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.


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):

….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!


  1. #1 John Mashey
    June 19, 2011

    I know Ben, who is a fine scientist, under extra-science attack for 15 years for doing science, and one of the mildest guys I know, but even he gets peeved on occasion. Having enough threats to be assigned security guards isn’t fun either.

    Also, having somebody in a Hummer leave an eviscerated rat on your doorstep so your kid is afraid in his own home tends to get even the mildest of guys riled.

    You seem to be right with that Hummer driver and the folks like Heartland who help cigarette companies addict children, and stir up as much hatred of climate scientists as they can.
    You’re wise to be anonymous. KILLFILE.

  2. #2 GSW
    June 19, 2011

    frank, john, others,

    I think you’ve made the point. Threats of violence seem to be acceptable when convenient to you, or if they are from an ‘ok’ guy.

    Threats of this nature are never acceptable!.

    There can be no ‘opt’ out on this. Does everyone here take the same line?

  3. #3 Youitoo
    June 19, 2011

    Hey Tim

    Some guys over at Catallaxy keep repeating accusations you sent abusive emails to someone you disagreed with. They suggest they were really abusive.

    Is that true? You really need to respond to this as a couple of other blogs are mentioning it.

  4. #4 FrankD
    June 19, 2011

    Even shorter GSW: If I keep saying Santer made a threat, even though anyone who reads the email knows he didn’t, someone will bite on it, thereby reinforcing my false meme.

    Obvious troll continues to be obvious…

  5. #5 rhwombat
    June 19, 2011

    Youitou: Catallaxy has always been the goto blog for the local denialist scum. No response to propaganda necessary.
    GSW: That you keep coming back suggests that this whole thread has you well and truly torqued. There is no ‘opt” on this: You and your denialist fellow travellers are scum. You are part of a large, angry and desperate right wing push, funded by such disgusting people as the Koch brothers, and aimed squarely at promoting the interests of the oil, coal and mining industries and their propaganda apparatchiks. The science is against you, as are the scientists, and those of us who identify with them and support them, so you troll blogs like Deltoid in the hope of afflicting us with your bullshit. You get your arse handed to you so regularly that there has to be some reason for you hanging around. That must be either gelt, or pathology such as that well characterised by FrankD. Bugger off you bipedal cane toad.

  6. #6 GSW
    June 19, 2011


    Happy for you to provide the appropriate context for the email in question and what you consider to be the correct interpretation of the words.

    “tempted to beat the crap out of him”


  7. #7 GSW
    June 19, 2011


    The self righteous Hypocrisy here is overwhelming. I consider it a public service to give you guys the occasional reality check. Explanation enough?

  8. #8 rhwombat
    June 19, 2011

    GSW@85: No. I still think you’re a Koch-sucking propaganda prostitute.

  9. #9 GSW
    June 19, 2011



  10. #10 MattB
    June 19, 2011

    Meg and Bluerock…. so how many people DID die from Chernobyl? If you want people to listen to the IPCC then you should pay more respect to the figures Monbiot uses. If we want people to respect science on climate change, well then we cant be selective about the science we choose to believe over propaganda.

  11. #11 Chris O'Neill
    June 19, 2011

    GSW may never realize the fact that Santer did not make a threat to Michaels (writing an email to someone else about your temptations is not the same thing) but at least he realizes that his understanding of physics is not one of his strong points.

  12. #12 GSW
    June 19, 2011

    Chris o’Neil,

    Have you ever considered taking you brain in for a service?

    maybe they could fix the bits that don’t work and put the rest of it back in the right order.


  13. #13 John
    June 19, 2011

    Of course expressing frustration to a colleague in a private email is exactly the same as emailing death threats directly to scientists.

  14. #14 Jeremy C
    June 19, 2011

    Alrighty GSW,

    You can go away having satisfied yourself you have ‘won’ against those nasty science types by successfully distracting them. This shows the superority of your ideology against that of the use of debate.

    You will have a good and satisfying times down the pub tomorrow evening when you can stand at the bar, puffing out your chest, and regaling those present with how you bested those who look at data saying, “I showed ’em I did, I showed them scientists who are out to mess with our brains. They can’t fool me I’m smarter than they are, I used english on them” It should be very satisfying for you, you will get some approval from various types, for a little while at least, heavens it might even get you laid!

