Rosslyn Beeby at The Canberra Times follows up her earlier story: (Hat tip Dave McRae):

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.

Beeby is addressing the issue because of some pushback from the global-waming denial crew. In what just must have been a coincidence, the Daily Telegraph, where Tim Blair is opinion editor, had this deceitful story, arguing that because there had been a threat five years ago, there had been no recent threats. If that seems logical to you, you are probably a reporter at the Daily Telegraph. Beeby comments:

Have the threats abated? Not according to the majority of scientists we contacted. Two weeks ago, when ANU economist Professor Ross Garnaut published the final report in his climate update, many scientists said their computers and mobile phones were flooded with spam emails and texts, many abusive or defamatory.

And that’s how we came across the story. There was no ”exquisitely timed” release of information as claimed by one climate sceptic’s blog. There was no conspiracy, rather it was just a chance catch-up call that yielded an unexpected result. We rang a contact (an ecologist) on his landline as he was furiously – in both senses of the word – deleting spam from his mobile.

The dodgy article in the Telegraph prompted Sophie Mirabella, Shadow Science Minister to came out with this media release:

The apparently false allegation of death threats have diminished the individuals involved and reflect poorly on the scientific community.

Beeby:

False allegation? Who did she speak to? Apparently not the climate scientist who has been advised by state police to install a panic button in his office after receiving death threats. Or to the scientist who had his house vandalised (hence police advice to install video surveillance), or the researcher who received an email, with a marksman’s target superimposed on his photo. Sorry Sophie, none of this behaviour is acceptable.

The unpleasant reality is several universities across Australia have been forced to upgrade security to protect scientists. This has ranged from deleting phone numbers from websites and removing names from faculty notice boards, to installing multiple card-swipe entries, office doors protected by punch-in codes, and moving researchers to areas with secure lifts.

I think that the Shadow Minister for Science could benefit from actually talking to scientists — readers can contact her here.

Then there is Andrew Bolt who dishonestly implies that I incite threats:

Warming alarmist Tim Lambert blames Blair for “inciting people to make such threats“. But in the responses to just a single Lambert post (warning, bad language):

81
….A f-cking piece of garbage like you deserves nothing but abuse. The catastrophe to come is on the heads of scum like you.

83 …

87 …

Bolt knows full well that nothing in my post incited or encouraged abuse or threats. And that the comments were not threats, but abuse. And that they were not just abuse but part of an exchange with another poster who insisted that the scientists were obviously wrong about the Great Barrier Reef because he’d been there and it was doing fine. This is nothing at all like a climate scientist getting threated or abused for doing his job.

John Birmingham commented on Blair’s column that incited readers to make more threats:

But perhaps, Tim, you and your mates in the Piers Boltbrechtson Hivemind, rather than characterising this rhetorical violence as no big deal, could actually try and calm the nutters down a bit.
Tell them to stop being such nutters.
Because sometimes the nutters get off the leash. Then all of a sudden you got barking maddies everywhere, up in people’s faces, snarling and roaring and throwing off phlegm storms of dudgeon that piles up so high you could climb it to look down on the ash clouds that grounded all the flights into Melbourne this week. And sometimes genuine nutters, they take things a bit too far, don’t they? The extreme left in the 1970s? The Red Brigades? The Baader Meinhoff Group? They didn’t start out as violent crazies. They got there step by step, encouraged by rhetoric that grew increasingly radical and violent the further the emergent terrorists got from their origins in the lentil-loving New Left of the 1960s.

Blair comes back with

The opening line from John Birmingham’s Tuesday tantrum:

Deaths threats?

That’s a rare example of two errors – typographical and descriptive – in one word. And the very first word, too

Thats telling him!

Comments

  1. #1 meg
    June 17, 2011

    I’m assuming you’ve seen Richard Glover’s recent piece? http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-climate-change-wave-of-hate-20110609-1ftix.html
    Admittedly, it appears a fair number are not from Australia, but the case remains.

    Andrew Bolt, who I’ve never really life, lost all credibility with me when on the 7pm project once he said that only 65 people died from the Chenobyl disaster. Charlie tried to shut him up, but the damage was done. Why they gave him a show when they’ve been trying to focus on the youth market, I don’t know.

  2. #2 meg
    June 17, 2011

    sorry, meant ‘who I’ve never really liked’.

  3. #3 Carbsmad
    June 17, 2011

    I couldn’t focus on your substantive arguments because of this typo:

    “prompted Sophie Mirabella, Shadow Science Minister to came out with”.

  4. #4 bill
    June 17, 2011

    Email to Ms. Mirabella written.

    A series of politely-worded but pointed letters from all of us who feel strongly in this matter is certainly justified – this is, after all, an outrageous accusation from a Shadow minister if it cannot be substantiated, and I suspect there’s little chance of that! Who did she speak to? We are entitled to know.

  5. #5 severn
    June 17, 2011

    I think scientists should publish these emails, text messages and so on, with dates and times and full names and addresses (where available).

    After all, full disclosure of these communications is what deniers want, isn’t it?

  6. #6 FrankD
    June 17, 2011

    I couldn’t focus on Sophie Mirabella’s substantive argument (if she had one) because of the typo: “The apparently false allegation of death threats have diminished…” (just while we’re playing grammar police.)

    I see that scurrilous bit of snide still resides in the Media Release section of her website. If she had any integrity (LOL!) she’d have taken that down as soon as CT published Beeby’s follow up.

    The apparently false allegation of the falsity of the death threats have diminished the individual involved and reflect poorly on the shadow minister…

  7. #7 cRR Kampen
    June 17, 2011

    Speaking of telling typos here is one created by Steve McIntyre three days ago:

    “Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated…”
    From the bottom of: http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/14/ipcc-wg3-and-the-greenpeace-karaoke/

    How’s that for a death(s) threat? But… Is it really a typo?

    [cRR Kampen, NL]

  8. #8 John
    June 17, 2011

    I wonder which dear, sweet little man contacted Bolt and dobbed in Marcel for using swears as retribution for having his arse handed to him?

  9. #9 Amoeba
    June 17, 2011

    Just when one thinks the vile AGW Denier camp and their even viler camp-followers can’t possibly stoop any lower, they somehow manage to plumb new depths.

  10. #10 No such thing as a Climate Scientist
    June 17, 2011

    “car windscreen was smeared with excrement – animal or human, does it matter?”

    If you put shyt up as science; like ‘the atmosphere is warming’ (when it has actually cooled 1.5 degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion) then expect some of that shyt to come back at you, and maybe land on your windscreen!

  11. #11 No such thing as a Climate Scientist
    June 17, 2011

    “car windscreen was smeared with excrement – animal or human, does it matter?”

