a) published, or (2) reviewed for journals that appear on the Web of Science? Any journal will do.

    I think we all here know the answer to that question. None and none. Pretty easy. In fact, my guess is that old Rickie has no scientific qualifications in *any* scientific field. Correct again?

    So the thrust of what Rick is saying is this: science is ‘shonky’ if the conclusions are at odds with his own pre-determined world views. It doesn’t matter where the research is published, or how rigidly peer-reviewed the journal where it can be found is. On the other hand, ‘sound science’ in Rick’s opinion is any science, no matter how shoddily performed or even if it is unpublished, that supports his pre-determined views. Even though most of this ‘science’ is conducted by corporate-funded think tanks, right wing astroturf groups, retired mining engineers, and a slew of unqualified bloggers, that doesn’t matter. Its ‘sound’ because the conclusions gel with Rick’s own biased views. In fact I should go further. These groups that Rick supports actually don’t do science. Their only task is to stand at the sidelines and to snipe away at studies they don’t like, as if this gives them some kind of authority. At the same time, they also must distort and mangle the conclusions of other studies to support their own conclusions. It doesn’t matter that if in doing so they misquote scientists, or ignore their views on climate change, giving the mistaken impression that these scientists are deniers.

  8. #8 Bernard J.
    June 16, 2011

    >To make the climate parallel, shonky scientists inevitably do shonky science and you can’t trust them. Step forward Jones, Mann, Briffa et al.

    Rick Bradford.

    This is a very specific claim. Can you explain, with careful page-numbered reference to their published material, and with a technical breaking-down of the science and/or of the mathematics, exactly what is ‘shonky’ about the work of Jones, Mann, Briffa and whomever the anonymous et alia are?

    Be very specific. You obviously understand this at the highest level of comprehension, or you would not make the slanderous claims that you do.

    Your credibility, such as it ever was, depends upon you actually standing by and substantiating this claim of yours. And once you do so, we will examine your evidence for veracity, and thus make a determination of your capacity to make the original claims that you have.

    Over to you, sunshine.

  9. #9 caerbannog
    June 16, 2011

    Hey Rick Bradford — a quickie technical question for you.

    Since you’ve accused Mann of producing “shonky” science, let’s look a little closer at one of Mann’s “shonky” productions.

    If you generate a data matrix consisting of red noise and run it through Mann’s “short centered” SVD routine, it is true that you will often get a “hockey-stick” leading principal component.

    Now, take that “hockey-stick” principal component and replicate it a bunch of times to produce a data matrix with the same number of columns as the “red-noise” data matrix above (each column in this new matrix will be the “hockey stick” generated from the “red-noise” matrix). Run this matrix through Mann’s “short-centered” SVD routine and you will get a leading principal component that looks exactly like the “hockey-stick” principal component generated from the above red-noise data matrix.

    That is, your “red noise” matrix and your “replicated hockey-stick” matrix will produce leading principal components that look identical.

    Now, the question is, Rick, how do you tell them apart?

    Anyone who has the technical expertise to debunk Mann’s work should have no trouble answering this question.

  10. #10 Mike
    June 16, 2011

    @294

    Like many others here Rick, I would specifically like to know

    a) Which data has been unscrupulously manipulated. You will need to explain how. An accusation supported by “cuz I sed so” is not really convincing. Bear in mind that the data has now been reviewed many times over by different organisations, including Anthony Watts’ own favoured “Berkley Earth” project, and they have all (much to Watts’ apparent disappointment) re-affirmed its validity.

    b) Which data was falsified, ie, fabricated. If you know it was falsified, then you’ll obviously know what the “real” data is (otherwise you’d have no evidence of which was which) and you can tell us that too.

    c) Which laws were broken, and how this has changed the results?

    As I alluded to above, my wife has treated patients like you who get a stupid idea in their head from the internet and wilfully go around ignoring professional opinion. In extreme cases, she just refuses to see them any more (after all, what is the point?). In this sense, I wouldn’t blame scientists for totally ignoring you.

  11. #11 Vince whirlwind
    June 17, 2011

    “Can you explain, with careful page-numbered reference to their published material, and with a technical breaking-down of the science and/or of the mathematics, exactly what is ‘shonky’ about the work of Jones, Mann, Briffa and whomever the anonymous et alia are?”

    Answer: No, neither Rick nor any other denier can explain the factual basis for their accusations.