    Now run along, its time for you to sit cross legged in front of the TV to watch Bolt on Gina Reinhart’s Channel 10.

  15. #15 GSW
    June 19, 2011

    Cheers Jeremy,

    Bizarre isn’t it. I don’t think there are any scientists in here? (with one exception) However the blokes I go to the pub with almost exclusively are ;). How strange is that?

  16. #16 John
    June 19, 2011

    GSW, if you were trying any harder you would start to look like a lying troll.

  17. #17 Nick
    June 19, 2011

    GSW,re-read #89,you seem uncomprehending. Expressing your temptation to a colleague about what you’d rhetorically like to do to a third party is not actually making a threat to that party. Now go away.

  18. #18 luminous beauty
    June 19, 2011


    I admit it. Santer did threaten to ‘beat the crap out of’ Pat Micheals.

    Not only did he make the threat, he carried it out.

    On [national TV]( yet.

    I hope you’re satisfied.

  19. #19 Mikem
    June 19, 2011

    What’s an “AGW alarmist”, GSW?

    A precise definition will do.

    Is it anything like an “Imperfect Theory of Gravity predicts you will probably plummet to death when leaping off the 10th floor of a tall building” alarmist?

    Just wondering, that’s all.

  20. #20 FrankD
    June 19, 2011

    In between games of “Spot the Obvious Troll” with the obvious troll, we should note how the MSM have shut down this story. As far as I can tell, the media have simply dropped this down the memory hole, preferring to focus on three year old stories about women harmed by their swimwear, the pashing couple in the middle of the ‘Nucks riot in Vancouver and other such earth-shattering nonsense. I know the MSM defines “superficial” these days, but I still shake my head

    Although, in searching the interwebs to see if anyone was still carrying this, I did find another reason to throw up a bit in my mouth at Rowan Dean’s dribble. His vacuous gushing on the Gruen Transfer is bad enough, but he’s even worse when his paymasters slip the leash and give him a whole opinion column. The overexcited widdling of a aged dog is deeper and less odourous…

  21. #21 GSW
    June 19, 2011

    Thanks luminous 😉

  22. #22 GSW
    June 19, 2011


    No its more like “you will probably plummet to your death whilst getting out of bed in the morning” alarmist.

  23. #23 Bruce Sharp
    June 19, 2011

    FrankD in [comment 57](

    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.

    I never thought of it in those terms before. That’s a really interesting idea, and helps explain the behavior of people who are committed to all manner of crazy beliefs.

  24. FrankD:

    Are you sure it’s just the mainstream media? It’s the same problem at (say) Climate Progress, although for a different reason. The top headlines as of writing are

    1. Daddy, could we have our planet back now? (19 Jun)
    2. Jared Diamond Video: With Climate Change, Americans Have Unique Chance to Avoid the Fate of Ancient Maya (19 Jun)
    3. Dealing with the Aquaculture Dilemma (19 Jun)
    4. “Crappy Headline” Ruins New York Times Story on Link Between Climate Change and Extreme Weather (18 Jun)
    5. International Solar Day Open Thread: Should Solar Panel Recycling be Mandatory? (18 Jun)
    6. Re-Imagining Agriculture: How to Raise Yields while Reducing CO2 Emissions (18 Jun)
    7. Paul Ryan And His Family To Benefit From The $45 Billion In Subsidies For Big Oil In His Budget (17 Jun)
    8. North Carolina Republicans Push Back Against Decades of Environmental Progress (17 Jun)
    9. Celebrate International Solar Day! (17 Jun)
    10. June 17 news: The Benefit of Limiting Black Carbon; U.N. Climate Talks Make Scant Progress to Save Kyoto (17 Jun)

    … Nope, nothing on death threats there. It’s as if we’re supposed to be angry at a lot of things, but we’re not allowed to be angry at any one thing for more than 24 hours, after which the next piece of outrageous news comes along and we’re supposed to be angry at that, and then after another 24 hours we’re supposed to be angry at yet another thing, and so on…

    The blogosphere is just a big place, but I’d be blessed if I can find more than a handful of bloggers who’s willing to do long-term investigative work for a few stories at a time. You know, bloggers like Deep Climate, who find one big story and keep digging, digging, and digging at it for months on end.

