Earlier I wrote:

Shortly after she got the death threat, [Anna-Maria] Arabia was attacked by Andrew Bolt.

This was wrong. Although Bolt’s post was date stamped 11:16am, which was after Arabia received the threat, the first comment was at 6:39am so Bolt’s [ost appeared then. There was also a 7:56am comment at Pure Poison referencing Bolt’s post:

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…

So it seems that Arabia received the death threat shortly after Bolt posted.

One Stan Lippmann boasted that he had sent the email to Arabia:

I am the supposed culprit. I read how horrified she was that people were calling climate scientists “Nazis”, so I Googled for her email and did my usual Nazi Bitch Whore litany, like I do every day. My usual litany includes, “When the Grand Jury is done with you, I’ll enjoy watched them string you up.” The reason she is not reporting it is because this is obviously not a death threat. It’s an effective counter-propaganda tactic, thank you very much.
Stan Lippmann Ph.D. (radiative transfer in ionized gases, 1989) J.D. 1998

Lippmann denies that he sent a death threat, but plainly it was. Lippmann has sent death theats before:

“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.'”

Lippmann lives in Seattle, so Arabia is in no danger from him — though that would not have been obvious from his threatening email.

And since Lippmann lives in Seattle he would not have learned about Arabia’s comments from the Australian media but from a blog. There are two likely candidates: Bolt’s post, and a post by Tom Nelson (the blog where Lippmann posted his confession). Nelson’s post doesn’t mention Arabia and doesn’t contain the language that Lippmann says triggered his email. Bolt’s post does mention Arabia and does contian that language. Bolt’s post triggered many comments (allowed by the moderators) abusing Arabia. Examples:

“apparatchik” … “bimbette” … “chanelling Dr Floyd Ferris [character in Atlas Shrugged who tortured Galt]” … “troll” … “disgrace to her profession” … “pretend scientist” … “ignorant” … “idiot” … “idiot leftie” … “Labor stooge” … “communist” … “parasite”

So it seems likely that it was Bolt’s post that prompted the death threat sent to Arabia.

Comments

  1. #1 Neil CVraig
    June 24, 2011

    I recently received a death threat (post #29 Imrryr) for supporting a Republican. I suspect the writer had read previous posts wherer I had dared to question the claim that we are experiencing catastrophic global warming. Normally this just produces censorship.

    http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/06/newts_campaign_even_more_dead.php

    Perhaps the entire alarmist blogsphere will be up in arms to defend me.

    Or perhaps such behaviour is usual among alarmists and only unusual among those who place scientific scepticism on a high level.

  2. #2 Bernard J.
    June 24, 2011

    This is exactly the sort of dog-whistling response that tabloid hacks must pray for, to fuel the whole ignorant denialist movement and thereby provide more fodder for their rags’ front pages, editorials, and hate-blog columns.

    I was going to say ironically that Bolt must be so proud, but then I thought that irony might not be warranted.

    I hope that Lippman is pursued, because his tactics are surely criminal. Bolt’s just lucky that dog whistles are difficult to hear, even by the ears of law enforcement.

  3. Well, well, well. Obama has threatened to physically drop bombs on anyone who wages ‘cyber-war’. Perhaps the Australian government should consider some sort of similar measure against countries that export cyber-hate. Heck, maybe we can start by creating a list of countries that export cyber-hate, sorted in such a way that the United States will come up on top.

    — frank

  4. And…

    > I Googled for her email and did my usual Nazi Bitch Whore litany, like I do every day. [...] Stan Lippmann Ph.D. (radiative transfer in ionized gases, 1989)

    Someone proudly proclaims himself to be a “Ph.D. (radiative transfer in ionized gases, 1989)” right after admitting that he cuts-and-pastes like a robotic idiot.

    Perhaps he believes that his Ph.D. gives him magical powers that allow him to see the Truth? about everything without any hard work.

    — frank

  5. #5 Robert
    June 24, 2011

    Yikes. [I made the mistake of Googling up Stan Lippman of Seattle](http://www.google.com/search?q=stan+lippmann+seattle).

  6. #6 Jim Eager
    June 24, 2011

    Hey, this is good news.

    First they ignore you
    (or at least try to get other people to),
    then they laugh at you
    (and call you warmists, watermelons, ecoterrorists, frauds, socialists, and worse),
    then they fight you (or at least threaten to),
    then you win.

    Only one more step to go.