    Conclusion: Rick is a moron and a liar. Just like the rest of the deniers.

  12. #12 bill
    June 17, 2011

    From the Canberra Times follow-up article linked to -

    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. Proof perhaps, of a climate dissenter with a Freudian complex indicating arrested development.

    Anyone else reminded of the above?

  13. #13 mike
    June 17, 2011

    @comment no. 303

    I think I detect a nerd-crunch herbivore nipping at my ankle.

  14. #14 Rick Bradford
    June 17, 2011

    Folks,

    Scientists who pull stuff like saying they “have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”, who criminally dodge FOI requests, who want to pressure journal editors to exclude articles they don’t like, etc etc etc, are shonky, by any normal definition.

    If they are prepared to do those things, you can’t believe that they are going to magically behave properly when it comes to the science itself? That would be seriously naive.

  15. #15 Bernard J.
    June 17, 2011

    Shorter Rick Bradford:

    >I have nothing.

  16. #16 Wow
    June 17, 2011

    > Scientists who pull stuff like saying they “have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”

    Citation needed.

    Prediction time from Mystic Meg: If Dick here comes back with anything it will be from a denialist blogsite where the actual message was “interpreted” rather than quoted and will be discovered as having been originally “We need a longer time series to contain the MWP”.

    > who criminally dodge FOI requests

    Criminally? Sorry, no crime was found.

    And there are many reasons to refuse FOI requests. As, for example, vexatious requests. Completely valid to refuse to answer them.

    Then again, Dick doesn’t know what the law is, he only knows what he’s been told to say.

    > who want to pressure journal editors to exclude articles they don’t like

    If it’s “don’t like” because they’re arrant bollocks, then they AS A MORAL IMPERATIVE have to pressure journal editors to refuse to include bollocks in their journal, in just the same way as an editor of a newspaper will, if they want a creditable paper, refuse to run a story about Elvis being seen in the company of ET flying a spaceship in Seattle.

    However, you will notice that dick here hasn’t actually shown any proof of where this comes from. This is because, as usual, it’s rubbish. There were no emails to any journal editor telling them to refuse a paper because they don’t like it.

    Then again, Dick here is seriously naive. He’ll swallow anything you feed him.

    Quite the welcome gent at some “alternative” parties…

  17. #17 caerbannog
    June 17, 2011


    Scientists who pull stuff like saying they “have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”…

    Folks, this is one more piece of evidence that shows that global-warming deniers aren’t the brightest bulbs in the tanning-bed.

    The bit about the MWP began with Michael Mann stating that he’d like to extend his analysis back another 1,000 years so that it would “contain” the MWP.

    For all the not-too-bright deniers out there, “contain” in this context does not mean “get rid of”; instead, it should be interpreted in the context of “you can’t *contain* two gallons of milk in a one gallon bottle”. That is the context in which Dr. Mann used the word “contain”. Now for you math-challenged deniers out there, this might be a difficult concept to grasp — but keep working at it. Some day a light (however dim) might switch on and you will understand how it would be impossible to “contain” the entire MWP in a reconstruction that goes back only 1,000 years.

  18. #18 Wow
    June 17, 2011

    And if caerbannog’s explanation leaves you still struggling to keep your position making you say “OK, so they *could* have meant that, but they *could* still have meant ‘get rid of’”, then have a look at the results of the two papers either side of this statement made by Mann.

    Before, it stopped barely earlier than the peak of the NW Europe Warming Period.
    After, it stopped some centuries earlier, earlier than the earliest Warming Period available from reconstructions.

  19. #19 Rick Bradford
    June 18, 2011

    > Criminally? Sorry, no crime was found.

    Actually, it was — only it was found too late for legal action to be taken.

    So, if the UK police discovered the person who stole the Climategate e-mails, but only after the statute of limitations had run out and no prosecution was possible, would you then conclude that no crime had been found?

  20. So in Rick Bradford’s mind, every mention of the death and rape threats made against climate scientists and campaigners has to be balanced … by claiming some alleged ‘procedural abuse’ by climate scientists, no matter how irrelevant, out of proportion, or ridiculous that claim is, lest the fundamental equilibrium of the universe be forever shattered.

    But then again, if you think of it, it all makes such brilliant sense! It explains why policeman usually go on patrol in pairs! When one of the pair discover a crime, his partner will then have to discover an equal and opposite crime before they can report both crimes. If a crime is committed without an equal and opposite crime, then something’s clearly wrong.