    — frank

  25. #25 Neil B
    June 19, 2011

    I was just browsing this thread out of curiosity, and I saw about Googling “Santer beat the crap”. It was alleged to be a literal threat, but apparently it instead just a metaphor for someone beating someone else in a debate, am I right? At we see “Dr. Santer beat the crap out of him with the truth” and similar elsewhere. GSW, did you know that? If so, you were disingenuous.

    BTW even anti-AGW hero Lubos Motl admits that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, he just says the forcing factor (the extra effect) is not there so all we’ll get is the direct extra wattage from direct absorption. Not even their own real scientists say there’s no AGW.

  26. #26 rhwombat
    June 19, 2011

    NeilB: As I’m sure you are aware, Motl is a mathematician with expertise in string theory, not a scientist. That he is also a reactionary Czech nutter is central to our collective points. BTW GSW, your ; ) tic, when pwned, is a bit of a tell. There are some effective treatments for Tourette’s.

  27. #27 Jeremy C
    June 19, 2011

    Sorry to be OT but on Jonova’s site she is talking about an anti Carbon Tax protest that was held in Sydney, Sunday lunch time (its late evening here in London as I type so morning in godszowne).

    Does anyone have any info on it mainly around how many turned up? It would be very, very telling if they were unable to get anywhere near thre same no’s as the Carbon Tax rallies a week or so ago.

  28. #28 cth
    June 19, 2011

    “but apparently it instead just a metaphor for someone beating someone else in a debate, am I right?”

    Haha no I believe he said he would be very tempted to beat the crap out of him next time he saw him. Wasn’t a threat though.

  29. #29 Mikem
    June 19, 2011


    No its more like “you will probably plummet to your death whilst getting out of bed in the morning” alarmist.

    Ah good. I’m not classified as an AGW alarmist then, even though I understand the fact that it’s happening, and that there will most likely be significant consequences over time, and that many of these are probably going to be undesirable, and that we should get off our collective arses and do something about it rather than just pretending it doesn’t exist, ostrich style.

  30. #30 aelfheld
    June 19, 2011

    Altered or destroyed data. Utterly unreliable computer models. Ever more hysterical prophecies of doom. Greater demands for taxpayer funding. Calls for upward-ratcheting government control of, well, everything.

    Why should anyone take seriously the people pushing anthropogenic global warming (or is it the more artful ‘global climate change’ now) when the evidence, under the most generous interpretation, is equivocal?

    The narrative that accompanied the ‘death threats’ some have gotten so exercised about was intentionally false. That it was accepted uncritically by those deeming themselves ‘scientists’ does nothing to boost their credibility . . . and much to diminish it further.

  31. #31 bill
    June 19, 2011

    Aelf, you might want to find something to do away from the keyboard while the grownups are having a conversation.

  32. #32 John
    June 19, 2011

    Don’t be such an alarmist aelfheld.

  33. #33 rhwombat
    June 19, 2011

    “aelfheld”. Isn’t that the old saxon term for bladder or rectum?

  34. #34 Chris O'Neill
    June 20, 2011


    Chris o’Neil,
    Have you ever considered taking you brain in for a service?
    maybe they could fix the bits that don’t work and put the rest of it back in the right order.

    Great stuff. Keep up the good work.

  35. #35 Mikem
    June 20, 2011


    Boooring. Can’t you actually come up with any original reasons why it’s all a communist government mind-control plot, rather than just repeating the oft-discredited ones already out there?

  36. #36 adelady
    June 20, 2011
  37. #37 bill
    June 20, 2011

    And can we be surprised, adelady, given the high moral calibre of the contrarian responses on this blog? What’s the word? ‘Hearsay’? Simply contemptible…

  38. #38 rhwombat
    June 20, 2011

    Bill: I’m glad Anna-Maria Arabia uses the correct term: climate deniers. This is what GSW, VincentR and the rest of the Trolls hate most – accuracy and public recognition that they are partisan propagandists like Blair, Bolt, Minchin, Monckton, and the Lavoisier/Quadrant cabal.