  7. #7 GSW
    June 24, 2011

    @Tim Lambert

    “likely that it was Bolt’s post that prompted the death threat sent to Arabia”

    Apologies Tim, have you taken legal advice on this? If this was a newspaper column, I think there might be a problem. Blogs may be different, don’t know.

  8. Let us recall GSW’s ‘argumentation’ tactics from a previous thread:

    1. Where’s the evidence that climate folks are getting death and rape threats [against themselves and their families]?
    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.

    Now that GSW can’t use his “where’s the evidence” excuse anymore (because Stan Lippmann has proudly confessed that he sent the death threat), he needs to invent new bullshit excuses to justify / downplay / divert from the death and rape threats.

    Such as claiming that Bolt’s vitriol has absolutely zilch to do with Lippman sending the death threat, and Lippman’s death threat was caused by some other unknown factor, perhaps the sun or volcanoes or urban heat island effect or hockey sticks.

    — frank

  9. #9 chek
    June 24, 2011

    No, there is a difference GSW.

    For instance, referencing the previous thread you had such a starring role in, I can loudly and openly say, “GSW is likely an apologist and equivocator for those who make death threats and threaten child rape”.

    Bur likely that’s not the half of what I really believe about enablers like you.

  10. #10 GSW
    June 24, 2011

    @chek

    Actually, you can’t loudly and openly say that. That’s the point. You do need to be able to show that it’s true.

    Just because you have had a bad experience in the past, doesn’t mean you can just makes things up.

  11. #11 Jim Groom
    June 24, 2011

    If I was in the mood to be kind I would say that this fellow Lippman is crying out for help. I’m not, so let me say that this is one sick puppy. Apparently he does not read his own stuff, so naturally he does not see the implied threat in his ramblings. Shameful to say the very least.

  12. #12 GSW
    June 24, 2011

    @Jim

    Agreed. Sick.

  13. #13 Howard Appel
    June 24, 2011

    I noticed that Mr. Lippmann included a JD in his identification. Is this Mr. Lippmann the “Stanley Irving Lippmann” that has been disbarred by the State of Washington (http://www.mywsba.org/default.aspx?tabid=178&RedirectTabId=177&Usr_ID=29661)? I am filled with disgust when I see comments such as those made my Mr. Lippmann. He is a despicable, hate filled, DISBARRED, intellectually challenged and deficient a**hole.

    Howard Appel, CA Bar # 158674.

  14. #14 John Quiggin
    June 24, 2011

    Lippman is apparently an office bearer of, and regular candidate for, the Libertarian Party of Washington

    http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_16699853814

  15. #15 bill
    June 24, 2011

    GSW – alternative hypothesis, please. Please identify the other locations and means where this loon can have come across the relevant information in the timeframe.

    Otherwise, if you’re going to simply repeat your performance on a thread in which you succeeded only in convincing us that you are both an enabler posing as a skeptic and a fool to boot, I suggest you try to master your continual craving for attention and spare everyone the tedious necessity of scrolling past your risible comments.

  16. #16 bill
    June 24, 2011

    Further, if it is possible to demonstrate a direct link – Lippman’s already been unbalanced enough to boast openly about this and may yet simply publicly state where he found out (though some of his charming local fellow-travellers might also persuade him to muddy any waters) – it would make a great Post-Death-Threats/Post-Tabloid-Victim-Persecution/Post-Monckton’s Swastikas follow-up story on the whole phenomenon of Ugly Denial.

    Because, as we all know, it’s there in spades (not least in that previous discussion I linked to!)

    If they’re going to force us to publicly scrap in what is, after all, in reality a non-debate scientifically then I think the character and motivation of much of the opposition is currently the most legitimate subject of that discussion.

  17. #17 GSW
    June 24, 2011

    @bill

    No ;)

  18. #18 Gaston Arnolda
    June 24, 2011

    Bolt’s incessant and incendiary blogs are the modern day equivalent of yelling “Fire” in a crowded theatre.

  19. #19 GSW
    June 24, 2011

    I suspect it’s like that on a lot of blogs now Gaston. People like a bit of controversy, it’s why they keep going back. Pity there’s not much worth watching on the TV either.

  20. #20 bill
    June 24, 2011

    GSW @16 has conceded that he has nothing of value to contribute, and I’m sure we’d all be obliged if he’d be so kind as to STFU accordingly.