    If you put shyt up as science; like ‘the atmosphere is warming’ (when it has actually cooled 1.5 degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion) then expect some of that shyt to come back at you, and maybe land on your windscreen!

  12. #12 No such thing as a Climate Scientist
    June 17, 2011

    “car windscreen was smeared with excrement – animal or human, does it matter?”

    If you put shyt up as science; like ‘the atmosphere is warming’ (when it has actually cooled 1.5 degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion) then expect some of that shyt to come back at you, and maybe land on your windscreen!

  13. #13 No such thing as a Climate Scientist
    June 17, 2011

    “car windscreen was smeared with excrement – animal or human, does it matter?”

    If you put shyt up as science; like ‘the atmosphere is warming’ (when it has actually cooled 1.5 degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion) then expect some of that shyt to come back at you, and maybe land on your windscreen!

  14. #14 No such thing as a Climate Scientist
    June 17, 2011

    “car windscreen was smeared with excrement – animal or human, does it matter?”

    If you put shyt up as science; like ‘the atmosphere is warming’ (when it has actually cooled 1.5 degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion) then expect some of that shyt to come back at you, and maybe land on your windscreen!

  15. #15 No such thing as a Climate Scientist
    June 17, 2011

    “car windscreen was smeared with excrement – animal or human, does it matter?”

    If you put shyt up as science; like ‘the atmosphere is warming’ (when it has actually cooled 1.5 degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion) then expect some of that shyt to come back at you, and maybe land on your windscreen!

  16. #16 Bernard J.
    June 17, 2011

    Tim, I’m pleased that you’ve encouraged a letter-writing to Mirabella – it was the first thing I did when I saw her release. I’ve been thinking that all scientifically-trained and experienced people should do so, and also let her know that her responses will be shared with other scientific professionals. I’ve been nudging my colleagues to pen even a short note, if nothing else.

    As for [post #10](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/more_on_the_threats_on_and_abu.php#comment-4162964), there is certainly no such thing as a climate scientist sitting at the keyboard that typed that garbage. I suspect that there’s not even a minimally-competent brain there…

    Seriously, how many times must we wipe the intellectual arses of people who can’t recognise a logical fallacy when it slaps them in their faces with a wet fish?

  17. #17 Robert Murphy
    June 17, 2011

    “If you put shyt up as science; like ‘the atmosphere is warming’ (when it has actually cooled 1.5 degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion) then expect some of that shyt to come back at you, and maybe land on your windscreen!”

    One of the biggest problems in discussing climate science with so-called skeptics is getting them to understand the problems of focussing on periods of time that are too short because year to year variation can overwhelm any trends. The opposite problem is when they try to use periods of time that are far too big, like you just did. This obliterates any real changes in climate that happened on a century to century timeline, or even over a few million years. Gone are the glacial-interglacial changes humans and our immediate ancestors had to live through. Surely those kinds of changes are more important to us than what happened billions of years ago. Having your resolution too high or too low can cause equally faulty analyses.

    Also, your casual acceptance of threats and vandalism coupled with your blinding ignorance is frightening. You are not only stupid, but you are also ethically challenged, a very dangerous combination.

  18. #18 No such thing as a Climate Scientist
    June 17, 2011

    “You are not only stupid, but you are also ethically challenged, a very dangerous combination.”

    Lame mass-debating tactic bobby; attacking the messenger but not the message.

    Well here it is again “the atmosphere is cooling” and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion; and it will continue to keep cooling at a similar rate.(climate science is BS)

    Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago.

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_21.html

    No water around then Bobby and St Benard to form the sediment.

    Rock solid evidence the earth is cooling and that climate science is crap and that there is No such thing as a Climate Scientist.

  19. #19 No such thing as a Climate Scientist
    June 17, 2011

    “You are not only stupid, but you are also ethically challenged, a very dangerous combination.”

    Lame mass-debating tactic bobby; attacking the messenger but not the message.

    Well here it is again “the atmosphere is cooling” and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion; and it will continue to keep cooling at a similar rate.(climate science is BS)

    Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago.

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_21.html

    No water around then Bobby and St Benard to form the sediment.

    Rock solid evidence the earth is cooling and that climate science is crap and that there is No such thing as a Climate Scientist.

  20. #20 No such thing as a Climate Scientist
    June 17, 2011

    “You are not only stupid, but you are also ethically challenged, a very dangerous combination.”

    Lame mass-debating tactic bobby; attacking the messenger but not the message.

    Well here it is again “the atmosphere is cooling” and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion; and it will continue to keep cooling at a similar rate.(climate science is BS)

    Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago.

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_21.html

    No water around then Bobby and St Benard to form the sediment.

    Rock solid evidence the earth is cooling and that climate science is crap and that there is No such thing as a Climate Scientist.

  21. #21 No such thing as a Climate Scientist
    June 17, 2011

    “You are not only stupid, but you are also ethically challenged, a very dangerous combination.”

    Lame mass-debating tactic bobby; attacking the messenger but not the message.

    Well here it is again “the atmosphere is cooling” and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion; and it will continue to keep cooling at a similar rate.(climate science is BS)

    Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago.

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_21.html

    No water around then Bobby and St Benard to form the sediment.

    Rock solid evidence the earth is cooling and that climate science is crap and that there is No such thing as a Climate Scientist.

  22. #22 No such thing as a Climate Scientist
    June 17, 2011

    “You are not only stupid, but you are also ethically challenged, a very dangerous combination.”

    Lame mass-debating tactic bobby; attacking the messenger but not the message.

    Well here it is again “the atmosphere is cooling” and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion; and it will continue to keep cooling at a similar rate.(climate science is BS)

    Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago.

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_21.html

    No water around then Bobby and St Benard to form the sediment.

    Rock solid evidence the earth is cooling and that climate science is crap and that there is No such thing as a Climate Scientist.

  23. #23 No such thing as a Climate Scientist
    June 17, 2011

    “You are not only stupid, but you are also ethically challenged, a very dangerous combination.”

    Lame mass-debating tactic bobby; attacking the messenger but not the message.

    Well here it is again “the atmosphere is cooling” and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion; and it will continue to keep cooling at a similar rate.(climate science is BS)

    Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago.

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_21.html

    No water around then Bobby and St Benard to form the sediment.

    Rock solid evidence the earth is cooling and that climate science is crap and that there is No such thing as a Climate Scientist.

  24. #24 Wow
    June 17, 2011

    > Well here it is again “the atmosphere is cooling” and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion

    An asinine statement. Not even worth countering.

    > and it will continue to keep cooling at a similar rate

    100% false. It has for the last 150 years been increasing at 12,000 degrees C ever 100 million years.

