Another day, another death threat

Yes indeed, Bolt really slays himself with his own sword!

On another topic, the list of climate scientists you link to has quite a big error in it: The link for Michael Mann points to the wrong Michael Mann. Maybe you could let the owner of that page know?

And what's Andrew Bolt's expertise in science?

When Bolt returned he started his Arts degree at Adelaide University, taking subjects in philosophy, German, music, and politics. ... Bolt didn't persist with his tertiary studies. At the end of his first year he received a cadetship offer from The Age newspaper in Melbourne, almost 12 months after he had first applied.

That's right -- he dropped out after a year of Arts and has no expertise in science whatsoever.

Seems a bit thin.

Damn. That is the first and last time I look at Bolt's blog. The ignorance is so dense that it puts the singularity to shame.

This is shameful and disgusting. I've been on Bolt's "blog" and the venom and hate is disgraceful.

This is Bolt's legacy.

Time for a petition or open letter to the editors of the Herald Sun urging them of their responsibility as participants in the debate.

> Bolt goes on to compare Arabia's scientific record with Richard Lindzen's. But that's not the appropriate comparison

And also she is the administrative head of an organisation. She represents "68,000 Australian scientists and technologists". She is expressing the views of her membership and her scientific record is irrelevant.

> Bolt goes on to compare Arabia's scientific record with Richard Lindzen's. But that's not the appropriate comparison

And also she is the administrative head of an organisation. She represents "68,000 Australian scientists and technologists". She is expressing the views of her membership and her scientific record is irrelevant.

Google: "physicsworld australian researchers face death threats"

The above article is dated 21 June 2011 and re-caps the "death threat" trials and tribulations of Australian climate scientists. Indeed, the peril to the same is so great that the ANU has moved 9 of its CCI staff to a more secure location (prudently the ANU has not disclosed that location--thank Gaia!)

But then the physicsworld blog recklessly publishes a photo of one of the threatened scientists! I mean, are those physicsworld crazies crazy? I mean, are they trying to get the guy killed or something?

And then there's this gem from the article: "Police have been advised [of the threats] but have not investigated yet." I mean one and even two weeks have gone by and the police haven't even begun to investigate these death threats to Australia's leading climate scientists! What's going on here? Don't Australian police care about Australian climate scientists? Are the police all just a part of the "denier" hate network? Deltoids this is serious business. What's going on here? Any of your Deltoids checked out this alarming angle yet?

Let's see now. Contentious carbon pricing legislation is under consideration by the Australian government. Suddenly, a spate of "death threats" are directed at leading Australian climate scientists. And in a further amazing co-incidence, a meme-scream, hype campaign on the subject is simultaneously launched by a bunch of lefty/greenshirt newspapers and blogs(I mean, let's just hope that no one is left with the impression that it's only "death threat" dealing deniers that have reservations about carbon pricing--because an impression like that could poison the debate, right?). You following me, Deltoids?

And then, like I noted before, the police don't bother investigate these widely publicized death threats! Like they have no sense of urgency! Hard to figure. Unless, of course, there's something a little too contrived about this whole deal. But that can't be the answer. I mean, lefties don't do agit-prop, hoaxes, and false-flags, we all know that.

I sometimes like to make my point twice....!

Sorry about my fat finger

@mike,

Thoughtful post. Where aren't the Police investigating these emails? They normally like to be seen to be "Doing something" on incidents that reach the National press, odd.

Also, why now? Carbon pricing/legislation in the offing, a bit of righteous indignation wouldn't go a miss, just to tip the scales slightly.

There's a hint of Sender Gleiwitz about it. All looks a bit sus.

At the end of his first year he (Bolt) received a cadetship offer from The Age newspaper in Melbourne, almost 12 months after he had first applied.

Sounds like Bolt was just hanging around at Uni while he was waiting for someone to give him a job.

BTW, it wouldn't have been all bad if The Age had suffered its anticipated demise before it employed Bolt. Unfortunately, The Age didn't realize its mistake in time.

GSW @9

Thoughtful post.

No. Just the usual conspiracy theory, the standard modus operandi of the climate change denier.

There's a hint of Sender Gleiwitz about it. All looks a bit sus

Hey why stop at a conpiracy theory. Let's blame the victim and while we are at it let's suggest a connection to Nazism.

I have come across plenty of pretty disgusting individuals amongst the denialati but don't worry GSW - you are right down there in the sewer with the foulest.

Bolt ought to pick on someone his own size, not on Anna-Maria who's clearly out of his league and not a fair match for him at all. The problem may be that the people in Andrew's own league, of know-it-all non-scientists with media megaphones, are also all on his own side. You can't imagine him going toe to toe with ideological chums Alan Jones, Miranda Devine or Jo Nova can you?

Meet mike and GSW's hero, the guy who sent the "Nazi Bitch Whore litany" email to Anna-Maria Arabia: http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/06/breaking-in-comment-on-this-blog-…

Self-identifies as a "libertarian" (of course), is qualified (like Lubos Motl and Freeman Dyson) as a physicist, and dreams of a world "inspired by the Jetsons". Like all the rest of them ... he's an idiot not a savant.

frankis: Thanks for that. Figures. Care to comment, Trolls?

GSW made an absolute fool of himself on the previous post on this subject, along with the comic-relief oaf in the tag team. They lose. So now the humiliation's been tossed down the memory hole and they're here ramping up the vile because negative attention fills their empty lives. Time for the rest of us to move on, methinks.

Nah, GSW and mike's support for paedophiles wanting to rape and kill kids will follow them around like the wretched stench it deserves.

After all, what's the life of a little child compared to the rights of the free market to them?

re: Bolt

Just remember, Bolt is only after 'eyeballs'

You visit his blog - he wins - no matter how eloquent your rebuttal.

mike:

I mean, lefties don't do agit-prop, hoaxes, and false-flags, we all know that.

And we all know they don't do the biggest scientific conspiracy of all time.

@no. 13

Frankis,

Checked out the links you provided and noted the competing claims of Ms. Arabia and the purported e-mail author as to the content of the e-mail and it's proper characterization as a "death threat." Fortunately, the author appears to hale from Seattle and I'm sure Seattle police will take a "death threat" seriously and promptly investigate the matter. And after the investigation is over we'll be able to make an informed judgement in the matter. Not that informed judgements are your likely to be your "thing" frankis.

So I don't get it. All these death threats and rape threats and child-rape threats directed at Australian climate scientists. So then why haven't Australian police INVESTIGATED these threats and apprehended those making the threats (see the article referenced in my no. 7)? Most of you are Australian, so what gives? For the record, I certainly want police forces everywhere to take action to protect those that have been subjected to threats of murder and rape of themselves and their family. How 'bout you guys?