  21. #21 Michael
    June 24, 2011

    bill,

    That’s the whole purpose of being a troll – have nothing to contribute and to obsessively demonstrate this.

  22. #22 XavierG
    June 24, 2011

    Maybe you Warming alarmists should do some serious study and research into all the facts out there instead of just spewing forth invecitive put out by those that stand to gain from it.

    Try reading:

    http://slayingtheskydragon.com/

    It takes a little bit of Common Sense to understand but hopefuly you wont have much of a problem with it. These Global Warming Scientists will be the death of us if this lunacy keeps going.

  23. #23 Alex
    June 25, 2011

    I call Poe on Xavier

  24. It’s all such a smooth operation isn’t it? Bolt in Australia broadcasts the ingredients of hate to the whole world, Lippmann in the US processes the ingredients into packets of pure unadulterated hate, and then sends them over to Arabia back in Australia?

    And it’s all perfectly legal?

    Is there nothing that good people like Arabia can do to stop this? Maybe apply for a restraining order on Marc Morano?

    — frank

  25. #25 John
    June 25, 2011

    Ah – Slaying The Dragon, a noxious self-published tome that disputes the very notion of a greenhouse effect, which puts it in line with other great conspiracy paperbacks you can buy for $1 at garage sales.

    I also note a link to the Galileo Movement on their website. I wonder if they realise that the book’s thesis directly contradicts their heroes Monckton and Lindzen. I wonder if they care.

    >It takes a little bit of Common Sense to understand

    Who was it who said common sense was nothing more than a collection of prejudices learned by age 21?

  26. #26 John
    June 25, 2011

    Oh, look. A fly-by-night troll who denied there were death threats being an apologist once the threats are revealed. How unsurprising.

  27. #27 Michael R. Brown
    June 25, 2011

    [*Ayn Rand spam redacted. I have to draw the line somewhere. *]

  28. #28 Bernard J.
    June 25, 2011
  29. #29 bill
    June 25, 2011

    Er, what does the whole Rand rant have to do with it?

    Oh, there’s a reference to Dr. Floyd Ferris, apparently a character in one of the unreadable novels. An interesting projection given it’s being made by someone who’s abusing Arabia for having the temerity to speak up on behalf of scientists who are the targets of hate-speech and death-threats

    Rand’s followers really don’t exactly make her look very good, though, do they?

    Particularly in this debate. A whole bunch of scary people who’ve taken to heart the notion that extremism in the defense of ‘liberty’ is no vice.

  30. bill:

    > Further, if it is possible to demonstrate a direct link [between Lippman and Bolt's post] – Lippman’s already been unbalanced enough to boast openly about this [death threat] and may yet simply publicly state where he found out

    I posted a question at Tom Nelson’s blog:

    > Hey Lippman, I’m curious to know where you knew of the existence of Anna-Maria Arabia in the first place. Did you know about her through Andrew Bolt’s blog?

    Let’s see whether Nelson unscreens my question at all.

    And I’m still waiting for the “We’re going Galt!” folks to, um, actually go Galt. Which they’ll do any time now, I’m sure, yeah…

    * * *

    > > It takes a little bit of Common Sense to understand

    > Who was it who said common sense was nothing more than a collection of prejudices learned by age 21?

    The way these ‘skeptics’

    — frank

  31. #31 rhwombat
    June 25, 2011

    Bloody Hell. Between Lippman, GSW and Michael R. Brown, we seem to have struck the motherload of trolling. We must be getting close to the wingnut singularity. As long as we are not within the event horizon.

  32. The way these ‘skeptics’ use the term “common sense”, one gets the idea that their notion of “common sense” has nothing to do with facts or logic…

    — frank

  33. #33 James Haughton
    June 25, 2011

    As Kung Fu Monkey [said](http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html):

    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”

    I also recommend Wonkette’s webcomic series [Ayn Rand in the 21st century](http://wonkette.com/415825/thats-objectivist-ayn-rand-in-the-21st-century). As Wayne’s world put it, “You’ll laugh. You’ll cry. You’ll hurl.”

  34. #34 davidhortonsblog.com
    June 25, 2011

    Lippman’s comment that “I am the supposed culprit” when he then goes on to detail that he is actually, you know, the proud real culprit, suggests a certain disconnect with reality even without the other evidence.

    Yes some classic trolling here, they do seem attracted by Tim … !

    And Frank “skeptics”? No deniers –
    http://davidhortonsblog.com/2011/06/25/mentioning-the-war/
    lets call them what they are.