  39. #39 John
    June 20, 2011

    Cue screams of “I don’t deny climate change! The climate has changed for millions of years!” from the aforementioned.

  40. #40 GSW
    June 20, 2011


    Not a problem! Booked it in yet 😉

  41. #41 GSW
    June 20, 2011


    Some clarification required: are you suggesting that climate hasn’t changed for millions of years?

  42. #42 John
    June 20, 2011

    Yes that is precisely what I am suggesting.

  43. #43 GSW
    June 20, 2011



  44. #44 John
    June 20, 2011


  45. #45 GSW
    June 20, 2011


    Sorry, but I have to ask, are you an Australian climate scientist?

  46. #46 John
    June 20, 2011

    Of course not.

  47. #47 Michael
    June 20, 2011

    The funniest thing about the deniers ‘climate has always been changing’ meme?

    That they rely on and have high trust in the same kind of science that they routinely attack and deny re:climate change, ie paleoclimatology

  48. #48 John
    June 20, 2011

    The precise point I am making.

  49. #49 Bernard J.
    June 20, 2011


    I’ll be curious to see how the troll moves from the corner without getting paint on his knuckles.

    If indeed he can actually perceive that the floor’s been painted…

  50. #50 rhwombat
    June 20, 2011

    John: nice shot!

  51. #51 Michael
    June 20, 2011


    I know, but you have to spell these things out for visiting idiots.

  52. #52 Chris O'Neill
    June 20, 2011


    Booked it in yet

    Sure. I’ll do anything for someone who doesn’t get irony. As for someone who doesn’t realize what their own words mean..

  53. #53 Wow
    June 20, 2011

    > If you want people to listen to the IPCC then you should pay more respect to the figures Monbiot uses

    So the only way to get respect in this world is by accepting bad numbers and bad science?

    Well, it does explain why the denialidiots get all that unearned screen time.

  54. #54 Wow
    June 20, 2011

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

    And you’re entitled to your opinion, Frank.

    YOU asked what the reason was and I gave it.

    *I* think I’m right on both counts. And therefore I did as I did.

    You’ll note from other postings that I do not shirk from giving someone a verbal shitkicking when needed, so unearned concern for the pathetic specimens isn’t a driver.

    YOU may decide differently.

    But I’m not going to tell YOU how to behave.

    Please extend the same courtesy.

  55. #55 Wow
    June 20, 2011

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

    Have you considered that by letting it pass that you’ve allowed a meme to spread.

    Check up on The Big Lie. Just google it.

    How does it feel to be helping these idiots kill the children of others by their inaction and your acquiescence, frank?


    How does it feel to be accused of aiding them?

  56. #56 GSW
    June 20, 2011

    So, I’m going to regret this, but do you all think that the Earth’s Climate has not changed for millions of years?

  57. #57 Jeremy C
    June 20, 2011




    We are hanging out for your response. Please don’t go quiet now.

  58. #58 Tom R
    June 20, 2011

    adelady @ 114, monkeywrench appears to have been unnervingly accurate over at Pure Poison 🙁

    ‘The last time he published a photograph and named a scientist in this way, it resulted in that scientist receiving death threats. I wonder if his thugs can resist the temptation this time….’

    (not that I am saying it was one of his thugs mind you)

  59. #59 John
    June 20, 2011

    Yes GSW we all believe it. There is no evidence Earth’s climate has ever changed until now.

  60. #60 GSW
    June 20, 2011


    And you get your information from, amongst others, Australian climate scientists – they ones that are protesting that their work is not taken seriously?

  61. #61 bill
    June 20, 2011


    Was your education marked by feedback along the lines of ‘has difficulty working out meaning from context’ or ‘sadly, just doesn’t get it’?

    Because if you’ve a nagging suspicion this is one of those occasions when the joke’s on you (again) – you’re right!

  62. #62 Dave R
    June 20, 2011

    The IPCC covered this in their 2007 report. Something like: “It is very likely that the Earth’s climate has not changed for millions of years”, IIRC.