No. 16

Wow, please read my comments no. 200, 201, and 203 on the "Australian Climate Scientists Get Death Threats" post. No one, and I mean no one has made a stronger condemnation of child-rape on this blog. Indeed, I even invited the Deltoids on this blog to condemn the IPCC and boycott its annual conferences as long as the IPCC continues to hold its events in venues (Cancun, South Africa) that support a commercialized child sex-slavery industry and are notorious destinations for pedophile sex-tourists. To my great astonishment, not a single Deltoid joined me in my condemnation and not a single one joined me in my boycott. Not even you, Wow.

Tell me, Wow, if one of your pals bragged about his sexual adventures with kiddie sex-slaves in a foreign land (or domestically for that matter) would you turn that scum-bag, pervert piece of shit into the authorities or not? I would (assuming I restrained my initial impulses, that is). Because you see I don't like pedophiles, Wow. I really don't like them.

And just so we can clarify matters, I also condemn killing children.

O. K. Wow, now that I've addressed your scurrilous little accusations, it's time for me to take a bath.

Bye low-lifes.

@wow

Where does all that hate come from? The claims you make about what others have said aren't real, they only exist in your head (A terrifying thought in it's own right).

Do a quick reality check, count to ten, and then let's try to keep this civil!

I believe all that hate comes from your ideology being threatened. You face the fact that your free market may not be an answer to everything and that maybe you won't be rich and powerful.

But neither you nor mike can bring yourself to decry the hate of your fellow Free Market believers because your faith is far more important than someone else's kid. After all, in your world, if they had been worthy of attention, God would have made them rich.

@wow,

I hope you are man/woman enough to apologise.

> So then why haven't Australian police INVESTIGATED these threats

The police ARE investigating them.

> and apprehended those making the threats

You have to find evidence before you can apprehend someone.

But you'd much rather believe that your fellow nutcases aren't willing to rape and kill children because you know you're just like them.

I'm not the one supporting paedophiles, Git Says What?.

YOU are the one defending them, protecting them, enabling them.

YOU are the one with the need to apologise.

Wow (& frankis): Yeah. We all know that mike & the hockey puck are low-rent trolls stuck on the wrong side of their own credibility gap, but goring trolls as clueless as them gets stale early. I think it's time we took Bernard's advice and ignored them...or haven't you had much experience with toddler's tantrums?

The guy who sent the death threat [has sent other ones](http://www.wthr.com/story/11495215/indianapolis-doctor-threatened-over-…):

>"Making threatening phone calls or threats over the internet, yeah, you could be in violation of a criminal act," said Lt. Jeff Duhamell, spokesman with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department responding to the investigation.

>The calls allegedly came from Stan Lippmann of Seattle, Washington.

>According to the Metro Police report:

>"Mr. Lippmann said that something bad might happen to the doctor and her nurse and the nurse's unborn baby. He further said 'the H1N1 virus is a hoax made up by the government in order to inoculate thousands of children to get them sick.'"

@wow,

We are still waiting for an apology.

So let me get this straight, Tim - GSW and mike are posting (on a third thread) claiming that the admitted actions of an anti-vaccine, "anti-AGW" Seattle solicitor (with a physics PhD) are the equivalent of a purported left-wing false-flag op or a notoriously real example of the same exercise in the SS propaganda war that lead to the invasion of Poland. Noice. Unusual. Unrool, even.

@no. 23

Wow,

You didn't answer my question. Would you turn in a pedophile pal--yes or no? And while we're having this little chit-chat, let me further ask, will you condemn the IPCC for holding its annual conferences, in two successive years, in locales notorious for child sex-slavery? And will you also boycott IPCC conferences until they are held in locales free from the industrialized mass rape of children for profit? Please do get back to me with your answer.

And any other Deltoid that would care to provide answers to the above questions should feel free to do so (I hope the Deltoid server isn't crashed!).

Wow, you also say that the Australian police are investigating the death threats directed at climate scientists:

I have no doubt the Seattle police will investigate the purported threat made against Ms. Arabia (the e-mail author is a disbarred lawyer so my bet is that the e-mail is Wow-worded so that it doesn't quite qualify legally as a death threat--but we might get lucky and nail the guy).

Otherwise, I provided you an article (my no. 7) that says Australian police are not yet investigating death threats against climate scientists as of 21 June 2011. Of course, you claim otherwise and the referenced article might be wrong--or I may have even mis-read the article, check it out. I would be much relieved to know that Australian police are, indeed, hot on the trail of those making death threats to whomever--the references for your claim, as it applies to climate scientists, please.

The alleged Stan Lippman to which [frankis refers](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/another_day_another_death_thre…) [said](http://backupurl.com/xgsccn):

"When the Grand Jury is done with you, I'll enjoy watched [sic] them string you up." The reason she is not reporting it is because this is obviously not a death threat.

This alleged Lippman appears to be suffering cognitive dissonance, because the first sentence contradicts the second.

Just because Lippman implied that he would be taking a passive role in the "stringing... up" does not mean that he was not threatening Arabia with hanging. He might like to kid himself that it's "an effective counter-propaganda tactic", but to a reasonable person it has the hallmarks of a death threat.

At least Lippman's confession has made it easier for the authorities to pursue any avenues that might be available for commencing a prosection.

Just looking at the Bolt blog and all his fans are yet again trotting out the "CO2 is colourless and odourless" line.

This goes down as one of the most mind-numbingly stupid pieces of moronic one-liner IQ-of-a-nematode-worm commentary that people can make.

I just cannot believe that there are so many really, really, really dumb people in the world who think that the colour and odour properties of a gas are directly related to its physical "harmlessness" under all circumstances.

To paraphrase Kamahl......."why are people so bloody thick?"

mike:

> No one, and I mean no one has made a stronger condemnation of child-rape on this blog.

No, you're only willing to condemn child rape if it'll help you take jabs at the IPCC. Your condemnation of child rape is anything but unqualified.

How about saying 'I unconditionally condemn child rape and threats to rape kids, no matter what the IPCC does or doesn't do'? Care to say that, mike?

Or are you like GSW, who thinks that the death and rape threats are shocking only when they don't exist?

-- frank

rhwombat,

Yr. no. 28

Please forgive me a measure of candor and forthrightness. You are full of shit, rhwombat--I never said any such thing. If I'm wrong prove it. Specifically prove the accusation in your comment no. 28. Quote specific language in my previous comments that support your accusation.

Not too much to ask of someone, I should think--that is, someone of character and ethics. But just possibly too much for you to handle, I appreciate, rhwombat.

And, by the way, just why do you think Australian police are not yet investigating (as of 21 June 2011) the death threats received by Australian climate scientists (see the referenced article at my comment no. 7). Or do you, like Wow, know that such investigations are, indeed, underway?