  35. #35 Jeremy C
    June 25, 2011

    Michael R.Brown,

    >Nowhere in the Bible does it say that wealth should be expropriated and redistributed by the dubious means of government structures; it speaks of personal and voluntary charity. One might add, looking at the horrific debt and unfunded liabilities situation that the U.S. is in right now, that the Bible and Jesus were wise in staying away from government panaceas.

    Erm, uhm….. I don’t think you have read the bible. The OT sets out quite prescriptive societal regulations as to how Israeli society interacted wrt to welfare e.g. Jubilee, and these are to remind individuals of personal and voluntary charity. Now the bible never sets these out as something that every society has to institute at a formal legislative level, instead you could say that the bible is agnostic on the idea of state vs private in how things are done in terms of looking after those either less fortunate or unable to be in the right place at the right time where the accumulation of wealth is concerned. Don’t try and appropriate christianity or the bible to your particular ideology or Ayn Rand’s own religion of self.

  36. #36 Bernard J.
    June 25, 2011

    Lippman recalls for me the recent antics of NikFromNYC who has been polluting The Conversation, Science of Doom, and a number of other blogs recently.

    There really does seem to be a gathering pool of strident Denialati who exhibit discernible mental pathologies. What suprises me is that many simply ignorant but otherwise ‘normal’ people believe what these crazies have to say.

  37. #37 Jeremy C
    June 25, 2011

    Bernard J.

    What interests me about the denialati we’ve seen recently is their steadfast belief in their own superiority e.g. GSW’s comments just drip with his condescending attitude, perhaps propelling him to constantly twist things. This is different from the peevish anger of the likes of Cohenite, Codling, Carter et al and more along the lines of Monckton.

  38. #38 Tim Lambert
    June 25, 2011

    I emailed Lippmann (stan.lippmann@gmail.com) when I first saw his comment asking him where he learned about Arabia’s comments, but have not received any reply.

  39. #39 GSW
    June 25, 2011

    @37

    I hope you chose your words a little better than he did Tim. ;)

  40. #40 GSW
    June 25, 2011

    Jeremy

    “comments just drip with his condescending attitude”

    Bernard

    “What suprises me is that many simply ignorant but otherwise ‘normal’ people believe what these crazies have to say”

  41. #41 Mikem
    June 25, 2011

    @21 Xavier. I assume we can search for “Slaying the Sky Dragon” in the “fiction” section at Amazon?

    One also presumes that luminaries such as Tim Ball (a half step away from being committed to a mental health care institute going by his ramblings) and so on have definitively proven all our knowledge of radiative physics totally wrong.

    Thus in the process proving that most of the world’s greatest 20th century Nobel Prize-winning physicists such as Planck, Einstein, Pauli, Heisenberg, etc, were all idiots without a clue.

  42. #42 GSW
    June 25, 2011

    For those still getting up to speed on this and while we are doing book reviews, I would strongly recommend;

    http://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate-Independent/dp/1906768358/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1309004547&sr=1-1

    Perhaps rather confusingly, the book is a non fictional history of a work of fiction.

  43. #43 James Haughton
    June 25, 2011

    GSW,
    It’s a pretty clear sign that you’re losing the argument when you try to drag in another dispute irrelevant to the topic at hand, and one that [you lost a long time ago](http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm) at that.

    Why don’t you run over to Andrew Blot’s bog and tell him all the horrible, illegal things we’ve said about him; that chimp cage is always recruiting more sh!t-throwers. Here’s [a brand new sea level hockey stick](http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-hockey-stick.html) for you to blither about when you get there.

  44. #44 Ben
    June 25, 2011

    This kind of one and two makes four response is probably from the kind of person that believes women bring rape on themselves by wearing certain clothing. It’s the same logic isn’t it.

  45. #45 2+2=5
    June 25, 2011

    The first thing you learn anywhere is circumstantial evidence without ruling out other avenues DOES NOT stand up, especially something as flimsy as this with questionable times, inferences and accusations of guilt founded on nothing but bias.

    “the degree of probability that the occurrence of the facts proved would be accompanied by the occurrence of the fact to be proved is so high that the contrary cannot reasonably be supposed”

    “the first comment was at 6:39am so Bolt’s [ost appeared then”

    The article appealed AFTER the threat was made. Yet you would have us belie it actually occurred earlier. Backdated comments does not PROVE the time the article went live. immediately your whole argument falls apart from this point.