    Unfortunately, climate inactivists haven’t been able to find any rape threats made by climate campaigners against inactivists’ families, so I guess some made-up quote from a made-up Michael Mann will have to do. Victory!

    – frank

  21. #21 Dave R
    June 18, 2011

    Shorter Prick Bradford: _it’s acceptable to send death threats to scientists because one scientist did not comply with a FOI request which he was not obliged to comply with because it was vexatious._

  22. #22 Bernard J.
    June 19, 2011

    Rick Bradford.

    I hate to point it out (actually, that’s bullshit – I don’t mind in the least), but I note that you were not able to address [my request at post #299](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.php#comment-4156508) that you explain, with careful page-numbered reference to their published material, and with a technical breaking-down of the science and/or of the mathematics, exactly what is ‘shonky’ about the work of Jones, Mann, Briffa and whomever are the anonymous et alia to which you referred.

    It seems that your sunshine rapidly scuttled behind the clouds once you were called to justify yourself scientificially.

    Now, why is that not a surprise?

  23. #23 Rick Bradford
    June 19, 2011

    @Bernard J: The serial shonkiness of Jones, Mann, Briffa has been so extensively documented that there is no point my rehashing it here. A good summary is in *The Hockey Stick Illusion* by Andrew Montford — perhaps your local collective could spring for a copy?

    @frank, Dave R: It’s odd that you can write when you can’t read — I have posted twice on this thread denouncing the sending of death threats. Go back and look.

  24. #24 Dave R
    June 19, 2011

    Prick Bradford:
    >I have posted twice on this thread denouncing the sending of death threats.

    Your actions belie your words.

  25. #25 Rick Bradford
    June 19, 2011

    What ‘actions’ are those?

  26. #26 Dave R
    June 19, 2011

    >What ‘actions’ are those?

    Your trolling of this thread with off topic anti-science talking points.

  27. #27 Bernard J.
    June 19, 2011

    Rick Bradford.

    You mean [this Andrew Montford](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Andrew_Montford):

    >Alastair McIntosh writing for the Scottish Review of Books sums up: “Montford’s analysis might cut the mustard with tabloid intellectuals but not with most scientists. The Hockey Stick Illusion might serve a psychological need in those who can’t face their own complicity in climate change, but at the end of the day it’s exactly what it says on the box: a write-up of somebody else’s blog.”

    Riiight…

    If you really don’t know why his book is a steaming pile of trash, [start here](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/).

    Or, as technical doesn’t seem to be your thang, try [the simple version](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/aug/19/climate-sceptics-mislead-public).

    Frankly, [I nailed it the first time](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.php#comment-4163114).

  28. #28 Rick Bradford
    June 19, 2011

    @Dave R

    You’re letting the side down badly.

    Tell me how my alleged ‘trolling’ of this thread about the scientific and legal points has anything to do with my clearly stated (twice) denunciation of the sending of death threats to scientists.

    Enlighten us all to your thought processes, please.

    @Bernard J: You disagree with Montford. Fair enough. Plenty of people agree with him. And if you think they are all simpletons (or in the pay of Big Oil), that says more about you than about the book.

  29. Rick Bradford:

    > with my clearly stated (twice) denunciation of the sending of death threats to scientists.

    Which you feel compelled to ‘balance’ with some bullshit about supposed ‘procedural abuse’ by climate scientists, which you blare out not once, not twice, but several times.

    * * *

    Rick Bradford:

    > You disagree with Montford. Fair enough. Plenty of people agree with him.

    In other words, Montford’s supposedly definitive “extensive documentation” of climate scientists’ supposed crimes against science is now merely … an opinion?

    So,

    1. On the other side, we have climate ‘skeptic’ Montford writing about supposed procedural ‘crimes’ committed by climate scientists. And Rick Bradford admits that Montford’s words are nothing but opinions, because people can agree or disagree with them.
    2. On one side, we have people threatening to kill and rape climate folks and their families. This sort of thing is very definitely a crime.

    Rick Bradford somehow thinks the former is more important.

    – frank

  30. (Correction: On one side, … on the other side, …)

    – frank

  31. #31 luminous beauty
    June 19, 2011

    [Rick,](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.php#comment-4171019)

    First one must consider the legal meaning of ‘prima facie’. E.g.; your inability to find your car keys may be prima facie evidence that they have been stolen, when it is more likely you are just suffering a brain fart.