Finally, while we're discussing matters, rhwombat, you wouldn't mind helping me out with a little poll I'm conducting, would you?:

Would you turn in a pedophile pal? (Y/N)

Do you condemn the IPCC for holding its annual conferences in locales that are destinations for pedophile sex-tourists where children by the tens of thousands lead lives of horror for the profit of their brothel owners and their bosses and the carnal pleasure of the pervert scum that rape these captive children? (Y/N)

Will you boycott IPPC annual conferences until they choose venues that are not also hosts to a commercialized kid-rape industry?(Y/N)

Thanks for your participation and, please, truthful answers.

To repeat my questions at mike:

> No one, and I mean no one has made a stronger condemnation of child-rape on this blog.

No, you're only willing to condemn child rape if it'll help you take jabs at the IPCC. Your condemnation of child rape is anything but unqualified.

How about saying 'I unconditionally condemn child rape and threats to rape kids, no matter what the IPCC does or doesn't do'? Care to say that, mike?

Or are you like GSW, who thinks that the death and rape threats are shocking only when they don't exist?

-- frank

Seriously, why get worked up over what the sad, inconsequential little men say? Sleaze and innuendo is just what they do. One bore and one boor - both buffoons - big deal.

The potential prosecution of this would-be 21st Century Madame Defarge is a much more interesting matter. We should certainly be encouraging the pursuit of all available legal options directed at whichever of these people can be identified.

Also, publicly claiming someone invented allegations of death threats is surely defamatory? Defamation is a live issue in Australia, and doesn't have to be solely a weapon of elite power. I'm sure there are prominent lawyers who'd be willing to act in both matters.

bill:

There's a problem. We can't help the victims pursue justice; if the victims themselves won't defend their rights as actively and fiercely as they can, there's not much the rest of us can do.

-- frank

frank,

@ yr. no. 32.

frank, I am more than happy to condemn pedophilia, anytime, anyplace, 24/7, without qualification and to your zit-scab freak-face. You got that in your addled brain, now frank, ol' scum-bag. Let me say it again. I condemn child-rape (and there is no such a thing as consensual sex between an adult and an under-age kid--it's all rape and the perverts that rape children should be in prison). And my condemnation does not give a flying-fuck whether it helps or hurts the IPCC. Is that clear enough, frank? I can say it again, if you still have any doubt, you piece of garbage.

Now while we're at it, frank. How about you? Will you condemn pedophilia in my terms, as well. Indeed, if you don't mind would you take my little poll that I've laid for rhwombat in my post no. 33. I eagerly await your response.

> Seriously, why get worked up over what the sad, inconsequential little men say?

In the USA, that sad inconsequential little man is allowed semi-automatic rifles.

As an example.

frank,

@yr no. 34

frank, I am more than happy to advise you that I condemn child-rape morning, noon, and night; 24/7; without qualification; IPCC or no IPCC; and in any clime or place. Clear enough, frank?

How about you, frank? Do you condemn pedophile, child-rape pervert-trash as I do?

While you're at it, could you take that little poll I prepared for rhwombat that appears in my comment no. 33? I so look forward to your response.

> No one, and I mean no one has made a stronger condemnation of child-rape on this blog.

Bald-faced liar!

You've NEVER made a strong condemnation of child rape! You've said a QUALIFIED "if it had happened, I *would* condemn it".

But no, you refuse to accept that these scum exist and you enable their vile acts against defenseless children, merely because you and they don't like the message and want to remove the messengers.

You are a vile and sick individual completely willing to defend attackers of other people's children all in the name of your infantile selfish greed.

> We are still waiting for an apology.

Yes, the children and their parents are waiting for your apology.

And we're still waiting for your proof of these "ice ages" you allude to in "End Of The World" apocalyptic terms like "a mile of ice over New York".

But you never will apologise for your vile inaction, your loathsome enabling of paedophiles and you never will admit you have no idea why ice ages are known about.

Wow,

You've completely flipped-out. Buzz off and quit wasting my valuable time.

Nobody is forcing you to comment here Mike. Wow has very reasonably asked that you condemn child rapists, yet you call this a waste of your time.

Tim, can you please moderate some of this flamage about child-rape? It makes the comment threads completely unreadable.

@wow

Still waiting for your apology, you are a disgrace.

Are you unbalanced?

Where did "End Of The World", "a mile of ice over New York" come from?, these things were only said in your head.

Similarly, the "loathsome enabling of paedophiles" that you attribute. Its you, all you.

Reality is a stranger to you. Apology required!

@no. 39 & 42

You managed one good point, John. You're right it's not my place to direct Wow's comments one way or another.

My forthright condemnation of child-rape is found at my comment no. 38 which complements similar comments I've made. If you can find any wiggle-room in my condemnation, Wow and John, please let me know, because I want to make it water-tight.

Now, John, you've seen my condemnation of child-rape, could I reasonably ask you to also condemn child-rape. Curiously, I've asked a number of other Deltoids to do so, but I've not been getting much response. What gives, guys?

Also, could you, John and Wow, take my little poll that can be found at comment no. 33? Some very reasonable questions I think you two very reasonable Deltoids will agree.

@Tim Lambert, @Nick

Apologies, agree with Nick. Not my place I know, but is it possible to get wow banned if he continues with this stuff, on any other blog it would have been automatic.

mike:

> I am more than happy to advise you that I condemn child-rape morning, noon, and night; 24/7; without qualification; IPCC or no IPCC; and in any clime or place. Clear enough, frank?

Good.

> Would you turn in a pedophile pal? (Y/N)

Yes.

> Do you condemn the IPCC for holding its annual conferences in locales that are destinations for pedophile sex-tourists

I do not believe in collective punishment, which is the same twisted 'logic' used by those giving threats to 'justify' their threats to rape kids. So no.

-- frank

And overtly accusing without proof IPCC scientists to be child rapists, does that count as an automatic ban also ? Because on the light spirited videogame fora I moderate, it will. Def ban + IP blacklisting.

Yes, Git, you're a disgrace to the humanity you so barely managed to get included in.

Your defence of people who think like you and have said they want to rape and kill children is absolutely abhorrent to right thinking people. Which automatically excludes you.

But not only do you defend these monsters, you also prate on about this "Ice Age" thing and yet haven't managed a single shred of evidence for it.

I looked out the office today: NO ICE.

> Tim, can you please moderate some of this flamage about child-rape?

Uhm, you do know that this thread is about death threats to Australian scientists, don't you? Some threats that have also included venom about how they'll rape and/or kill the children of these scientists?

You see, this would be called "on topic".

That it is a horrific act is what makes it unreadable because to most people that sort of sickness is abhorrent.

But it's still on topic.