    “Lippmann denies that he sent a death threat, but plainly it was.”

    Says Judge Jury & Execution Tim Lambert.

  46. #46 James Haughton
    June 25, 2011

    2+2=5?
    A fitting description of the level of “logic” in his/her/its post I suppose. I call Poe. Unless someone’s sent in the winged monkeys.

  47. #47 GSW
    June 25, 2011

    @44

    Agree. It’s all a bit premature.

    @Ben

    “It’s the same logic isn’t it”

    In your mind I think it probably is.

  48. #48 chek
    June 25, 2011

    Just so you know in case nobody’s pointed it out to you yet GSW, Montford’s book is a fiction constructed from parts of conversations and his own fanzine hero worship of Steve ‘pants on fire’ McIntyre tarted up with footnotes.

    Montford bears the same relation to climate science as Von Daniken does to archaeology. But then a combination of liars, the misguided and the deranged are all you have, while the hockey stick remains unbroken despite the hundreds of man-years your herd of ilk have invested in ‘breaking’ it.

    Oh, how they’ve huffed and they’ve puffed to no avail – except to Steve’s tip jar balance. As a consolation of course you like to whisper to each other that really it is broken and have even come to accept it as read amongst your clique. But that’s merely another fiction you embrace that an ungrateful outside world refuses to recognise in the absence of any evidence. Basically you’re a cult.

    On the bright side, the fall of Wegman will bring that whole rotten edifice down with him.

  49. #49 GSW
    June 25, 2011

    @chek

    “combination of liars, the misguided and the deranged are all you have”

    Sorry chek, have you ever been to this blog before?

    In “spades” as it were.

  50. #50 rhwombat
    June 25, 2011

    @48: Ooh. GSW’s getting snotty. Please go Galt, you pathetic Randian twat.

  51. #51 chek
    June 25, 2011

    Yes you’re quite right GSW, I somehow did leave out the death, injury and child rape threateners together with their apologists and enablers on your ‘side’.

    Thanks for the reminder.

  52. #52 GSW
    June 25, 2011

    @chek

    ;)

  53. Woohoo! Tom Nelson has unscreened my question to Lippmann (and here’s a WebCite). Let’s see if Lippman responds…

    * * *

    James Haughton:

    “2+2=5″ has to be a Poe… that’ll explain his comments like

    > Backdated comments does not PROVE the time the article went live.

    Given that GSW was so quick to agree with this nonsensical ‘logic’, I very much suspect that 2+2=5 is some sort of anti-troll that’s trying to snare the real trolls. Quick, which is you is “2+2=5″?

    * * *

    David Horton:

    I’m still partial to the word “inactivists”, as it encompasses people who ostensibly agree with the science of climate change, but deny that we need to take any action based on this science.

    — frank

  54. #54 chek
    June 25, 2011

    Jeez Frank – the sidebar of that site looks like an introductory index to crankdom without looking any further.

  55. #55 GSW
    June 25, 2011

    I haven’t followed the Lippmann confession story in any detail. Has anyone spoken to him directly about this? TV, radio, by phone etc.

    Is there anything more than the blog confession with his qualifications and contact details?

  56. #56 Ian Forrester
    June 25, 2011

    It appears that Lippmann has form. See here where he made threatening phone calls to a doctor and her pregnant nurse:

    http://tinyurl.com/6ap64nn

  57. Shorter GSW with regard to the death threat against Anna-Maria Arabia, as if his prevarications regarding the other death threats and rape threats aren’t enough:

    1. You say Bolt’s vitriolic blog post against Anna-Maria Arabia might have caused Lippmann to threaten Arabia with death? How dare you! Lawyers!
    2. Don’t talk about the death threat! Talk about Montford’s book on the “hockey-stick illusion”!
    3. The comments at Bolt’s blog post are dated before the post, but this is perfectly normal!
    4. Where’s the evidence of a death threat, other than a confession at Tom Nelson’s blog?
    5. (Oh, and didn’t you notice my very strong opposition to death and rape threats? Didn’t you notice it? Huh? Huh?)

    — frank

  58. #58 monty
    June 25, 2011

    GSW
    I assume you and your fellow denialists think the Mann ‘hockey stick’ is broken. If so, how do you account for all the other proxy (and non-tree) records which show hockey sticks? Coincidence….or maybe giving us true insight into the nature of present climate compared with the past?