  63. #63 elspi
    June 20, 2011


    You are claiming that the earth’s climate has changed for millions of years based on the very science which produced the Hockey stick.

    We accept this science.

    You don’t.

    Therefore in your “universe” there is no evidence that the climate has ever changed.

    What you need is a computer program to help you keep your “opinions” straight.

    Lucky for you Tim is a CS Professor. He could write a program for you named Synchronizing Helpful Information Trajectories.

    In return, you would need to acknowledge that your post was prepared using this program.

    May some line like “This post was prepared with Synchronizing Helpful Information Trajectories”

    Or maybe you could use an acronym.

  64. #64 Lotharsson
    June 20, 2011

    GSW appears to have never seen a double bank shot…and seems bemused why the ball is now travelling in the opposite direction.

    He still hasn’t defined what an “AGW alarmist” is either, unless I missed it.

  65. #65 John
    June 20, 2011

    GSW, I get my scientific information from whomever agrees with my political views.

  66. #66 GSW
    June 20, 2011

    Not climate scientists?

  67. #67 Bernard J.
    June 20, 2011

    Little troll.

    That shivery, knotty feeling of subconscious doubt that you’re experiencing in your solar plexus… that’s cognitive dissonance.

    Your challenge – your second challenge – is to figure out how it got there…

  68. #68 Jeremy C
    June 20, 2011

    Shirley GSW has cottoned onto the joke by now!?

  69. #69 GSW
    June 20, 2011

    and you know the truth about Santa Claus?

  70. #70 mike
    June 20, 2011

    @no. 145

    Sorry guys, all that psycho-babble on this thread and the previous, related one (I thought Freud was out, but I guess he’s made a “climate turd” come-back) has finally piqued my curiosity.

    I can see that “psych majors” abound in Deltoid-land. And I used to know some psych-majors and, I gotta tell you, they were one strange breed in my experience:

    Girl psych majors: Some hot babes, for sure. Challenge to keep a straight face and your lunch down when telling her what she wants to hear. Essential to keep a bullshit excuse at the ready with which to beat a hasty retreat from any providential tryst. Otherwise, expect hours of post-coital ennui as she unloads her life-story in which it transpires that all the men she meets are creeps. Extremely high maintenance.

    Boy psych majors: Pus-baby zit-twit freak-outs. Still looking for the right girl, you know, one like dear ol’ mom, but not having much success in that department.

    And the “amateur” psychologists were even weirder.

    So what I’m wondering is whether the latest generation of you psych majors and amateur tag-alongs have changed any or are you still pretty much like those bozos I used to know?

  71. #71 Bernard J.
    June 20, 2011

    Oo, oo – the other troll is back!

    Given the purility of [his discourse]( he is certainly no psychological professional himself. This renders his whole post an exercise in astonishing self-loathing, with a bit (or perhaps a lot) of projection superimposed.

    No charge by the way, Mike. Keep your pennies and seek some treatment…

  72. #72 Michael
    June 20, 2011

    mike also doesn’t want to talk about how denialist scum send death threats to scientists.

  73. #73 Bernard J.
    June 20, 2011

    Tim Lambert.

    May we have some clever trolls for a change, please?

    Or is the concept of a clever denialist an oxymoron?

    A ‘carbondioymoron’…?

  74. #74 John
    June 20, 2011

    If I were into psychology I would say that Mike is very insecure about his own intellectual ability and feels he has to troll blogs with petty insults detailing his own insecurities because Daddy rejected him for his smarter sibling.

  75. #75 Bernard J.
    June 20, 2011


    carbondioymoron carbondioxymoron

  76. Wow:

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

    > Have you considered that by letting it pass that you’ve allowed a meme to spread.

    Wow, you still don’t get it do you?

    1. Denialists like to spread a lot of memes all at once.
    2. By paying more attention to certain memes, you’ll naturally have to pay less attention to other memes.

    Do you understand the previous two sentences?

    Have you heard of the term ‘prioritization’? The term ‘trade-off’? The phrase ‘choose your battles’?

    — frank

  77. #77 luminous beauty
    June 20, 2011

    I know you, mike.