And mike and Git Says What still cannot bring themselves to categorically state their disdain for these creatures and have to couch it behind "I think it's all made up" therefore nothing to take a stand against.

@wow,

Why do you feel the need to continue with this. There is no support here for the view that it is ok to threaten scientists or their children in the way you suggest. PLEASE STOP GOING ON ABOUT IT.

As far as I am aware, the fact that the Earth has been in and out of several Ices ages over the last million years is not disputed by anyone, other than maybe you.

Again STOP THE CHILD ABUSE crap!

Presumably, by awarding the World cup to South Africa, FIFA was also declaring its support for child-rape.

As is every American tourist who visits Cancun.

@no. 48

Bratisla,

So I've accused IPCC scientists of being pedophiles without proof? Funny, that escaped me, because I never did any such thing. Rather, I've adopted the "precautionary principle". You've heard of that, haven't you Bratisla? You know, like if there is even just a one in a hundred chance that even one IPCC scientist could--repeat, could--be a pedophile then that is a sufficient basis to exclude any locale with a child sex-slave industry from consideration as host for an IPCC's annual confabs, I would say. Again, we're talking the "precautionary principle", Bratisla.

And then there is the very idea of the UN patronizing a place that hosts a child-rape industry. The notion is repugnant on the face of it--hence my boycott of the IPCC's immediate past and current choice of locale for its annual conference.

So are we square on that one, Bratisla?

This thread is hilarious. You know when a troll is begging you to stop and to leave him alone he's lost.

>Now, John, you've seen my condemnation of child-rape

No I haven't.

Mike said:

>I've accused IPCC scientists of being pedophiles

At last, an admission.

> Again STOP THE CHILD ABUSE crap!

Getting close. Now all you have to do is tell that to the ones who want to rape children. Those deniers who you're desperate to protect.

Then again, that's what you have to do when your belief in the Free Market goes up against being a human being: there's nothing to add to the bottom line being humane.

But you'd rather protect the paedos than show even the slightest bit of critique against a fellow denier.

mike, you asked me to answer your questions. I did. And you ignored my answers. So shut up.

> And then there is the very idea of the UN patronizing a place that hosts a child-rape industry. The notion is repugnant on the face of it

You know, there's such a thing in the world known as HTML hyperlinks. Your attempt to flip-flop without flip-flopping is so transparent it's not even clever.

I could swear that, when GSW was squirming and waffling over whether to take a strong stand against those who threaten child rape, you defended him and spoke of him as if he's some poor oppressed intellectual.

Doesn't exactly sound like a strong condemnation of child rape from you, does it?

-- frank

@Tim Lambert

Seriously Tim, is it not possible to stop the allegations of "protect the paedos" and "ones who want to rape children" stuff. To say it is offensive is an understatement.

Bolt has just posted another content free attack on Anna-Maria Arabia, once again bringing up Richard Lindzen for some reason I can't figure out than he seems really impressed by Lindzen's credentials.

Bolt seems outraged by the fact Anna-Maria labelled them "climate deniers" and threatened by the idea that someone is going to stand up to them using strong, clear language. For this she must be taken down.

You'd almost think she'd called the deniers fascists and announced "Heil Hitler!" or something.

>Seriously Tim, is it not possible to stop the allegations of "protect the paedos" and "ones who want to rape children" stuff. To say it is offensive is an understatement.

That's funny, because a lot of scientists would find it offensive that you accuse them of lying about death and sexual assault threats.

@ no. 52

Ian, if you're really concerned with the welfare of the kids that live their tortured lives in brothels, then please read the references I provided in my comment 203 on the "Australian Climate Scientists Get Death Threats." (Many similar articles can be found, if you're further interested) FIFA is mentioned in one article incidentally. If you're only trying to score debating points, then spare yourself the trouble.

But after you've read those articles, if you choose to do so, then I ask you to honestly consider the misery that attends this international pedophile trade. My conclusion:

The civilized nations of the world certainly had no problem with ostracizing apartheid South Africa. Likewise, countries that regularly execute homosexuals are not favored locales of IPCC annual meetings or the meetings of any other reputable international organization. And I think it should be no different for locales that host child-rape industries for profit. Can you really think otherwise? Surely, you want to shut down this repellent and monstrously cruel pedophile sex tourism business? And nothing is more effective in attaining such an end than a social and economic boycott.

As far as individuals and families visiting such locales, there may be good reasons for such visits (family ties, for example). But in the main, places that tolerate child sex-slave industries should be boycotted by any person of conscience (again, remember the precedence of apartheid South Africa).

If you are inclined to a legal-beagle sort of cleverness, Ian, then please spare me a bunch of "what-abouts". I will acknowledge up-front that there are undoubtedly exceptions to the general rule. But the general rule: socially and economically boycott those locales that tolerate child sex-slavery.

@ no. 54 & 55

John,

I appreciate you're "giving me the business." Thanks but no thanks.

I actually agree with John! :)

> This thread is hilarious. You know when a troll is begging you to stop and to leave him alone he's lost.

Indeed, imagine the idea of a troll, who's been trying to derail threads with just about every obfuscatory and diversionary tactic, requesting the moderator to stop the discussion because his trolling is being exposed!

Something apropos to ponder over:

> Targets of bullying will withstand daily abuse for months, often years, but the first time a bully gets a taste of their own medicine they immediately run whingeing to authority demanding protection. That's weakness.

-- frank

Fair enough Mike. As you are physically unattractive your opinion doesn't matter to me anyway.

Mike as you are physically unattractive your opinion matters little to me.

GWS still avoids repudiating his fellow deniers and insists on insulting the victims instead.

Rather, he whines about how badly he's treated.

Funnily enough, nobody other than him is keeping him here (unless he's paid to post here).

Again, it's clear that mike just wants to find an excuse to take jabs at the IPCC, and only the IPCC, even if he's trying to sound like he's coming from some nobler principles.

-- frank

MELTDOWN IN DELTOID-LAND!

Yes, mike. You're melting. Melting.

Well, when you've gotten the sh*t kicked out of you, there's not a lot of you left, is there.

Go on, make your unqualified statement decrying these deniers for their abhorrent actions and stop defending just because you value your ideology over childrens' lives and wellbeing.

@mike 67

Agreed.

MELTDOWN. wow can't be banned for stupidity, so he is ok there. But it is hard to believe that this blog endorses the language, filth and horrific allegations of child abuse he has been peddling.

Surely it is not too much to expect better.

Not good.

Yes, it would be required that I demonstrate stupidity first.

Then the insurmountable: stupidity greater than VincentR, mike or GSW.

But I see both of you are still avoiding denouncing the denialists who want to murder children.

And, in your case, additionally not supplying us with how you know these so-called "Ice Ages" existed long before you or your parents were born.