  25. #25 Robert Murphy
    June 17, 2011

    “Lame mass-debating tactic bobby; attacking the messenger but not the message.”

    I did attack the message; your point was garbage. And someone who applauds physical threats and vandalism with feces is no position to complain about manners.

    “Well here it is again “the atmosphere is cooling” and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion; and it will continue to keep cooling at a similar rate.”

    Why? What is the physical process that is causing this cooling? Are you just going from what the temps were when the Earth formed and what they are now and working a trend from that? Why are you ignoring the great deal of variation that has happened in temps over the history of the Earth? Specifically, the last few million years of glacial/interglacial variations- you know, the timeframe Homo Sapiens evolved in.

    “Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago”

    Your link makes no mention of the temperature then.

    “Rock solid evidence the earth is cooling and that climate science is crap and that there is No such thing as a Climate Scientist.”

    Well, that settles it then, right? Your opinion trumps the data. Brilliant!

  26. #26 No such thing as a Climate Scientist
    June 17, 2011

    “It has for the last 150 years been increasing at 12,000 degrees C ever 100 million years.”

    ‘Wow’ your maths is bad.

    This is not some made up anomaly “the atmosphere is cooling” and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion

    Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago.

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_21.html

    No water around then Bobby and St Benard to form the sediment.

    Wow was too dumb to work out that all the water was steam when the atmosphere was 100C+ 4 billion years ago.

  27. #27 No such thing as a Climate Scientist
    June 17, 2011

    “It has for the last 150 years been increasing at 12,000 degrees C ever 100 million years.”

    ‘Wow’ your maths is bad.

    This is not some made up anomaly “the atmosphere is cooling” and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion

    Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago.

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_21.html

    No water around then Bobby and St Benard to form the sediment.

    Wow was too dumb to work out that all the water was steam when the atmosphere was 100C+ 4 billion years ago.

  28. #28 No such thing as a Climate Scientist
    June 17, 2011

    “It has for the last 150 years been increasing at 12,000 degrees C ever 100 million years.”

    ‘Wow’ your maths is bad.

    This is not some made up anomaly “the atmosphere is cooling” and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion

    Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago.

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_21.html

    No water around then Bobby and St Benard to form the sediment.

    Wow was too dumb to work out that all the water was steam when the atmosphere was 100C+ 4 billion years ago.

  29. #29 No such thing as a Climate Scientist
    June 17, 2011

    “It has for the last 150 years been increasing at 12,000 degrees C ever 100 million years.”

    ‘Wow’ your maths is bad.

    This is not some made up anomaly “the atmosphere is cooling” and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion

    Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago.

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_21.html

    No water around then Bobby and St Benard to form the sediment.

    Wow was too dumb to work out that all the water was steam when the atmosphere was 100C+ 4 billion years ago.

  30. #30 No such thing as a Climate Scientist
    June 17, 2011

    “It has for the last 150 years been increasing at 12,000 degrees C ever 100 million years.”

    ‘Wow’ your maths is bad.

    This is not some made up anomaly “the atmosphere is cooling” and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion

    Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago.

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_21.html

    No water around then Bobby and St Benard to form the sediment.

    Wow was too dumb to work out that all the water was steam when the atmosphere was 100C+ 4 billion years ago.

  31. #31 No such thing as a Climate Scientist
    June 17, 2011

    “It has for the last 150 years been increasing at 12,000 degrees C ever 100 million years.”

    ‘Wow’ your maths is bad.

    This is not some made up anomaly “the atmosphere is cooling” and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion

    Rock solid evidence the atmosphere was +100C 4 billion years ago.

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_21.html

    No water around then Bobby and St Benard to form the sediment.

    Wow was too dumb to work out that all the water was steam when the atmosphere was 100C+ 4 billion years ago.

  32. #32 John
    June 17, 2011

    “No Such Thing” has a point. The Earth *was* hotter when it was a molten ball of lava.

  33. #33 Wow
    June 17, 2011

    Yes, your maths IS bad.

    > This is not some made up anomaly “the atmosphere is cooling”

    No, it IS a made up anomaly.

    And it’s rather odd that you mention steam at 100C. Because the boiling point of water is dependent on atmospheric pressure.

  34. #34 Wow
    June 17, 2011

    > The Earth was hotter when it was a molten ball of lava.

    It was hotter when it was smacked by another planet.

    But that was less than 4+ billion years ago. Therefore it CAN’T have been cooling for 1.5C every 100 million years! If something cools, it can’t get HOTTER.

  35. #35 Robert Murphy
    June 17, 2011

    “This is not some made up anomaly “the atmosphere is cooling” and has cooled 1.5c degrees every 100 million years for the last 4 billion”

    Bullshit. Almost all of that cooling happened billions of years ago, after the Earth was formed. Here’s what’s been happening over the last half billion years or so:
    [Phanerozoic Climate Change](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png)

    No steady drop of 1.5C per 100 million years. That’s something you pulled out of your backside.

    Your argument is complete nonsense. It ignores all of the evidence of past climate change- in effect, you are doing to the nth degree what so-called skeptics claim (falsely) climate scientists do- you wiped out the MWP, the LIA, the glacial/interglacial events of the last couple of million years (where the variations have been a lot higher than 1.5C). I really hope you’re a Poe; it’s terrifying think someone can really be that dumb and still be able to type.

  36. #36 BlueRock
    June 17, 2011

    1. meg:

    > Andrew Bolt … said that only 65 people died from the Chenobyl disaster.

    George Monbiot claimed and has stuck to 43 (or 47 depending on which article of his you read). A disgusting misrepresentation.

  37. #37 No such thing as a Climate Scientist
    June 17, 2011

    “all of that cooling” that’s right as you said, atmospheric cooling, not warming ah Bobby.

    Re your Wikicrap link;

    ” The gray bar is the associated 95% statistical uncertainty in the moving average. ”

    Is this another Mann and Jones fictionally constructed anomaly.

    Bobby; why is it nobody knows what the average global temperature is.

    What you should ask yourself is why they do not have a global average temperature and why they have to make up fictional anomalies instead?

    Next the voo-doo climates scientists will Manndate bones through peoples noses to reduce the carbon expiration.

  38. #38 No such thing as a Climate Scientist
    June 17, 2011

    “all of that cooling” that’s right as you said, atmospheric cooling, not warming ah Bobby.

    Re your Wikicrap link;

    ” The gray bar is the associated 95% statistical uncertainty in the moving average. ”

    Is this another Mann and Jones fictionally constructed anomaly.

    Bobby; why is it nobody knows what the average global temperature is.

    What you should ask yourself is why they do not have a global average temperature and why they have to make up fictional anomalies instead?