    Second, one must distinguish between a formal criminal complaint and the supposition of an official who is not directly professionally involved in the matter stating his conjectural opinion to a reporter.

    The res ipsa loquitur suggestions of your own testimony indicates that you can’t do either, which is more than prima facie evidence, but independently corroborated evidence you are too dumb to pour sand out of a boot.

  32. #32 caerbannog
    June 19, 2011


    The res ipsa loquitur suggestions of your own testimony indicates that you can’t do either, which is more than prima facie evidence, but independently corroborated evidence you are too dumb to pour sand out of a boot.

    And I might add, “If the instructions were written on the heel.”

  33. #33 Rick Bradford
    June 19, 2011

    @luminous beauty

    In Jan 2010, Graham Smith, Deputy Commissioner, UK Information Commissioner’s Office, issued a statement which noted:

    *”The emails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland’s requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation.”*

    *”The legislation requires action within six months of the offence taking place, so by the time the action taken came to light the opportunity to consider a prosecution was long gone.”*

    *”It is for government and Parliament to consider whether this aspect of the legislation should be strengthened to deter this type of activity in future.”*

    This is a formal statement from the appropriate official dealing with the case; a long way from being “an official who is not directly professionally involved in the matter stating his conjectural opinion to a reporter.”

  34. #34 luminous beauty
    June 19, 2011

    Rick,

    As far as can be asscertained, Graham Parker held no brief on the UEA FOIA requests. That was the direct responsibility of David Palmer who was Information Policy & Compliance Manager at UEA. He was the liaison between the University and the UK Information Commissioner’s Office. As far as can be ascertained, Mr. Palmer has not been found in violation nor responsible for any ethical breach of FOIA regulations, nor for acting without prior notification nor the permission of the UK Information Commissioner’s Office. In fact, the [public record](http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/outstanding_questions_regarding#incoming-150287) is entirely exculpatory.

    It seems Mr. Parker made his ‘prima facie’ conjecture only on the basis of reading purloined third party e-mails, without examining the records held by his own office.

    Again, I bid you seek understanding of the legal meaning of ‘prima facie’

  35. #35 John
    June 19, 2011

    Frank, Bradford knows that everything nowadays can be opinion. Reality can be an opinion one can merely agree or disagree with, and if “plenty” of people disagree with reality because of their political ideology then the opinion becomes legitimate, no matter how wrong it is.

  36. #36 Rick Bradford
    June 20, 2011

    > …and if “plenty” of people disagree with reality because of their political ideology then the opinion becomes legitimate, no matter how wrong it is.

    And then we call it a ‘consensus’, and say ‘the science is settled’.

  37. #37 Bernard J.
    June 20, 2011

    [Rick Bradford](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.php#comment-4184839), the troll whose only reference thus far as been Montford’s partisan opinion piece, says:

    >And then we call it a ‘consensus’, and say ‘the science is settled’.

    Still not understanding the whole concept of technical analysis or critique, are you sunshine?

    There are many words for people who form conclusions based upon things other than object data, evidence and analysis. Can you guess what any such group of words might include?

  38. #38 Wow
    June 20, 2011

    What’s even more ironic is that the only one who’s said “the science is settled” is Monckton, Rick’s font of all knowledge.

  39. #39 Wow
    June 20, 2011

    > > Criminally? Sorry, no crime was found.

    > Actually, it was — only it was found too late for legal action to be taken.

    Nope. False. A lie. Prevarication even. A whopper in other words.

    No crime was found. Someone said that *even if there were a crime committed* that it was too late, but that doesn’t mean there was a crime.

    Or is it OK now to just say “It’s too late to find out who did it, so it was Professor Plum” now and skip all that “investigating a report” thingy that so gets in your way?

  40. #40 John
    June 20, 2011

    >And then we call it a ‘consensus’, and say ‘the science is settled’.

    Exactly Rick. Monckton *did* say the science was settled you clever boy. You’re catching on to the fact deniers put their political ideology before scientific evidence.

  41. #41 Wow
    June 20, 2011

    I note that despite having produced an awful lot of words, Dick hasn’t answered the fairly clear queries in #301.

    Prima facie evidence of a lie by dick.