And by the way, a correction seems to be in order: I now think that when mike referred to the IPCC, he was actually referring to the UNFCCC, which is really a different group of folks. The IPCC is a group of experts, and the UNFCCC is (essentially) a group of politicos.

And now that I think of it, I think that the UNFCCC sessions as they're currently done are indeed a silly waste of time and money, because they're useless. The IPCC is quite OK though.

-- frank

[mike,](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/another_day_another_death_thre…)

Is this a correct quote?

>Unless, of course, there's something a little too contrived about this whole deal. But that can't be the answer. I mean, lefties don't do agit-prop, hoaxes, and false-flags, we all know that.

[GSW,](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/another_day_another_death_thre…)

Likewise?

>There's a hint of Sender Gleiwitz about it. All looks a bit sus.

Do you realize that by making these flagrant non sequiturs and baseless implications, you are manifesting one of the most egregious forms of denial known as DARVO(Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender) and that this is a common behavior of sex offenders and perpetrators of violent abuse?

As for condemning the IPCC for holding meetings in cities that have an active under-age sex trade, the trans-national organized crime that that is involved in that trade permeates practically every city and countryside in every country in the world. By your criterion, no group should be holding any meetings anywhere there is a human population.

I condemn the trolls for even living in cities where there might be a live-sex trade. So there.

Now that is done, could we please get back to the normal schedule, you know, where we just use normal mocking of trolls or kill-files (oh no, I've just let it slip that we kill trolls...omg).

Death threats of the kind sent to a number of scientists now, whether the perps thought they were sending real threats or just some sort of perverse black twisted humour, I don't care; it should cease (but won't). The recipient can't know the state of mind of the sender of such a message, and has no way of knowing age, gender, biases, or beliefs or crazy-humorous disposition of the sender. In short, they have no way of knowing who they are really dealing with, and that is one of the things that can cause distress to the recipient, as they cannot gauge the ``level of seriousness'' they should attach to a threat. Tacit threats abound and they leave police with a difficult situation, precisely because of the level of ambiguity. But that is not what we are dealing with in the case of the FASTS director; she got a clear, blunt threat of harm, and the wording certainly made it interpretable as a death threat.

Why anyone would send such a message is beyond me. Is it a power kick to the sender; do they listen to the sound of one hand chapping after sending it; do they pass it around to their mates and egg them on to go one better? Who knows.

@ no. 72

LB,

Please save your little miss shrink act for someone that's impressed with your BS.

As far as your comments on the sex-slavery of children and the pedophile trade--and please also spare me your "under-age sex trade" euphemism, thank you--well, you're trying just a little too hard to play dumb on this one, it seems to me.

There may be examples of pedophilia and a criminal element that services pedophile perverts in many locales. But there are degrees of the problem. Some locales are favored destinations for pedophile sex-tourists and children are enslaved in these locales in prodigious numbers for the delight of mostly well-heeled western pervert-scum. In one of the references I previously provided (See my no. 61, above), South Africa was estimated to harbor 400,000 child prostitutes. So places like that are the places to preferentially target with boycotts, socially and economically, at least initially. And if the trade moves to Provo, Utah, in response, then it should be pursued with a boycott of Provo, Utah, in turn. In other words, attack the problem in its center of gravity--the jugular--and then go after the capillaries.

But maybe you have a better way, LB. If so, I'm all ears. On the other hand, if the whole point of your comment is to just be overwhelmed with the problem and nothing more, then, well, let's just say I'm not in synch with your hippie-chick vibe. So, I'll just stick with my boycott idea and urge it on others, until you or someone else comes up with a better idea.

mike,

>Please save your little miss shrink act for someone that's impressed with your BS.

Please be informed that I have worked, voluntarily, as a drug abuse counselor for many years. The first rule of which is the "no bullshit" rule, when an abuser inevitably seeks to rationalize the destructiveness of his/her behavior through the various mechanisms of denial. I've become skilled in recognizing denial, and you, mike, are categorically in denial about the risks of anthropogenic global warming and the climate disruption that might ensue, just as surely as any junkie is in denial of the consequences of his/her addiction, no matter how you seek to rationalize it.

Many drug abusers have suffered childhood violent or sex abuse, and/or been coerced into prostitution, as a minor or adult, in support of their addiction, as well as having been guilty of re-enacting those behaviors on others in turn. It is vital for their recovery to not rationalize their problem by fixating blame on those who abused them in the past, which just re-enforces their denial, but to take responsibility for changing their lives for the better in the present. Do you understand how this applies to you? I didn't think so.

I know a lot more of the gritty reality of which you speak merely from a detached abstract point of view than you can imagine, so don't presume to lecture me on bullshit.

In fact, you can fucking go to fucking hell you stupid fucking asshole.

Am I being clear enough?

mike,

>Please save your little miss shrink act for someone that's impressed with your BS.

Please be informed that I have worked, voluntarily, as a drug abuse counselor for many years. The first rule of which is the "no bullshit" rule, when an abuser inevitably seeks to rationalize the destructiveness of his/her behavior through the various mechanisms of denial. I've become skilled in recognizing denial, and you, mike, are categorically in denial about the risks of anthropogenic global warming and the climate disruption that might ensue, just as surely as any junkie is in denial of the consequences of his/her addiction, no matter how you seek to rationalize it.

Many drug abusers have suffered childhood violent or sex abuse, and/or been coerced into prostitution, as a minor or adult, in support of their addiction, as well as having been guilty of re-enacting those behaviors on others in turn. It is vital for their recovery to not rationalize their problem by fixating blame on those who abused them in the past, which just re-enforces their denial, but to take responsibility for changing their lives for the better in the present. Do you understand how this applies to you? I didn't think so.

I know a lot more of the gritty reality of which you speak merely from a detached abstract point of view than you can imagine, so don't presume to lecture me on bullshit.

Am I being clear enough?

Please save your little miss shrink act for someone that's impressed with your BS.

Although, LB is right about you being a fascinating case study.

And if the trade moves to Provo, Utah, in response, then it should be pursued with a boycott of Provo, Utah, in turn.

The traffic in people is already international and any city large enough to host an international conference will already have an adequate vice infrastructure in place to match its economy, just as it will have enough tonnage of meat, bread, coke and whiskey. That's basic global free trade capitalism in action.

Your transparently puerile intent to link the pre-existing conditions of an economically and morally corrupt society specifically with the IPCC is classic projection on your part. Here'a a (long) [list](http://www.conferencealerts.com/malaysia.htm) of conferences in Malaysia this year. Malaysia, eh? Eh? Dirty buggers, eh? We all know what goes on there, eh? Especially if you're an intellectually lazy westerner that knows fuck all about anything. Then there's [India](http://www.www2011india.com/), and basically loads of them across the world. In what surely must be political correctness gone mad, the [OECD](http://www.oecd.org/document/41/0,3746,en_2649_33903_45019689_1_1_1_1,0…) seem to be offering funding to enable qualifying people to attend global meetings. And no doubt, in your own mind, throw in a generous allowance for availing of local prostitution services to really stimulate those local economies, if you get my drift, eh? Eh?