    Next the voo-doo climates scientists will Manndate bones through peoples noses to reduce the carbon expiration.

  39. #39 No such thing as a Climate Scientist
    June 17, 2011

    “all of that cooling” that’s right as you said, atmospheric cooling, not warming ah Bobby.

    Re your Wikicrap link;

    ” The gray bar is the associated 95% statistical uncertainty in the moving average. ”

    Is this another Mann and Jones fictionally constructed anomaly.

    Bobby; why is it nobody knows what the average global temperature is.

    What you should ask yourself is why they do not have a global average temperature and why they have to make up fictional anomalies instead?

    Next the voo-doo climates scientists will Manndate bones through peoples noses to reduce the carbon expiration.

  40. #40 No such thing as a Climate Scientist
    June 17, 2011

    “all of that cooling” that’s right as you said, atmospheric cooling, not warming ah Bobby.

    Re your Wikicrap link;

    ” The gray bar is the associated 95% statistical uncertainty in the moving average. ”

    Is this another Mann and Jones fictionally constructed anomaly.

    Bobby; why is it nobody knows what the average global temperature is.

    What you should ask yourself is why they do not have a global average temperature and why they have to make up fictional anomalies instead?

    Next the voo-doo climates scientists will Manndate bones through peoples noses to reduce the carbon expiration.

  41. #41 No such thing as a Climate Scientist
    June 17, 2011

    “all of that cooling” that’s right as you said, atmospheric cooling, not warming ah Bobby.

    Re your Wikicrap link;

    ” The gray bar is the associated 95% statistical uncertainty in the moving average. ”

    Is this another Mann and Jones fictionally constructed anomaly.

    Bobby; why is it nobody knows what the average global temperature is.

    What you should ask yourself is why they do not have a global average temperature and why they have to make up fictional anomalies instead?

    Next the voo-doo climates scientists will Manndate bones through peoples noses to reduce the carbon expiration.

  42. #42 No such thing as a Climate Scientist
    June 17, 2011

    “all of that cooling” that’s right as you said, atmospheric cooling, not warming ah Bobby.

    Re your Wikicrap link;

    ” The gray bar is the associated 95% statistical uncertainty in the moving average. ”

    Is this another Mann and Jones fictionally constructed anomaly.

    Bobby; why is it nobody knows what the average global temperature is.

    What you should ask yourself is why they do not have a global average temperature and why they have to make up fictional anomalies instead?

    Next the voo-doo climates scientists will Manndate bones through peoples noses to reduce the carbon expiration.

  43. #43 Chris O'Neill
    June 17, 2011

    The guy who is no such thing as a Climate Scientist:

    expect some of that shyt to come back at you, and maybe land on your windscreen!

    Har, har har. Very funny.

  44. #44 Wow
    June 17, 2011

    More fiction from someone with no imagination.

    Hence complete gibberish.

    > Bobby; why is it nobody knows what the average global temperature is.

    The average global temperature IS known.

    http://www.universetoday.com/14516/temperature-of-earth/

    “The average temperature of Earth according to NASA figures is 15°C.”

    “why they have to make up fictional anomalies instead?”

    Uhm, what?

    In the UK, a heatwave is:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1387551/UK-weather-Heatwave-way-hottest-May-350-years.html

    “Children look over a bridge at Wisley where the highest temperature of the year was recorded as 27.8C”

    But 27.8C in the Sahara:
    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_temperature_of_the_Sahara_Desert

    “The average summer temperature is 30 ºC (86 ºF);”

    So to find out whether a place is warming, you need to know how the temperature changed over time IN THE SAME AREA.

    Or an anomaly.

    In fact, the Celsius scale is a temperature anomaly: based off the Freezing Point of Pure Water at 1 bar of pressure.

    > Next the voo-doo climates scientists will Manndate bones through peoples noses to reduce the carbon expiration.

    Well, if a referendum on the question came out, I think we’d handily pass the judgement that you should hold your breath and that this WILL reduce the pollution of the earth.

    You’re proof positive of people pissing in the shallow end of the gene pool.

  45. #45 Jeff Harvey
    June 17, 2011

    No such thing as a Climate Scientist: I assume that you are describing yourself? I would more appropriately label you as “Such a thing as an idiot with no basic understanding of physics”. I think you therefore need to change your monicker.

  46. #46 Robert Murphy
    June 17, 2011

    “all of that cooling” that’s right as you said, atmospheric cooling, not warming ah Bobby”

    Yeah, almost all of the cooling was finished billions of years ago, after the Earth cooled off from being a molten ball of rock.

    “Re your Wikicrap link;
    ” The gray bar is the associated 95% statistical uncertainty in the moving average. “”

    Yeah, and how does that pretty narrow range of uncertainty contradict the fact there has been no 1.5C drop in temps every hundred million years during the last half billion years? 250 million years ago it was clearly warmer than it was 450 million years ago. How can that be if temps have been dropping 1.5C every hundred million years?

    There is no steady drop in temps of 1.5C every hundred million years; you made it up completely. Even if there were (there isn’t) we do not live on 100 million year time scales, we are concerned about the next hundred years or the next few thousand. You claim a steady drop of 1.5C every hundred million years, yet the earth warmed up about 4 times that much after the last glacial period. That’s a fact, or do you deny the existence of glacial/interglacial episodes over the last few million years?

    “What you should ask yourself is why they do not have a global average temperature and why they have to make up fictional anomalies instead?”

    They do have a global average temperature, but anomalies are not *fictional* in any way. It’s just a very helpful way to deal with temperature changes globally. If you don’t understand how a temp anomaly works, you really have no business dismissing the science, since you obviously haven’t a clue about it.

    Again, the stupidity of your arguments strongly suggest you are just a Poe having some fun trying to make so-called skeptics look bad. I hope so; the thought of someone as dumb as your posts suggest and as ethically challenged is not encouraging.

  47. #47 Bernard J.
    June 17, 2011

    Ladies and gentlemen, NSTAACS is a one-trick pony that can’t even get that one trick right.

    Using his logic, the planet is actually warming, as our sun is in fact steadily heating on its journey to becoming a red giant.

    Of course, the facts that there are multiple other positive and negative forcings on climate seem to sail trapeze-like over his head… assuming of course that he even accepts that there is such a thing as climate*. And if he did so, he certainly doesn’t understand that climate is not fractal over different scales of time, or he would not make the ridiculous claim that he did.

    And “fictional anomalies”? Talk about clueless – he’s not Anthony Watts, is he? ;-)

    Bascially, the guy is just a two-bit troll who can’t even drool and drag his knuckles at the same time, so the best thing would be simply to bin him with all of the other intellectual trash.