  42. #42 Lotharsson
    June 20, 2011

    Meanwhile, Rick Bradford has apparently [run away from his own petard](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/the_conversation_on_climate_ch.php#comment-4178156) [on the other thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/the_conversation_on_climate_ch.php#comment-4178126).

    Intelligent readers can draw their own conclusions.

  43. John:

    > Frank, Bradford knows that everything nowadays can be opinion. Reality can be an opinion one can merely agree or disagree with, and if “plenty” of people disagree with reality because of their political ideology then the opinion becomes legitimate, no matter how wrong it is.

    Well, in this case, I’d say that Bradford was trying to present Montford’s anti-Mann writings as fact… until Bernard J. pointed to debunkings of Montford, at which moment the ‘facts’ suddenly became merely an ‘opinion’ (which ‘reasonable’ people can ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ with).

    I remember dealing with this tactic a few years ago when debating some other type of crank. I call it the “in my opinion, it’s a fact” tactic.

    As you pointed out, this is but part of the larger movement by right-extremists to confuse the public about the distinction between opinion and fact, to allow their ideology to be accepted into people’s minds without due scrutiny.

    – frank

  44. #44 Rick Bradford
    June 21, 2011

    > “The science behind climate change is settled, and human activity is responsible for global warming,” [U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa] Jackson told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

    Plus Gore’s 2007 address to Congress, and many more similar sentiments.

    Trying to pin this phrase on Monckton is more silly Left/Green misdirection which the world is becoming increasingly tired of, as evidenced by all the polls.

    Time for a new struggle meeting, folks, the constant alarmism has gone down the gurgler already.

  45. #45 Wow
    June 21, 2011

    >…And I’m going to show you the latest science, which now doesn’t leave the question unsettled anymore this is now settled science, it is now settled science that there is not a problem with our influence over Climate. The science is in, the truth is out and the scare is over.

    >– Christopher Monckton. 10/14/9 Minnesota Free Market Institute presentation

    Pinning this on Monckton is 100% valid.

    But you love him, in your eyes he can do no wrong.

    How awfully gay of you.

  46. #46 Wow
    June 21, 2011

    > and many more similar sentiments.

    Which you can’t find. You couldn’t even find the link to the EPA Administrator (not the IPCC, not a climate scientist, not relevant to your “point”) nor even the quote (never mind the proof you haven’t cribbed someone else’s report of it) of Al Gore (not the IPCC, not a climate scientist, not relevant to your “point”).

  47. #47 Lotharsson
    June 21, 2011

    Rick, you still haven’t [reclaimed your petard](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/the_conversation_on_climate_ch.php#comment-4178156). Can’t answer the question?

  48. #48 Lotharsson
    June 22, 2011

    Rick jumps on his petard and [denies being hoisted](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/the_conversation_on_climate_ch.php#comment-4201296).

    C’est la vie.

  49. #49 JOSEPH
    June 26, 2011

    WEATHER 101 COURSE : Dear People of the World I assume that you all realize that around middle (horizontally) of the world is the Equator sometimes called the Equatorial Belt North & South of the Equator. This area usually has the Hottest Temperatures and the Most Rainfall. Yes,there are exceptions. Now we all know that this “Belt” has Tropical Rainforest Trees and “Skillions” of them have been cut down in the last Century. This might be affecting the World’s Weather. So let’s propose a total ban on tree felling in these area starting in say 2012 and plant trees there,build houses,schools,hospitals there and make those who live there CUSTODIANS of this vital part of the world and see what happens Worldwide as the years go by. The United Nations,Countries,Rich and Famous People,Huge Corporations,etc.could finance this “New Forest”. We all can do very easy things like stop buying items that we don’t really require that are made from paper and cardboard,and,even wood from these RAINFOREST TREES.SEE,A FREE AND BASIC SUGGESTION AND IT TOOK ONLY FIVE MINUTES TO COMPOSE. OH,I FORGOT SOMETHING. THIS IS SUPPOSED TO COME FROM A WORLDWIDE CONFERENCE ATTENDED BY HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF DELEGATES COMING FROM ALL SORTS OF GROUPS WHO ARE STAYING IN 10 STAR HOTELS,WINING & DINING ,USUALLY ,NOT ALWAYS,BEING PAID FOR BY OTHERS. THEY USUALLY DON’T NEED COMMON SENSE ,IN FACT MANY DON’T EVEN NEED DOLLARS AND SENSE. Now for WEATHER 102 That’s CLIMATE over all areas of the World. That’s very complicated indeed as CLIMATE is usually UNDERSTOOD as AVERAGE WEATHER CONDITIONS in a PARTICULAR AREA over a period of HUNDREDS OF YEARS-say 200,300,400. These are called CENTURIES. Of by the way,MANY COUNTRIES did not even keep records until the 1900′s and in countries that did they were not checked for accuracy or had standardized equipment. We better review WEATHER 101 again and wait to see the result of our BASIC PROPOSAL before we get CONFUSED AND LOSE OUR DIRECTION