Ironically though, there seems to be few for likeminded morons, apart from the [Heartland Institute's shindig](http://climateconference.heartland.org/) who've pulled out all the stops and picked the notorious child prostitution fleshpots of [Washington DC] (http://www.voxfux.com/features/bush_child_sex_coverup/article_archive.h…) for some strange but no doubt disgusting reason at the end of this month.

@Luminous

"There's a hint of Sender Gleiwitz about it"

Does all look a little contrived though doesn't it, the drip, drip, drip of these stories. In the end, not too much there, but they are pushed anyway for 24hrs of attention (almost like a campaign)

Any idea about the previous post on the two women that were attacked, any more on this? still unverified, unattributed?

Curious to know how that turned out.

Tim said

'Shortly after she got the death threat, Arabia was attacked by Andrew Bolt:'

Are you sure the threat came before the bolt post, or after?

If you note the time of the replies, they are well before the time stamp on his post.

I also noted a comment about the post on Pure Poison (I mentioned it in the previous thread on this matter) which was dated well before the time shown on the post.

First, I would like to correct a mistake : I should have said "insinuate" instead of "accuse". I do not doubt that Mike will protest that and justify himself more precisely, as he has begun to do.

And he was really clear on that point : Mike is an advocate of the precautionary principle. And a fierce one, from what I understood, because a more than flimsiest chance is enough to take preventive action.

Nothing to say more, I guess.

Shorter GSW, edition #52452478568278 (after edition #52452478568277):

1. Where's the evidence that climate folks are getting death and rape threats?
2. If it's true, it'll be shocking! But where's the evidence?
3. Yeah, I know the Daily Telegraph published a counterfactual story downplaying the threats. Therefore it's very possible the threats are false!
4. Yeah, the threats seem to be real! But I refuse to be shocked by them, unless you're also shocked by climate scientist Ben Santer saying something in private to another climate guy!
5. Threats? What threats? What are you talking about? We're talking about ice ages here man!
6. Ice age! Ice age! I'm adult! You're kids! I'm adult! You're kids! I'm adult! You're kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Ooh, look, I'm so mature, you're so immature!
7. Rape threats? What rape threats?
8. I refuse to take a strong stand against death and rape threats against climate folks, and I refuse to find ways to stop such threats! Anyone who wants me to take a strong stand against such threats is obviously himself a closet supporter of child rapists!
9. Rape threats? What rape threats?
10. Oi, moderator! Please stop these people from saying I support child rape! I feel so offended!
11. Go to 1.

As I said, there's such a thing in the world known as the HTML hyperlink.

-- frank

frank,

"As I said, there's such a thing in the world known as the HTML hyperlink."

Good, it was the only bit that actually made sense ;)

Shorter GSW, edition #52452478568279:

1. Where's the evidence that climate folks are getting death and rape threats?
2. If it's true, it'll be shocking! But where's the evidence?
3. Yeah, I know the Daily Telegraph published a counterfactual story downplaying the threats. Therefore it's very possible the threats are false!
4. Yeah, the threats seem to be real! But I refuse to be shocked by them, unless you're also shocked by climate scientist Ben Santer saying something in private to another climate guy!
5. Threats? What threats? What are you talking about? We're talking about ice ages here man!
6. Ice age! Ice age! I'm adult! You're kids! I'm adult! You're kids! I'm adult! You're kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Ooh, look, I'm so mature, you're so immature!
7. Rape threats? What rape threats?
8. I refuse to take a strong stand against death and rape threats against climate folks, and I refuse to find ways to stop such threats! Anyone who wants me to take a strong stand against such threats is obviously himself a closet supporter of child rapists!
9. Rape threats? What rape threats?
10. Oi, moderator! Please stop these people from saying I support child rape! I feel so offended!
11. Your summary of my points makes no sense!
12. Go to 1.

-- frank

frank,

Honest question: is it always like this here? we all like a bit of fun taunting the other side ;) , but is it NEVER possible to discuss anything?

(posted this once but got lost somehow)

frank,

Honest question: we all like a bit of fun taunting the other side ;) but is it never possible to discuss anything here?

Shorter GSW, edition #52452478568280:

1. Where's the evidence that climate folks are getting death and rape threats?
2. If it's true, it'll be shocking! But where's the evidence?
3. Yeah, I know the Daily Telegraph published a counterfactual story downplaying the threats. Therefore it's very possible the threats are false!
4. Yeah, the threats seem to be real! But I refuse to be shocked by them, unless you're also shocked by climate scientist Ben Santer saying something in private to another climate guy!
5. Threats? What threats? What are you talking about? We're talking about ice ages here man!
6. Ice age! Ice age! I'm adult! You're kids! I'm adult! You're kids! I'm adult! You're kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Ooh, look, I'm so mature, you're so immature!
7. Rape threats? What rape threats?
8. I refuse to take a strong stand against death and rape threats against climate folks, and I refuse to find ways to stop such threats! Anyone who wants me to take a strong stand against such threats is obviously himself a closet supporter of child rapists!
9. Rape threats? What rape threats?
10. Oi, moderator! Please stop these people from saying I support child rape! I feel so offended!
11. Your summary of my points makes no sense!
12. Boo-hoo! Why can't we respect one another and have a proper discussion? I'm asking an honest question! Honestly!
13. Go to 1.

-- frank

Question answered.

Shorter GSW, edition #52452478568281:

1. Where's the evidence that climate folks are getting death and rape threats?
2. If it's true, it'll be shocking! But where's the evidence?
3. Yeah, I know the Daily Telegraph published a counterfactual story downplaying the threats. Therefore it's very possible the threats are false!
4. Yeah, the threats seem to be real! But I refuse to be shocked by them, unless you're also shocked by climate scientist Ben Santer saying something in private to another climate guy!
5. Threats? What threats? What are you talking about? We're talking about ice ages here man!
6. Ice age! Ice age! I'm adult! You're kids! I'm adult! You're kids! I'm adult! You're kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Ooh, look, I'm so mature, you're so immature!
7. Rape threats? What rape threats?
8. I refuse to take a strong stand against death and rape threats against climate folks, and I refuse to find ways to stop such threats! Anyone who wants me to take a strong stand against such threats is obviously himself a closet supporter of child rapists!
9. Rape threats? What rape threats?
10. Oi, moderator! Please stop these people from saying I support child rape! I feel so offended!
11. Your summary of my points makes no sense!
12. Boo-hoo! Why can't we respect one another and have a proper discussion? I'm asking an honest question! Honestly!
13. Go to 1.