    *And assuming that he even has a head, or at least one that has a functioning brain…

  48. #48 Tim Lambert
    June 17, 2011

    The artist formerly known as “Only Computer Geeks rely on computer models” is still banned. All further comments from him will be removed, so please do not respond to them.

  49. #49 monty
    June 17, 2011

    Dear All
    Why do we bother responding to idiots like ‘No Such Thing….’. It’s clear s/he is a troll and anyone arriving at this site still undecided about AGW can surely see the difference between the scientifically literate who normally post and the hard of thinking like ‘No Such Thing’.

  50. #50 Jeremy C
    June 17, 2011

    Thanks Tim,

    I can’t see why people even responded to his ridiculous posts. He certainly is an artist.

  51. #51 Lotharsson
    June 17, 2011

    Wow…that was an astonishingly stupid troll. Even amongst his peers. I guess he could be Watts ;-)

  52. Folks, I still don’t understand why anyone of you would want to explain science to someone who condones death threats and rape threats against climate scientists’ families. It’s like explaining quantum physics to a pig, except the pig doesn’t have any representatives in Parliament.

    We know how the Gish Gallop works — throw out a lot of anti-science talking points in a short time, hope that the pro-science guy will waste a bucketload of time trying to debunk each and every one of them, and thereby cloud out the main issue.

    So why are we still so willing to be fall into this trap?

    And fall into this trap, again and again and again?

    I want to understand.

    – frank

  53. #53 Wow
    June 17, 2011

    > Folks, I still don’t understand why anyone of you would want to explain science to someone who condones death threats and rape threats against climate scientists’ families.

    Because all that is required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

  54. Wow:

    I know you’re well-intentioned, but here’s a news flash: there are some actions in the world which are worse than doing nothing. And that includes going for a ride along a inactivist’s Gish Gallop.

    – frank

  55. Wow:

    Really, try for a moment to overcome the temptation to have your fingers head straight for the keyboard, take a deep breath, and look at the ‘big picture’ of this thread.

    Have your debunkings of the troll illuminated the original topic of the thread — about the despicable, unethical, and indefensible threats against climate scientists, climate campaigners, and even their families?

    Or have they merely served as a distraction from the original topic?

    Is your keyboard-happy stance really helping the situation, or is it hurting it?

    – frank

  56. #56 Wow
    June 17, 2011

    The troll wasn’t galloping, though.

    Taking 4 billion years and drawing a line from start to finish and proclaiming a linear trend of cooling earth was his canard and he stuck to it, probably either childish glee at causing trouble, a poe (which is pretty idiotic, the Poe isn’t something you *try* for, it’s an explanation of an unfortunate consequence of internet access for billions of people) or just plain insanity.

    However, there was very little galloping done.

    Nick Craig (IIRC) did that.

    These were, at least, novel idiocies and as such really were memes that ought to be quashed.

    NOT quashing them would allow them to be seen as successful by the other idiots and eventually poisoning the well for people who aren’t that bothered about climate science.

    Ergo, NOT quashing them is far worse than letting the idiot spout. Not because the idiot would stop, but that the meme it was starting would die stillborn.

    And, after all, you DID ask:

    > I want to understand.

    But now it looks like you were asking a rhetorical question.

    Or you were entering into a Gish Trot.

  57. #57 Wow
    June 17, 2011

    > Really, try for a moment to overcome the temptation to have your fingers head straight for the keyboard

    a) Who died and made you god?

    b) Try it yourself.

    > Have your debunkings of the troll illuminated the original topic of the thread

    Have your last few?

    No.

    See (b) above.

  58. Wow:

    > The troll wasn’t galloping, though. [...]

    > These were, at least, novel idiocies

    With all due respect, I think you’re wrong on both counts.

    > NOT quashing them would allow them to be seen as successful by the other idiots and eventually poisoning the well for people who aren’t that bothered about climate science.

    But have you considered that, by responding to the troll’s tangential points, you’ve unwittingly contributed to another inactivist meme?

    You know, the bogus inactivist meme that inactivists somehow don’t make threats against climate scientists, that even if threats were made they somehow aren’t very serious, or that they’re somehow justified in the face of supposed abuse from climate activists?

    Yes, by responding to the troll’s irrelevant point, you just contributed to the sprouting of that very meme.

    Which is actually what the opening post of this thread was trying to address, in case you haven’t noticed.

    (And no, throwing my words back at me isn’t going to fix it.)

    – frank

  59. #59 monty
    June 17, 2011

    I’m with Frank on this. I admire Wow for his/her patience with the usual idiots that sometimes invade this blog, but sometimes it’s better just to ignore them. To the outsider, it may be more effective that way.

  60. #60 Paul UK
    June 17, 2011

    >This is nothing at all like a climate scientist getting threated or abused for doing his job.

    Tim, that depends if the person who was posting a comment on your blog was paid to do so :-)
    In which case he or she was being harassed whilst doing their job.

    LOL I mean really loudly. Ow! my laughing brought some plaster down on my head.

  61. #61 BKsea
    June 17, 2011

    “marksman’s target superimposed on his photo”

    Over here in the US, Sarah Palin got in a bit of trouble for putting marksman targets on people when one of those people ended up with a bullet in her brain. Turns out though, that it was actually a “surveyor’s mark.” They are not threatening death, just the precise determination of elevation.

  62. #62 Calli Arcale
    June 17, 2011

    This just boggles my mind. I mean, it’s bad enough when medical researchers who use animals get death threats from the animal rights extremists. At least there I can sort of see where the extremists are coming from. (I don’t agree with them; I’m in favor of ethical animal testing, and I believe we have a good system that actually does work, and provides a mechanism for punishing those who abuse it.) They’re upset about animals being hurt or killed. OK. They’re out of proportion, but animals are cute and it does hurt to think of them suffering.

    But climate change? What on earth could provoke such depth of hatred over whether or not the earth is getting warmer? I mean, if the scientists are wrong, the worst that can happen is we get more efficient technology to avert a disaster that wasn’t going to happen in the first place. Seems like a win-win to me, quite honestly. How can that possibly anger people to the point where they’d vandalize scientists’ homes and threaten their lives and the welfare of their children? How can anyone be so severely screwed up in the head that that’s anything like a normal reaction?

  63. #63 David Horton
    June 17, 2011

    “Turns out though, that it was actually a “surveyor’s mark.” They are not threatening death, just the precise determination of elevation” ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

  64. #64 Raging Bee
    June 17, 2011

    Calli: I think they’re reacting to what they see as an attack on some very fundamental and indispensible foundations of their basic worldview: that our world will always be habitable and not threaten our existence as a species; that we can pursue wealth and rape the land (and sea and air) as necessary to protect Our Way Of Life without having to moderate our wants or sacrifice wealth or comfort; and (perhaps most important of all) that we don’t need to give up our precious freedoms and submit to any kind of plan, authority or other restrictive regimen in deciding how to meet our needs and wants. The latter has always been held sacred, at least in America, and I’ve been hearing shrill hateful reactions to any idea of any regulation of personal or business activity for as long as I can remember. The reaction we’re seeing now is worse than before, but it’s not new.