  50. #50 rhwombat
    June 26, 2011

    Is it a full moon, or did someone forget to shut the troll door?

  51. #51 Dave Wendt
    July 21, 2011

    Just a reminder that Karma is a bitch.

    [10-10 No Pressure Video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSTLDel-G9k)

  52. Hmm. Dave Wendt tries to explain why it’s OK to threaten to rape children.

    – frank

  53. #53 Wow
    July 27, 2011

    David Wendt thinks that satire is equivalent to child rape.

    We already knew that denialists moral compass were thrown out of the window long ago, mind.

  54. #54 Alex Harvey
    May 4, 2012

    Hi Tim,

    It is becoming apparent that this story was largely fabricated.

    E.g. Climate scientists’ claims of email death threats go up in smoke.

    Any comments?

  55. #55 Wow
    May 4, 2012

    [Well what do you make of this, Alex?](http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/death-threats-to-scientists-20110604-1fm4i.html)

    It’s becoming apparent that the deniers are getting more and more desperate.

  56. #56 Alex Harvey
    May 4, 2012

    Wow,

    I make of that an article dated June 5, 2011 now known to contain misinformation. Right? I must be missing your point.

    Quoting from the Australian,

    In a six-page ruling made last week, Mr Pilgrim [the Privacy Commissioner] found that 10 of 11 documents, all emails, “do not contain threats to kill” and the other “could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat”.

    But quoting the article you’ve linked,

    SECURITY has been tightened at the Australian National University in Canberra after several climate change scientists received death threats.

    So the Privacy Commissioner, who has read the emails, say they don’t contain death threats. Yet the Australian public has been told that these scientists did receive death threats. Presumably, most simply believed these stories – like I did. Now, it appears that the scientists lied.

    That’s pretty significant if scientists are telling outright lies in order to malign climate skeptics. Don’t you think?

  57. #57 chek
    May 4, 2012

    Alex, try reading Wow’s link again, but this time as if you’re sitting an English comprehension test.

    See if you can distinguish what Andrew Macintosh in the article says also about emails and what the Privacy Commissioner says only about emails.

  58. #58 Alex Harvey
    May 4, 2012

    Hi chek, I can indeed make interesting distinctions along the lines you propose.

    Are you making the point that even if some scientists lied about emails containing death threats that in fact didn’t, other scientists like Andrew Macintosh really have received death threats in the past?

    If that’s not your point, however, or Wow’s point, you may want to consider actually spelling out what you’re trying to say.

  59. #59 James
    May 10, 2012

    Hi guys. Thought I might bump this thread up.

    Turns out there were no death threats at all. Turns out also that Mr Lambert seems to have gone somewhat quiet of late.

    So, no death threats, no warming for 15 years, no melting Arctic, GBR still there, no islands inundated, less hurricanes, less intense hurricanes…..what else was there? Oh yeah, that fake email someone wrote!!

    Find another wagon guys, because the wheels have fallen off this one…..and you don’t want to be around when when the public at large realise the extent to which they have been defrauded.

    PS and just to be clear, that last line is not a threat to kill, I’m a lover, not a killer

    PPS that first PS should not be read as sarcastic in any way. I really truly harbour no violent thoughts at all.

    PPPS no really, guys, I was being somewhat metaphoric about the public reaction, they’re pissed off, but they’ll likely just react by voting the legislators out who tried to tax the daylights out of them. Thankfully this country (Australia) is still a peaceful one.

  60. #60 Bernard J.
    May 10, 2012

    Alex Harvey (probably sore from being repeatedly pinged at Skeptical Science) and James are convinced it’s All a Lie.

    [really](http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/05/07/hate-campaign-against-climate-scientists-went-beyond-emails/?wpmp_switcher=mobile)?