    You were the disingenuous jerk who’d pose as a lefty radical on campus because he thought it would score him a lot of free hippie-chick snatch. Then became a conservative to hide his humiliation after said hippie-chicks saw right through his lies, and discovering that conservative girls would go down believing any lie you tell them with dog-like worship and obedience.


  78. #78 Wow
    June 20, 2011

    frank, you still don’t get it, do you:

    1) your OPINION is that I shouldn’t do something.

    2) So what?

    Do you understand what “opinion” means? Here’s a dictionary entry for you:

    1. A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

    So, unless you have some FACT to go with that opinion, STFU, please.

  79. Wow:

    > > Do you understand the previous two sentences?

    > 1) your OPINION is that I shouldn’t do something.

    It’s clear that your answer to my question is “no”.

    What I’m saying is that you shouldn’t do thing A, and instead spend the same time and effort originally dissipated into A into doing a different thing B, which will be much more effective.

    Do you friggin’ get it, now? Or should I draw it in crayon?

    — frank

  80. #80 Wow
    June 20, 2011

    Yup, and I’m not listening to your opinion any more.

    You HAD asked for my reasoning but that just seems to have been a rhetorical one, since in your own mind you INSIST there is no reason for it.

    Tough titties, kid.

    You aren’t God, so I shall ignore your petty whining.

  81. #81 Raging Bee
    June 20, 2011

    So basically denialists like mike are down to calling the women sluts and making fun of the physical attirbutes of the men? That says a lot about how mature the denialists really are — and none of it is surprising.

    So, mike, what do you think you’ve proved by acting like the dumbest jock in high-school?

  82. Wow:

    > > What I’m saying is that you shouldn’t do thing A, and instead spend the same time and effort originally dissipated into A into doing a different thing B, which will be much more effective.

    > > Do you friggin’ get it, now? Or should I draw it in crayon?

    > I’m not listening to your opinion any more.

    In other words, Wow, you don’t get it. Even when I’ve stated my thinking in such plain terms, you still refuse to get it, you still refuse to engage with it, instead going ‘la la la I’m not listening I have my opinion la la la’.

    I give up.

    — frank

  83. Raging Bee:

    > So basically denialists like mike are down to calling the women sluts and making fun of the physical attirbutes of the men?

    And remember, that’s in response to a blog post about threats from inactivists to kill and rape climate folks’ families.

    Is there a law against this bullying nonsense in whatever country mike’s in? If there is, it should be enforced.

    — frank

  84. #84 Wow
    June 20, 2011

    You’re not listening, so I can’t be bothered to read more than the first few words you write, frank.

    I’m not changing.

    Suck it up and get over it.

  85. So, 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.
    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. OK! OK! Maybe Ben Santer didn’t actually make a threat! And maybe there were threats against climate folks, and these threats are wholly unacceptable! But here’s a bunch of denialist talking points! Climate has changed in the past! So maybe the death and rape threats aren’t acceptable after all! I’m just a rational, civil person seeking the truth.
    7. Wait, did I say that I’d be shocked at the death and rape threats against climate folks? Look, I’m really shocked, really you need to understand how shocked I am, so shocked indeed that you can’t even see that I’m shocked and that I’m now throwing out inactivist talking points! And you’re all ALARMIZT IDIOTZ!!!! But trust me, I’m truly, truly shocked at the death and rape threats against climate folks! I’m just a rational, civil person seeking the truth.

    — frank

  86. s/aren’t acceptable/are acceptable/

  87. #87 Wow
    June 20, 2011

    That wasn’t that short, frank. Just shorter by fact that GSW can only repeat himself many times, as if with enough repetitions what he says will be true.

  88. #88 Pieter B
    June 20, 2011

    @aelfheld #108

    is it the more artful ‘global climate change’ now?

    That “artful” change was made by those opposing doing anything about AGW. From that wretched hive of Socialist villainy,* the Ludwig von Mises Institute:

    It wasn’t the enviros who changed the use of this term, but rather high-powered corporate lobbying interests and their allies in Bush government and the Republican party, spearheaded by leading Republican pollster/ spinmeister Frank Luntz, who in 2002 pushed Republicans to move the public discussion away from “global warming” to “climate change.”