  65. #65 GSW
    June 17, 2011

    If true, these reports are certainly shocking. Anybody have any more background information? They are as unlikely as they are shocking, at the moment it’s still just heresay. Anybody?

  66. GSW:

    > They are … unlikely

    Why would you say it’s unlikely that climate scientists and climate campaigners actually received death and rape threats against their

    Perhaps the threats probably don’t exist because Andrew Carswell the Daily Telegraph felt the need to publish a counterfactual story filled with unadulterated bullshit to ‘disprove’ the scientists’ account? And Carswell’s story just happens to disagree on the distinct coverages of the Canberra Times, the Guardian, the ABC, and the Sydney Morning Herald, on just about every key fact?

    Or perhaps the threats probably don’t exist because Tim Blair, Andrew Bolt, and NikFromNYC have openly defended the vile behaviour shown in these, um, alleged threats?

    – frank

  67. monty:

    > sometimes it’s better just to ignore them.

    My preferred tactic is to point out the incongruity of their ‘argument’ when put side by side with the opening list. For example, the troll above was essentially arguing ‘I think the earth is cooling, therefore it’s fine to threaten to rape kids’.

    But I’m open to other kinds of tactics — if they’re effective.

    – frank

  68. s/opening list/opening post/

  69. #69 GSW
    June 17, 2011

    frank,

    I’m just interest if people know anymore about the attacks described above. They seem bizarre and hence unlikely.

    I’m also conscious of fact that it is a common propaganda form to distribute ‘hate’ stories with a view to soliciting popular support.

    With hearsay you can claim anything. So is there anything to the attacks on the two women?

  70. GSW:

    For all your professed concern, you don’t seem at all bothered with the Andrew Carswell’s attempt to inject a story filled with absolute nonsense into the daily news stream.

    Come back when you actually care about the truth. (Or when you can actually pretend to care about the truth more, if you prefer.)

    – frank

  71. severn:

    > I think scientists should publish these emails, text messages and so on, with dates and times and full names and addresses (where available).

    There are ways to reveal the identities of the hate mail senders without also revealing the identities of the victims — which if I remember correctly was one thing the victims were worried about.

    – frank

  72. #72 GSW
    June 17, 2011

    frank,

    from your response, I take it you don’t have any further info on the putative “attacks”.

    Unattributed/hearsay stories have little value. Hard to tell though, whether it’s pushed propaganda, or just bad journalism.

    I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the daily news stream is often filled with “absolute nonsense”.

  73. #73 David Horton
    June 17, 2011

    “They seem bizarre and hence unlikely” – because climate change deniers are such rational thoughtful people …. ?

  74. #74 MFS
    June 17, 2011

    GSW,

    Nice attempt to belittle the fact by asking for proof. I guess you could just come out from behind your shadowy but thin veil of propriety and plainly state that you think said climate scientists (or the journalists) are lying to draw the public’s sympathy. That is the point of your messages, even if you get there rather obliquely, isn’t it?

    If I had been the target of death threats, I would have involved the police, passed on all original correspondence, etc, then definitely NOT proceeded to reveal my identity by publishing said threats: It is a well known fact that bullies concentrate on people who are already victims.

  75. Interesting how GSW, like the other inactivists, sees the Daily Telegraph counterfactual piece that slanders climate scientists, and managnes to claim that it’s the scientists who are somehow telling lies.

    That puts a lot of perspective on GSW’s veil of propriety indeed.

    MFS, I’m not sure that at this stage the climate researchers and campaigners can put all their hopes on the police.

    – frank

  76. #76 bill
    June 18, 2011

    GSW: Cases reported on by journalists are now ‘hearsay’, eh? Is the following ‘hearsay’ -

    The Australian National University’s former Vice-Chancellor Professor Ian Chubb confirmed the university moved several researchers to secure buildings after threats to their personal safety.

    Did you bother to read the piece? The journalist explains quite clearly how the original article came about. Choosing not to know, or to simply doubt, this is just that – a choice. You’re not the first person in history to blame the messenger for delivering news you simply don’t wish to accept as true. Or to dismiss such news as ‘propaganda’.

    You are effectively accusing the journalist concerned of blatant incompetence, lying, or of being knowingly involved in a fabrication. Twice in succession!

    Can you seriously doubt that the denier camp contains unbalanced individuals fully capable of issuing such threats? And issuing routinely abusive e-mails and text messages, as reported? ‘Unlikely’? You wish!

    The only word for this ‘shift the blame to both the victims and those who put their cases’ tactic is ‘vile’.

  77. #77 FrankD
    June 18, 2011

    Calli, Raging Bee – I see this in terms of Kübler-Ross’s five stages of grief. Now, not all people go through all stages, but its not a bad model for the various emotions seen across a group of people getting bad news.

    Denial of course is stage one, and many remain stuck there. Stage two is anger. From my chair, over the last year or so nature, scientists and members of the lay public (some media, bloggers, youtubers etc) have done a pretty good job of conveying just how ludicrous denial is – repeated ownage of the major denialist bobbleheads, the realisation that we have actually entered that “period of consequences” we’ve been warned of and so on.

    I’m personally seeing more people who, while a long way from acceptance, have moved on from “its not happening”. And mostly those people are bloody angry: vituperations about carbon taxes, anger that it even continues to be discussed (in effect: I know I was wrong and I don’t want to hear it…), teenaged “its not fair”-type heel-drumming and, alas, at the extreme end, death threats for the bringers of bad news.

    Continuing the theme – the Lomborgs and VincentR’s are at the Bargaining stage: they know its real but hope to bargain away the consequences. Others I know have become completely disengaged; they know it’s true, but are so frustrated by the inaction and anger and their own helplessness in the face of such a big problem that they just switch off – Kübler-Ross’s Depression stage.

    And finally, those at Acceptance, who only deny that there is nothing we can do, who are only angry at those who knowingly delay action, who try to bargain between what people can accept doing now and what we know must be done in the long term. And who really aren’t that depressed at all, despite all of the above.

    While I condemn the threats, and especially those apologists who do not also condemn them, on some level I think those sending them are in the main more to be pitied than scorned. Like a psychotic who might harm someone else in their delusional state, they need to be restrained from inflicting harm, but mostly, I think they need help.