  59. monty, GSW claims that the death and rape threats against climate scientists and their families, and Tim Blair’s blog post, and Lippmann’s proud confession were all made up by climate folks to make the noble climate inactivists look bad. I think that, in a way, answers your question.

    — frank

  60. Besides responding at Nelson’s blog, I also e-mailed Lippmann with the address given by Lambert:

    > Hey Lippmann,

    > I am a blogger at Decoding SwiftHack ( http://climategate.tk/ ). I refer to your blog comment at Tom Nelson’s blog about your e-mail to Australian FASTS executive director Anna-Maria Arabia; you said,

    > > I am the supposed culprit [who e-mailed Arabia]. I read how horrified she was that people were calling climate scientists “Nazis”, so I Googled for her email and did my usual Nazi Bitch Whore litany, like I do every day.

    > I’m curious to know where you knew of the existence of Anna-Maria Arabia in the first place. Did you know about her through Andrew Bolt’s blog?

    — frank

  61. #61 jrkrideau
    June 25, 2011

    @ chek
    “On the bright side, the fall of Wegman will bring that whole rotten edifice down with him. ” chek

    Oh ye of little faith!

    “Harold Camping’s prediction that the world will end Saturday, May 21, 2011, is not his first such prediction. In 1992, the evangelist published a book called 1994?, which proclaimed that sometime in mid-September 1994, Christ would return and the world would end.”

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2072678_2072683_2072703,00.html #ixzz1QJt2JGbT

    He appears to be betting on some time in October 2011 now. Third time lucky?

    Wegman is simply a badly maligned soul persecuted by the unbelievers. ( DC, JM are you listening?)

    Heck Andrew Wakefield is a hero!

    Once this deep into a cult it’s had to get people out.

  62. #62 Eli Rabett
    June 25, 2011

    Eli prefers rejectionist.

    Has Arabia complained to the US Embassy in Australia. Are they aware of this?

  63. #63 bill
    June 25, 2011

    If Lippman claims he got Arabia’s name from Bolt we have a story.

    The fact that the usual suspects (e.g. see above) will immediately start applying the entire sordid, obfuscationist, implausible-deniability bag of tricks to the admission only adds to this story.

    I have yet to encounter any site in this discussion with a lower signal-to-noise ratio than Montord’s blog and the comments below it. I notice he showed up over at The Conversation to plug his book and have a run-in with John Mashey. Climategate lives! apparently; it’s as if all those exonerating inquiries and multiple independent Hockeystick reconstructions have simply never happened…

  64. #64 Möbius Ecko
    June 25, 2011

    GSW = el gordo or is an el gordo clone or they are all so similar their posts are indistinguishable.

  65. #65 Militant Agnostic
    June 25, 2011

    Ian Forrester @ 55

    From your link

    “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.'” – Lippman claims that “the flu shot that is now given to children contains 1,600 times as much mercury as a can of tuna.”

    So we have an antivaxer as well as an AGW denialist. Colour me unsurprised. I am willing to bet he claims HIV doesn’t cause AIDS and fluoridation is evil. I think we have crackpot bingo here. After making specific death threats against the doctor, why isn’t he in custody? He is obviously mentally ill.

  66. #66 GSW
    June 26, 2011

    Very quiet in here. Anyone heard from Lippmann yet? ;)

  67. #67 rhwombat
    June 26, 2011

    GSW@65: No, but some of your mates have dropped by other threads. Nice company you denialists keep.

  68. #68 GSW
    June 26, 2011

    @rhwombat

    Starting to look as though the whole

    “blog confession with a list of his qualifications and contact details (should anybody want to have a go)”

    is a bit of a pup, don’t you think?

  69. #69 John
    June 26, 2011

    Lippmann admits having sent the threat and has form for similar behaviour in the past. In GSW’s mind his refusal to admit to speak with us must mean he’s innocent. Or perhaps GSW thinks it was all a hilarious prank us dummies took seriously. It wasn’t a real threat! It was just a bloke having a laugh! Ha ha! Hilarious!

    GSW – psycopathic behaviour enabler.

    Deep down I think he pleasures in and believe scientists deserve it. Perhaps he’s hoping it will shut them up for good.