    And for what it’s worth, I’ve been threated by email with extreme violence simply for my support of consensus physics. Knowing what was said to me – a semi-anonymous non-climatologist – I have no problem at all with the idea that high profile professionals in the discipline might be even more seriously threatened.

  61. #61 John
    May 10, 2012

    James, why are you lying?

    >no warming for 15 years

    Wat

    >no melting Arctic

    huh

    >GBR still there

    Strawman

    >no islands inundated

    Misleading

    >Find another wagon guys, because the wheels have fallen off this one…..and you don’t want to be around when when the public at large realise the extent to which they have been defrauded.

    Well, that just sounds like *alarmism* to me.

    Seriously my good friend, if you are going to repeat memes you don’t really understand (but know are right because they fit your political biases), at least *try* to get them right.

    Alex Harvey,

    Gosh, “eleven documents” for a few scientists at one university! And you extrapolate this to say there have been *no* death threats at all! Delusional fellow, aren’t you?

  62. #62 bill
    May 10, 2012

    Yes, young Alex did not do particularly well over at SkS. If young Alex was anywhere near as bright as he imagines himself to be he’d be a force to be reckoned with; as it is, he’s Alex Harvey. And this is the very horse he rode in on, IIRC.

    And I see James has, similarly, not gotten any brighter. Anyone shocked?

    As for this latest vile shibboleth, the logical consequence of adherence to the extremist conspiracy-theory that is AGW Denial, I give you the following -

    In the case of the 30 or so climate scientists mentioned previously, many received hate emails that were well beyond the pale. And yes, there were specific threats of violence, sexual assault and worse. In the most stomach-churning case, a woman’s children – a toddler and a pre-schooler – were named and threatened. Why wouldn’t she be rattled? She received those emails because she agreed to be photographed by a local newspaper to promote a community tree-planting event, and was briefly quoted as urging people to come along and plant trees to mitigate climate change. Disagree by all means, but write a letter to the newspaper’s editor, and sign it.

    None of the scientists bragged about being a target, and all were apologetic about forwarding to our newspaper examples of the hate mail they received. So it came as a surprise to learn last week that a Sydney climate blogger had made a freedom of information request to obtain examples of these emails from the Australian National University. The ANU initially refused to release the documents, and in response to a formal appeal by the blogger, the Privacy Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim was asked to a adjudicate. He is reported as ruling that 10 of the 11 emails sought under FoI ”do not contain threats to kill” and the other ”could be regarded as intimidating”. The emails in question pertain to one scientist, ANU Climate Change Institute director Professor Will Steffen. He was among the group of 30 contacted by The Canberra Times, and revealed the worst threat he received – and we will not divulge it – was made verbally to one of his staff. It was the chilling nature of that threat – and the casual way in which it was made – that prompted the ANU to question its security arrangements. If they had not, they would have been guilty of ignoring staff safety requirements.

    I have a very low opinion of the kind of person who denigrates the validity of the fears of people on the receiving end of this kind of abuse, and observe that I can see no distinction between this behaviour and the the posting of hateful billboards beside the freeway.

    I might point out that I’ve received hate-filled missives telling me to ‘get out of’ my home suburb under my car windscreen wipers merely for having a ‘Greenie’ bumper sticker on my car, and I’ve seen Rednecks drive a van into a group of protesters, leap out, and then start belting people nearby with lengths of 2 by 4, while the Police looked on and failed to intervene. I’ve also been threatened with ‘having the shit beaten out of me’ at that same event, and, had I not promptly bolted, I may well have discovered just how seriously the threat was being made.

    There’s far-too-many really fucked-up people out there, fired up by precisely the kind of cynical hatespeech which is the stock-in-trade of many a Denier. Frankly, people who have never experienced anything of the sort directed at their own precious carcasses indulging in this kind of gloating triumphalist miasma of contrived disbelief and scorn sicken me.

    And don’t come complaining to us if its happening to you guys in a decade or so, will you? Because when the same mobs finally work out what you’ve actually done to them (and their posterity) you may yet find out what it’s like to be the despised outsiders whose psychological – and even physical – well-being is not a pressing concern…

  63. #63 Bernard J.
    May 10, 2012

    It’s probably worth pointing out that Alex Harvey’s been cornered by [Nick Stokes](http://moyhu.blogspot.de/2012/05/threats-at-anu-emails-released.html) for the same claim.