-- frank

Shorter frank, edition # Just 4 U ;)

1. I spend all day sat alone at my computer.
2. My personality defect is so obvious that nobody likes me.
3. I kissed a girl once, but my sister didn't like it, so we didn't do it again.
4. There is no joy in my life.
5. Least favourite thing: People who talk to me, its scary.
6. Favourite thing: making lists.
7. Key achievement: Spelling, a few years ago I couldn't spell 'arsehole', now (with pride) I is one! I don't know what it is yet, but people tell me I am so it must be true.
8. Other people on this blog laugh at me and don't take me seriously.
9. Self abuse makes me feel better. I am good at it. You could call me an expert W****r
10. Each day I Goto 1..

Enjoy ;)

Shorter GSW:

1) I am so derivative it hurts.

2) I think I'm smarter so probably nobody will notice.

3) I inadvertantly Godwinned prematurely with the Sender Gleiwitz thing at comment #9.

Probably a contribitory factor to L.B. despising me, even though Lord Monckton does it too

4) I keep telling those nazi warmist lovers of the child abusing IPCC to lighten up but they just won't listen to me.

5) I'm still waiting for an apology.

6) ... hang on let me take the other glove off....

Shorter Frank, edition # 9827409234093284092384230948230948230948320948320948320948329048:

LOOK AT ME! I CAN COUNT TO 13!!!!ELEVENTY-ONE!!!

I CAN ALSO POST THE SAME CRAP OVER AND OVER AGAIN! MOMMY WILL BE VERY PROUD OF ME!!!

GSW @51:

There is no support here for the view that it is ok to threaten scientists or their children in the way you suggest.

If not in the way suggested here, GSW, which type of threats to scientists or their children *do* you support?

Please stop ducking and weaving and make yourself clear for once.

GSW: mike has pretty obvious personal problems for trolling here. What's your excuse?

>Are you sure the threat came before the bolt post, or after?

I think so, because it was referenced in an ABC story timestamped before Bolt's post.

'I think so, because it was referenced in an ABC story timestamped before Bolt's post.'

Yes Tim, but the timestamp on his actual post does not match the timestamp on the comments, nor the timestamp on the comment from Pure Poison

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2011/06/20/weekly-open-thread-20-…

Something there doesn't look right to me

mike and GSW are sociopathic assholes; fuck them and hope they die soon.

Tom R is right; there are many comments on Blot's blog and on other blogs referring to it, which are timestamped from about 6:30 am onwards. I think the timestamp on his post must refer to the "Update" at the bottom, which Blot presumably published later. Either that, or he deliberately changed the timestamp to dissociate himself from the death threat.

Good point. I'll be making a correction.

>Does all look a little contrived though doesn't it, the drip, drip, drip of these stories.

No, contrived is when the emails and data stolen from UEA CRU were released just before Copenhagen, giving enough time for (prepared?) disinformation campaigns to conflagrate, but not giving enough time for the inevitable thorough hosing-down of the baseless propaganda to be effective.

As [Luminous Beauty said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/another_day_another_death_thre…) - DARVO.

How about another 'open thread' Tim ?
I have some things to comment on for the benefit of your all-knowing 'blaggers'.
Or has the cat got my tongue again ?

I see the two Galls are still cluttering the place up - Moronix, and his lumbering offsider Obelix (the one who fell into the poo-tion when he was a baby)

I'd like to bring to people's attention mike's phrasing of his question to frank:

> Would you turn in a pedophile pal? (Y/N)

Note: PAL. Could it be that mike knows one of these scumbags and is friends with them, rather than just sharing a mutual hatred of climate science?

Shorter GSW, edition #52452478568282:

1. Where's the evidence that climate folks are getting death and rape threats?
2. If it's true, it'll be shocking! But where's the evidence?
3. Yeah, I know the Daily Telegraph published a counterfactual story downplaying the threats. Therefore it's very possible the threats are false!
4. Yeah, the threats seem to be real! But I refuse to be shocked by them, unless you're also shocked by climate scientist Ben Santer saying something in private to another climate guy!
5. Threats? What threats? What are you talking about? We're talking about ice ages here man!
6. Ice age! Ice age! I'm adult! You're kids! I'm adult! You're kids! I'm adult! You're kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Ooh, look, I'm so mature, you're so immature!
7. Rape threats? What rape threats?
8. I refuse to take a strong stand against death and rape threats against climate folks, and I refuse to find ways to stop such threats! Anyone who wants me to take a strong stand against such threats is obviously himself a closet supporter of child rapists!
9. Rape threats? What rape threats?
10. Oi, moderator! Please stop these people from saying I support child rape! I feel so offended!
11. Your summary of my points makes no sense!
12. Boo-hoo! Why can't we respect one another and have a proper discussion? I'm asking an honest question! Honestly!
13. Ooh, look, I can hurl abuse too!
14. Not only that, I can get one of my pals to call himself "Jesus H. Christ, Almighty" and hurl abuse!
15. Rape threats? What rape threats?
16. Go to 1.

-- frank

* * *

Gaz:

Indeed, GSW continues to show how 'shocked' he is at the death threats and rape threats made against climate folks and their children, but only as long as the threats don't exist.

Unfortunately, in the face of such scurrility, the victims' response has continued to be totally tepid...

-- frank

@100

Still peddling Kiddie abuse, wow?

Shorter GSW, edition #52452478568283:

1. Where's the evidence that climate folks are getting death and rape threats?
2. If it's true, it'll be shocking! But where's the evidence?
3. Yeah, I know the Daily Telegraph published a counterfactual story downplaying the threats. Therefore it's very possible the threats are false!
4. Yeah, the threats seem to be real! But I refuse to be shocked by them, unless you're also shocked by climate scientist Ben Santer saying something in private to another climate guy!
5. Threats? What threats? What are you talking about? We're talking about ice ages here man!
6. Ice age! Ice age! I'm adult! You're kids! I'm adult! You're kids! I'm adult! You're kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Ooh, look, I'm so mature, you're so immature!
7. Rape threats? What rape threats?
8. I refuse to take a strong stand against death and rape threats against climate folks, and I refuse to find ways to stop such threats! Anyone who wants me to take a strong stand against such threats is obviously himself a closet supporter of child rapists!
9. Rape threats? What rape threats?
10. Oi, moderator! Please stop these people from saying I support child rape! I feel so offended!
11. Your summary of my points makes no sense!
12. Boo-hoo! Why can't we respect one another and have a proper discussion? I'm asking an honest question! Honestly!
13. Ooh, look, I can hurl abuse too!
14. Not only that, I can get one of my pals to call himself "Jesus H. Christ, Almighty" and hurl abuse!
15. Rape threats? What rape threats?
16. Go to 1.