  70. #70 GSW
    June 26, 2011

    @John

    “Lippmann admits having sent the threat and has form for similar behaviour in the past”

    “Lippmann admits” is an unsubstantiated a blog confession (with his contact details attached!). For all I know you sent it (not accusing you, but who knows)

    “form for similar behaviour in the past”, you think he would make a good scapegoat then?

    “us dummies took seriously” you are saying you didn’t?

    Thats how propaganda works, some people are absolutely certain that 2+2 can equal 5 if you gloss over the detail and 5 is the answer they want.

    Oh and I’m not that interested what you think “Deep down”.

  71. #71 John
    June 26, 2011

    Allow me to quote myself in response:

    >GSW – psycopathic behaviour enabler.

  72. #72 GSW
    June 26, 2011

    @70

    ;)

  73. #73 It's the Sun
    June 26, 2011

    Thats how propaganda works, some people are absolutely certain that 2+2 can equal 5 if you gloss over the detail and 5 is the answer they want.

    Case in point. Some people are absolutely certain the Sun must be causing some surface warming even though the Stratosphere is getting cooler.

  74. GSW:

    > “Lippmann admits” is an unsubstantiated a blog confession (with his contact details attached!). For all I know you sent it (not accusing you, but who knows)

    And for all I know, GSW is a automated sockpuppet bot created by a defence contractor who happens to be hired by a law firm which in turn is hired by a denialist think-tank which in turn is hired by an oil company? No, I’m not accusing you, I’m just guessing.

    I demand absolute, convincing proof that you aren’t an automated sockbot, with the same standard of proof as you demand of others. Provide the proof, or shut up.

    — frank

  75. #75 twobob
    June 26, 2011

    That some people can comment on an article before the said article is posted is totally consistent with the whole inactivists modus operandi.
    They “knew” they were right before global warming was ever mentioned just as they “know” that its cause is not anthropogenic even before evidence that global warming is caused by something other than human activity has even been postulated.
    But I do wonder why this clairvoyant ability is only bestowed to societies most foolish and why is it so hard for these “gifted” individuals to get their point across without threats of violence or the use of fraudulent assertions?

  76. #76 sleepy
    June 26, 2011

    #69 – the boring idiot troll GSW is now in Lippmann denial as well, somewhat unsurprisingly.

  77. #77 factoid
    June 27, 2011

    More errors from the fabricators.

    Bolt’s timestamp is the time he updated the story.
    Quite simple really.

    The detail of the alleged email threat is unknown.
    The sender is unknown, regardless of claims by any idiot.

    But enjoy your speculation about an unknown email by an unknown person, unknowingly motivated by a blog posting of unknown time.

    You guys are brilliantly stupid.

  78. factoid:

    So what’s your theory? That someone other than Lippmann somehow miraculously received the name and e-mail address of Anna-Maria Arabia from God Almighty himself — an event which clearly has nothing to do with Andrew Bolt’s blog post — and sent the death threat to her?

    And this real criminal was somehow able to persuade or threaten Lippmann into not revealing that he’s actually been “framed”, even when he’s been e-mailed directly?

    Do you and “GSW” happen to be two sockpuppets operated by the same master?

    — frank

  79. Still no word from Lippmann, not on Nelson’s blog, not on e-mail. Makes me wonder if he thinks he’s some sort of secret operative who’s sworn to secrecy regarding his brave compatriots, or whatever.

    — frank

  80. #80 John
    June 27, 2011

    >Bolt’s timestamp is the time he updated the story. Quite simple really.

    So yeah. That’s not how blogging software actually works.

  81. #81 factoid
    June 27, 2011

    Now I understand this whole debate isn’t about the climate.
    No matter what the issue, you guys make sensational claims without evidence and never fact check a statement.

    Just look at Bolt’s blog. All updated entries are datestamped at the time of the update. Yeah just look.

    Still not a shred of evidence, but the accusations continue.

    Just like AGW, you demand doubters prove an alternative theory without evidence.

  82. OK, Mr. “factoid”. I have a question for you:

    Are you saying that threats to kill and rape climate scientists, climate campaigners, and their families are perfectly OK, as long as we don’t know 100% for sure who’s making those threats?

    — frank

  83. #83 GSW
    June 27, 2011

    @factoid

    “No matter what the issue, you guys make sensational claims without evidence and never fact check a statement.”

    Agree with the rest of what you put as well ;)

  84. GSW: Begone, foul troll.

    * * *

    Repeating my question to Mr. “factoid”:

    Are you saying that threats to kill and rape climate scientists, climate campaigners, and their families are perfectly OK, as long as we don’t know 100% for sure who’s making those threats?