    2 cents worth…

  78. #78 rhwombat
    June 18, 2011

    FrankD: A worthwhile 2 cents. Your insight of VincentR being at the Bargaining stage makes a great deal of sense to me, particularly given his latest habit of talking to himself alone.

  79. #79 chek
    June 18, 2011

    Bill & Frank, GSW is replicating an ongoing tactic I’ve seen from UK cranks to deny the UEA hack – i.e. they deny there’s any ‘evidence’ of a criminal event taking place. This despite the ongoing police investigation.

    I rather hope that should they ever have their car or whatever stolen that their local police show a similar scepticism that they ever owned a car, and then proceed to demand irrefutable proof that they haven’t illegally sold or scrapped or otherwise disposed of the vehicle before taking their claim seriously.

    A hagfish would be envious of the amount of self-produced slime these characters are capable of generating.

  80. FrankD, rhwombat:

    All this tells us nothing about how, at a large scale, we should deal with those who condone death and rape threats.

    Because we’re not dealing with one single person lying on a shrink’s couch.

    We’re dealing with an entire news organization willingly injecting a false, counterfactual story into the mainstream to cover up for people who issue death and rape threats against climate scientists’ and climate campaigners’ families.

    We’re dealing with people who hire defence contractors to create sock puppets en masse to spread talking points and try to hack into the computers of climate activists’ families to gather dirt.

    We’re dealing with the big organizations who fund ‘think’-tanks like the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow who in turn fund Marc Morano’s Climate Depot/em> just to spread the Daily Telegraph‘s slanderous story downplaying the threats at climate folks.

    The problem is much, much bigger than just another isolated Kübler-Ross case. And it’s much, much bigger than just someone who’s wrong on the Internet. Trying to ‘convert’ the inactivists ‘one at a time’ isn’t going to work.

    – frank

  81. #81 Watching the deniers
    June 18, 2011

    When the deniers starting to threat to visit my readers a Watching the Deniers then I knew it was enough:

    http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/pete-ridleyfsmail-net-is-the-presumed-cyberstalker/

    This is the type of stuff I got. This is one denier threatening to “visit” one of my regular readers at the blog:

    “…It sounds about right, considering the nonsense you have posted here. If that is you then “Mindfulness in the midst of chaos” says it all. Next time I’m visiting friends in Brighton I’ll pop along to the Maitreya Kadampa Buddhist Centre in Bexhill on Sea for a chat. Is it still Sea Road?

    BTW, do you have any scientific or engineering education or training or was it all theology and meditation?”

    This was but one example of this behaviour sent by this individual. Other readers and members where contacted indivdiually. This individual contacted my readers individuallly.

    This stuff was what I got when I first started the blog:

    http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/a-quick-mesage-to-bird/

    “You are such a f******* liar you stupid c***t. They are not threatening messages. They are offensive messages. What a dumb lying c**** you are.”

    “So you got that evidence you stupid c***?”

    I become concerned early this year. I maintained my anonymity on WtD for good reason. I have family and a daughter. I was deeply concerned about the increasingly erractic nature of the deniers behaviour.

    This was part of the reason I felt I had to move on – I could no longer expose myself to such behaviour.

    I feel guilt that such intimidation was a factor in my decision to close the blog, and it is exactly what they want. But what more could I do?

    Damn Bolt and them all for stirring up this hate.

    Damn them for misleading the public.

    To all the scientists and others that have been subject to this. I’m sorry. Sorry that you have been subjected to this behaviour. It is awful. I’ve only had some small exposure to it…

    The Bolts and Novas excuse this behaviour. Nova has gone so far as to suggest the emails are faked!

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/to-a-climate-scientist-swearing-equals-a-death-threat-no-wonder-these-guys-cant-predict-the-weather/

    “…This is sheer beef-it-up spin, making a mountain out of a molehill, clutching at straws in desperation to eek out a PR victory from the dregs of a fading scam.

    There must have been more to the “death threats” than these surely?

    If not, I take back any suggestion that these emails might have been purposefully done by people wanting to discredit skeptics. No organized campaign would be so pathetic.”

    I have evidence as well: the deniers use the threat of violence.

  82. #82 John Mashey
    June 18, 2011

    I don’t know any Australian {climate scientists & others involved with climate issues} personally who have gotten threats, but offhand I do know 10 between USA, Canada, and UK. Given that I know only a tiny sample of such folks, I’d guess the numbers are much higher.

    A few I’ve only met, but a majority are friends, some of whom I’ve known for decade(s). Obviously, I’m not going to name anybody who isn’t already named. Two are (sadly, within last year) deceased: Steve Schneider & Bill Freudenberg.

    Since the same mechanisms are used widely (see CCC, p.1, 33, I would be surprised if it were not happening in Australia as well.
    I don’t know offhand, if Oz has commentators calling for drawing and quartering of climate scientists, more hari-kari knives, or merely public flogging, but we have had that in USA.

  83. #83 Sesli Chat
    June 18, 2011

    Orda daha fazla ortaya çıkan teröristlerin 1960′ların mercimek seven Yeni Sol kendi kökenlerinden aldı giderek radikal ve şiddet arttı retorik teşvik adım adım var.

  84. #84 GSW
    June 18, 2011

    Concur entirely with 61 & 62. 63 Murat is that you? ha ha. Physical threats on either side of debate are unacceptable and should not be condoned by either side. It is not entirely one way traffic though, apparently a chap called Ben Santer (AGW Alarmist) threatened “to beat the crap out of” someone the next time they saw them.

    Anybody here care to add their personal voice to condemnation to such unacceptable behaviour?

  85. #85 Dave R
    June 18, 2011

    GSW:
    >threatened “to beat the crap out of”

    No he did not, you liar. And your pathetic attempt to distract attention from the denialist thugs is transparent. You are the same lowlife scum they are.

  86. #86 GSW
    June 18, 2011

    @ Dave R

    um, I think he did. Try searching for “santer beat the crap” on google.
    Are you seriously saying that it never happened?

    @ others,
    Condemnation?

  87. #87 Dave R
    June 18, 2011

    GSW:
    >um, I think he did.

    No you don’t. You know full well that he did not. You are making the false allegation in order to distract attention from the real threats and despicable actions of the thugs detailed in the article — actions that you fully approve of although you don’t have the guts to admit it here.

  88. #88 NSTASCG No such thing as a Climate Scientist
    June 18, 2011

    “The artist formerly known as “Only Computer Geeks rely on computer models” is still banned. All further comments from him will be removed, so please do not respond to them.”

    Typical mistake by a Computer Geek that relies only on computer models; I am not the same person, I only borrowed his computer. Now I am on my computer using his IP.

    “The troll wasn’t galloping, though.