-- frank

Ah, you see what the twonk now does, everyone?

"I know you are, what am I?"

How old were you when you stopped using that one, everyone?

You're the one protecting the paedophile slime, GSW. You could even be one of them. Mike likes you and he's already let loose that he's a pal with paedos.

@wow

The fact you use child abuse as a cheap form currency on a blog, says enough wow. Have you no shame.

Shorter GSW, edition #52452478568284:

1. Where's the evidence that climate folks are getting death and rape threats?
2. If it's true, it'll be shocking! But where's the evidence?
3. Yeah, I know the Daily Telegraph published a counterfactual story downplaying the threats. Therefore it's very possible the threats are false!
4. Yeah, the threats seem to be real! But I refuse to be shocked by them, unless you're also shocked by climate scientist Ben Santer saying something in private to another climate guy!
5. Threats? What threats? What are you talking about? We're talking about ice ages here man!
6. Ice age! Ice age! I'm adult! You're kids! I'm adult! You're kids! I'm adult! You're kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Ooh, look, I'm so mature, you're so immature!
7. Rape threats? What rape threats?
8. I refuse to take a strong stand against death and rape threats against climate folks, and I refuse to find ways to stop such threats! Anyone who wants me to take a strong stand against such threats is obviously himself a closet supporter of child rapists!
9. Rape threats? What rape threats?
10. Oi, moderator! Please stop these people from saying I support child rape! I feel so offended!
11. Your summary of my points makes no sense!
12. Boo-hoo! Why can't we respect one another and have a proper discussion? I'm asking an honest question! Honestly!
13. Ooh, look, I can hurl abuse too!
14. Not only that, I can get one of my pals to call himself "Jesus H. Christ, Almighty" and hurl abuse!
15. Rape threats? What rape threats?
16. Argh, how dare you use my non-condemnation of child rape as a rhetorical stick to whack me with!
17. Go to 1.

-- frank

The fact that you aide and defend paedos shows you have no shame.

That you are continuing on here without unqualified umbrage against these sick bastards for so long you show you have no intelligence.

You are a sick, twisted individual and it is now far too late to come up with a lame retraction of your current endemic defense of paedophiles who have stated their wish to rape and kill children.

> Argh, how dare you use my non-condemnation of child rape

Worse, he's genuinely enabling these actions by deflecting investigation and building up a fake case to quash investigation or proper justice being carried out on the perpetrators.

He's no better than the scum who say of a raped woman "She was dressed in a short skirt: she was asking for it".

@wow,

Reality check, Again!. Nobody has defended paedos. You seem hellbent on turning it into some sort of cheap joke to score points.

Does it make you feel good or something? There are some sick people in the world, wow, hard to believe you are not one of them.

GSW:

Oh yeah right, you weren't defending threats of child rape, you were criticizing those threats but only on the condition that the threats didn't exist.

* * *

Shorter GSW, edition #52452478568285:

1. Where's the evidence that climate folks are getting death and rape threats?
2. If it's true, it'll be shocking! But where's the evidence?
3. Yeah, I know the Daily Telegraph published a counterfactual story downplaying the threats. Therefore it's very possible the threats are false!
4. Yeah, the threats seem to be real! But I refuse to be shocked by them, unless you're also shocked by climate scientist Ben Santer saying something in private to another climate guy!
5. Threats? What threats? What are you talking about? We're talking about ice ages here man!
6. Ice age! Ice age! I'm adult! You're kids! I'm adult! You're kids! I'm adult! You're kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Kids! Ooh, look, I'm so mature, you're so immature!
7. Rape threats? What rape threats?
8. I refuse to take a strong stand against death and rape threats against climate folks, and I refuse to find ways to stop such threats! Anyone who wants me to take a strong stand against such threats is obviously himself a closet supporter of child rapists!
9. Rape threats? What rape threats?
10. Oi, moderator! Please stop these people from saying I support child rape! I feel so offended!
11. Your summary of my points makes no sense!
12. Boo-hoo! Why can't we respect one another and have a proper discussion? I'm asking an honest question! Honestly!
13. Ooh, look, I can hurl abuse too!
14. Not only that, I can get one of my pals to call himself "Jesus H. Christ, Almighty" and hurl abuse!
15. Rape threats? What rape threats?
16. Argh, how dare you use my non-condemnation of child rape as a rhetorical stick to whack me with!
17. Well, technically I'm not actually defending child rape...
18. Go to 1.

-- frank

Who's willing to bet that GSW hasn't sent off emails like this himself?

Anyone?

> Nobody has defended paedos.

Yes you have, in just the way that "She was asking for it" defends rapists. Such ignorant louts as them and yourself want to make out that the crime isn't really one and maybe we shouldn't check. They're all willing to *say* they're against rape. But when a case comes up on it, they're all "Well, they're making it up to get sympathy" or "Just trying to ruin a good man's name".

Sick individual.

@wow

You make allegations about others based on the sick things that only exist in your head.

You demonstrate in reality (the evidence is there for every one to see) in every post your disturbed and worrying pleasure in pushing this stuff.

Take a break! try and find something else to do with your other hand for while.

NWOR.

climax?

Shorter shorter GSW, edition #52452478568286:

1. Where's the evidence that climate folks are getting death and rape threats?
2. If it's true, it'll be shocking! But where's the evidence?
3. Yeah, I know the Daily Telegraph published a counterfactual story downplaying the threats. Therefore it's very possible the threats are false!
4. Yeah, the threats seem to be real! But I refuse to be shocked by them, unless you're also shocked by climate scientist Ben Santer saying something in private to another climate guy!
5. Threats? What threats? What are you talking about? We're talking about ice ages here man!
6. Ooh, I can hurl insults! Look, I'm such a mature adult, unlike you immature kids!
7. Anyone who wants me to take a strong stand against such threats is obviously himself a closet supporter of child rapists!
8. I'm so offended by the suggestion that I support child rape! Can't you clearly see my strong opposition to threats of child rape?
9. Repeat one of the above 'arguments' at random.
10. Go to 9.

-- frank

New South Wales MLC and Liberal party loony Peter Phelpd is another [worthy of checking out](http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC2011…),

"The poor petalsâabusive emails! As I understand it, the scientists have tonight left their steel and concrete bunkers to emerge through the death threats and abusive emails to tell politicians that the campaign being run against scientific evidence of man-made climate change "is undermining the nation-building work of all scientists". etc

Recently elected, he's one to keep an eye on.

Quoll: He always was a nasty piece of work. Reelection seems remote, so he's going for it.

But it's 8 years till he's up for re-election, I'm sure there'll be some more lunacy between now and then, his rantings about dragons seem a good foretaste.