  89. #89 KiwiInOz
    June 20, 2011

    I had an interesting chat with my 17 yo son last night – apparently trolling websites is considered a sport by his demographic, irrespective of whether they believe what they are saying or not.

    Equally, troll bashing is also a sport.

    Addressing SIWOTI can become addictive and bad for the health.

  90. #90 Dan L.
    June 20, 2011

    is it the more artful ‘global climate change’ now?

    Of all the silly-ass denier tropes, this one is the easiest to explode. What does the “CC” in “IPCC” stand for? In what year was that body formed?

  91. #91 John
    June 20, 2011

    The term “climate change” appears in publication about twenty years before “global warming”, which is odd because the climate never changes. Lying scientists.

  92. #92 Lotharsson
    June 20, 2011

    > Shirley GSW has cottoned onto the joke by now!?

    I see no evidence of that. Perhaps GSW can provide some – but providing evidence is really not his forte.

  93. #93 Lotharsson
    June 20, 2011

    > …trolling websites is considered a sport by his demographic…

    One would infer from limited evidence that most of them are piss-poor performers then…

  94. #94 bill
    June 20, 2011

    mike, the potty-training casualty returns! Yeah, I bet all those acres of putative hot babe conquests really think a lot of you in retrospect, you big manly, manipulative, stud-muffin, you! What a guy – we’re all secretly in awe of you, you know.


  95. #95 barry
    June 20, 2011

    Sent Mirabella an email. Said it was disappointing that the opposition spokesperson for science (et al) didn’t actually speak to scientists about this issue, and that while politicians cite preferred articles as a matter of course, that it was intolerable she should do so on the matter of threats of violence and death. Asked her to speak to climate scientists about it, amend her articvle accordingly, and clarify that the Liberal party does not tolerate threats of violence and death against anyone.

    Sordid politics from Ms Mirabella.

  96. #96 FrankD
    June 21, 2011

    I’d previously remarked that the mainstream media had dropped this story, but predictably, yesterdays “Respect the Science” campaign added some fresh fuel to the fire. Surprisingly, Rupert’s [favourite organ]( carries the story:

    “Members of the scientific community are receiving death threats as debate over Julia Gillard’s carbon tax intensifies.

    In the latest incident, Federation of Australian Science and Technological Societies executive director Anna-Maria Arabia received an email today saying she would be “strung-up by the neck” and killed for her promotion of mainstream climate science.

    The threat was emailed to her this morning before a “Respect the Science” campaign at Parliament House in Canberra today.

    It follows months of abusive phone calls and threats to several of Australia’s top scientists at the Australian National University, forcing it to improve security and shift climate scientists to a more secure work location.

    Ms Arabia said she and other members of the science community received more than 1000 emails a day as part of an anti-climate change campaign, but the latest email went “a step too far”.”

  97. #97 GSW
    June 21, 2011

    In the interest of being constructive; attached a link to a wikipedia on Ice ages. For those of you a little confused about past climate, or even it would seem currently reality, this should prove informative 😉

    The last one peaked about 20,000 yrs ago. A new thing, Ice age “deniers”, Whatever next!

  98. #98 chek
    June 21, 2011

    GSW said: “Whatever next”!

    You’ll paint yourself into another corner and change the subject again, I expect.

  99. #99 bill
    June 21, 2011

    You know, I do believe GSW may really be that thick! He seems to genuinely imagine he’s on a winner!

    All as a result of a magic synergy; combining a delicate bloom of native ignorance that Wilde would have called on us to treasure with the traditional denialist habit of not actually bothering to comprehend what your opponents say – I mean, why bother, when you know everything already?

    (Smiles sweetly) GSW, what you have apparently failed to notice is that you just had the crap beaten out of you. Don’t slam the door on your way out.

  100. #100 Donald Oats
    June 21, 2011

    GSW, tsk tsk. You seem to think that people who accept AGW as true don’t also have a good appreciation of natural climate, and especially the existence of a whole field of research called “paleoclimatology”. [Shakes head sadly]

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.