    Taking 4 billion years and drawing a line from start to finish and proclaiming a linear trend of cooling earth was his canard and he stuck to it”

    Unless you have something different from the splicing and dicing manufactured by Mann and Jones to refute it, I rest my case.

    ” chap called Ben Santer (AGW Alarmist) threatened “to beat the crap out of” someone the next time they saw them.”

    Climate alarmist wankers do not care if they threaten or intimidate as according to them we are all going to fry anyway, so any means; lying, cheating, threatening etc is justifiable to them by their cause.

  89. #89 GSW
    June 18, 2011

    Sorry Dave,

    But, where have you been for the last few years? did you do the search? I know you guys are somewhat cut off from reality but this is an all time record.

    @ therestofyou. Condemnation? or too traumatised to contribute?

  90. #90 Dave R
    June 18, 2011

    >did you do the search?

    I do not need to. I know very well which of the stolen emails you are lying about. And I know why you are lying about it — because you support the cowardly and disgusting attacks on scientists carried out by your fellow deniers and you are here to derail this thread in support of them.

  91. #91 GSW
    June 18, 2011

    @Dave R

    Let me know when the medication wears off.

    @Anybody else?

  92. #92 Fran Barlow
    June 18, 2011

    I’m also with Frank on responding to trolls. While I certainly understand the temptation to respond with passion, sarcasm or some other tactic to those raising long debunked zombie talking points — I’ve done this often enough myself — I do doubt the efficacy of doing this in fora such as this one where almost everyone can see what is wrong with the said zombie arguments. Responding to trolls aids and abets threadjacking as others pile on in solidarity.

    I rather suspect that NSTAACS was attempting to provoke abuse so as to affirm the Blot/Blair point that we get abusive and threatening when “challenged by the science”. We kept our composure, but it would have been beter if we’d all simply not noticed him/her.

    Trolls are, IMO, like mosquito “bites”. They are irritating, and scratching brings momentary relief. Of course, everyone knows that in the long run, the irritation subsides more quickly if you find the will not to scratch.

  93. #93 bill
    June 18, 2011

    I agree. Surely it’s a waste of time ‘debating’ this ‘GSW’ bloke? In this case it’s tantamount to acknowledging there might actually be some phony-balance parallel between an ancient Fox beat-up based on one single third-party comment in an e-mail and multiple threats, including death threats, aimed directly at scientists.

    Sanctimonious ‘concurrences’ aside, this is just another vile tactic from the grab bag. And should be treated as such.

  94. #94 Fran Barlow
    June 18, 2011

    It’s also the case Bill that the meaning of words is not wholly described by their ostensible semantic content, also by the contexts and settings in which they are uttered. Just as we condemn cherrypicking of data to support talking points, so too quotemining is a specious way of making a claim about another’s ethics.

    Rational people choose their words in large part by reconciling their own sentiments, inferences and passions with their grasp of the apprehension of their words by their likely audiences. That’s why there’s an enormous difference in the way people use language within a trusted peer group, in public and at those they believe to be hostile. Sending someone an email which in context would be read as an attempt to place that person under illegal duress is greatly different from saying to a friend that you plan to “beat up” a third party when you know that the friend will interpret in the ways that people interpret “kicking ass/arse” or “severely critiquing” as in this case.

  95. #95 FrankD
    June 18, 2011

    >…too traumatised to contribute?

    Obvious troll is obvious…

  96. #96 GSW
    June 18, 2011

    @bill

    Not sure what a “phony-balance parallel … ancient Fox beat-up” is (Dr Who episode perhaps?) not that it really matters, a step up from Dave R, at least you appear to be awake.

    Where do you stand on the threatening behaviour towards climate scientists question, should it be condemned across the board? or do you believe it to be ok in certain circumstances?

  97. #97 Ark
    June 18, 2011

    I used to think Blair was just your standard right-wing hack, but his callous indifference towards (and, I would argue, mild amusement at) death threats towards innocent people bears all the characteristics of a sociopath. The fact that he has been elevated to a position where he is paid to influence the ideas of millions of Australians is truly frightening.

  98. #98 Area Man
    June 18, 2011

    @42:

    “But climate change? What on earth could provoke such depth of hatred over whether or not the earth is getting warmer?”

    The denialists have convinced themselves that scientists aren’t simply wrong, but that they’re part of a vast conspiracy to defraud the public in order to get rich (however that’s supposed to work), or to advance the cause of communism, or a one-world government, or some other ridiculous claim. They’re not exactly reticent about expressing these views. On top of that, there’s a strong sense of tribal identity among right-wingers, in which ridiculing global warming is a way to signal in-group status. Note for example the pathetic groveling that Tim Pawlenty had to engage in to remain a conservative-in-good-standing after having once favored carbon mitigation. Or the ludicrous degree of hatred spewed at Al Gore.

    Death threats and vandalism are simply a logical extension of such twisted beliefs. Scientists threaten their sense of self-identity.

  99. Shorter GSW:

    1. Where’s the evidence that climate scientists/campaigners received death/rape threats? I’m just a rational, civil person seeking the truth.
    2. Really, if the threats really exist, that’ll be very, very shocking! But where’s the evidence that there were threats? I’m just a rational, civil person seeking the truth.
    3. Yeah, the Daily Telegraph wrote a counterfactual piece that downplays the threats made against climate folks. So perhaps the climate folks are lying? I’m just a rational, civil person seeking the truth.
    4. Where’s the evidence that climate scientists/campaigners received death/rape threats? I’m just a rational, civil person seeking the truth.
    5. OK! OK! Maybe there were threats against climate folks, but here’s an out-of-context quote from climate scientist Ben Santer. Therefore the threats are OK! I’m just a rational, civil person seeking the truth.
    6. No! I won’t condemn the threats made against climate folks! Unless you condemn that out-of-context quote I snipped from Ben Santer! ALARMIST! ALARMIST!!!!!! I’m just a rational, civil person seeking the truth.

    – frank

  100. And, Watching the deniers:

    > This is one denier threatening to “visit” one of my regular readers at the blog:

    > “…It sounds about right, considering the nonsense you have posted here. If that is you then ‘Mindfulness in the midst of chaos’ says it all. Next time I’m visiting friends in Brighton I’ll pop along to the Maitreya Kadampa Buddhist Centre in Bexhill on Sea for a chat. Is it still Sea Road?

    This is so screwed up.

    It’s as if some bloke sees a group of people praying quietly at a Buddhist temple, and he thinks, ‘ugh, these people are clearly evil Communist operatives!’ and then he thinks, ‘since they are Communist operatives, we must threaten to rape their kids! Freedom!’

    (Alternatively, the bloke actually knows he’s being an unprincipled, illogical thug, but he does it anyway because he doesn’t care.)

    – frank