    — frank

  85. #85 chek
    June 27, 2011

    “Just like AGW” says factoid, being unable to read a simple [report](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html) him/herself, obviously preferring the information tainted, filtered and second hand.

    What a maroon.

  86. #86 John
    June 27, 2011

    >Now I understand this whole debate isn’t about the climate. No matter what the issue, you guys make sensational claims without evidence and never fact check a statement.

    There are only so many statements you people make we can fact check.

    If we are talking facts, nowhere in the post does it say Bolt changed the timestamp by hand. Tim merely notes that it had changed. And it has.

    One could suppose that if one wanted to stave off any notion that one’s blog causes people to receive death threats than it might be wise to update the post with an entirely unrelated quotation, but with GSW accusing me of sockpuppeting as Stan Lippmann there are enough conspiracy theorists in the thread already.

  87. #87 GSW
    June 27, 2011

    @chek,John

    He does have a point though – you guys do just seem to make up facts as you along. A lack of thinking (critical or otherwise) is to blame. Must be scary in your head.

  88. #88 John
    June 27, 2011

    >He does have a point though – you guys do just seem to make up facts as you along. A lack of thinking (critical or otherwise) is to blame. Must be scary in your head.

    Odd coming from someone who has changed his argument multiple times.

  89. #89 Bernard J.
    June 27, 2011

    Troll.

    Let’s play a game.

    Pick your best piece of killer evidence against the science of global warming, and lay it out here as your case. A few paragraphs should be sufficient, with references please, and any other evidence as you see fit.

    Your best case – and then we’ll see how it stands up to real science.

    My guess is that you can’t do it.

  90. #90 John
    June 27, 2011

    My guess is his response will be:

    “;)”

  91. #91 Alex
    June 27, 2011

    It’s past time to call these people out as terrorists. This is terrorism, right? The use or threat of individual assassination for your political goals.

  92. #92 GSW
    June 27, 2011

    @Bernard

    I am happy for you to keep playing with yourself.

    @John
    ;)

  93. #93 GSW
    June 27, 2011

    @John

    I think this is another example;

    “Odd coming from someone who has changed his argument multiple times.”

    Where did that “fact” come from?

  94. Well, it looks like GSW’s current hobbies are

    1. insinuate that all the climate folks who report death and rape threats are liars, while being ‘offended’ when anyone exposes his prevarications;
    2. seek out any comments that can be construed as being climate ‘skeptic’ and reply with a content-free ‘I agree’ or ‘you’re right’ or ‘indeed’ or equivalent;
    3. respond to all questions with a content-free “:)”.

    What are the chances that GSW is, um, not a software bot?

    * * *

    Alex:

    The real question isn’t what we call them, but what we do about them.

    — frank

  95. As a side note, I wonder how many more paraphrasings of “I agree” there are that the GSWbot has yet to use. We do know that the GSWbot has only one emoticon in its bot database, which is “;)”.

    — frank

  96. #96 GSW
    June 27, 2011

    @John

    Seriously though, it must be really scary. BTW are you the same John that was concerned (precautionary principle) about the bed to floor chasm?

  97. GSWbot continues to show how ‘shocked’ he is at the death and rape threats.

    — frank

  98. #98 John
    June 27, 2011

    >Where did that “fact” come from?

    ;)

  99. It’s clear that GSWbot’s response to the reports of death threats and rape threats against climate folks and their families is furiously carpet-bomb this blog with content-free bullshit.

    Do we still kid ourselves into believing that the situation will be turned around if climate researchers merely try to calmly, dispassionately lay out the facts in a series of essays?

    — frank

  100. A call from commenter “livinginabox” at ClimateSight:

    > Every scientist need to realise, it is only a matter of time before their paper is singled-out for a well-funded; orchestrated and perpetual campaign of vilification.

    > Scientists need to support one another, some kind of science defence association is needed. All respectable publishing scientists need to hang together, or it’s certain they will all hang separately.

    > As Martin Niemoeller remarked:

    > > ‘First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.’

    > One need only consider Professor Michael Mann’s experiences: repeated fishing expeditions [Cuccinelli]; Wegman Report; FOI blizzard; CRU hack; hate-campaigns; witch-hunts and serial victim of malicious false accusations & etc. How would YOU cope?

    > You know what needs to be done!

Current ye@r *