Australian Climate Scientists get death threats

The Canberra Times reports

Australia's leading climate change scientists are being targeted by a vicious, unrelenting email campaign that has resulted in police investigations of death threats.

The Australian National University has confirmed it moved several high-profile climate scientists, economists and policy researchers into more secure buildings, following explicit threats to their personal safety.

Whoever could be inciting people to make such threats? Oh look, here's Tim Blair's response to the news:

But on the weekend we discovered that it only takes a few emails to scare climate scientists clean out of their laboratories. "It's completely intolerable that people be subjected to this sort of abuse," said the Australian National University's Professor Ian Young, who claimed that scientists had been moved to a safer location due to what he described as death threats. "Academics and scientists are actually really not equipped to be treated in this way," he said.

Well, that's not the message we got from their climate rap. "Perhaps," replied reader George Rock, "they shouldn't call people motherf ... ers if they don't want to fight."

Notice that he's not even bothering to pay lip service to the notion that maybe there is something wrong with sending death threats?

Also in that column you'll find Blair, who is the opinion editor for the Daily Telegraph, lambasting a PhD student for pitching a "climate change for dummies" opinion piece to him. Apparently that is insulting to Daily Telegraph readers who all understand radiation physics perfectly.

See also: Joe Romm, tigtog and my post last year on the hate mail campaign against climate scientists.

More like this

Rosslyn Beeby at The Canberra Times follows up her earlier story: (Hat tip Dave McRae): Two of the most shocking cases involved young women who have had little media experience or exposure. One was invited to speak on climate change at a suburban library. Her brief was simple - talk about everyday…
Even when we have video of a death threat there are those who try to deny that scientists have been threatened. Like, oh, The Australian. Media Watch reports on media coverage of death threats on climate scientists: One news outlet comes out of it, in our opinion, almost unscathed: Fairfax Media's…
Tim Blair, The inconvenient truths about Al Gore's hot-air footprint: Al Gore is fat. Note that this was a column in the Daily Telegraph, so presumably there was an editor who could have saved a lot of ink and paper by trimming Blair's column down to just 11 letters. 'Shorter' concept created by…
Newsweek has a good story on the global warming denial industry: Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and…

Wow,

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

Quoting from the Australian,

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

But quoting the article you've linked,

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

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

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

By Alex Harvey (not verified) on 04 May 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

By Alex Harvey (not verified) on 04 May 2012 #permalink

Hi guys. Thought I might bump this thread up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[really](http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/05/07/hate-campaign-against-climate-scien…)?

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 May 2012 #permalink

James, why are you lying?

>no warming for 15 years

Wat

>no melting Arctic

huh

>GBR still there

Strawman

>no islands inundated

Misleading

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

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

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

Alex Harvey,

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

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

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

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

In the case of the 30 or so climate scientists mentioned previously, many received hate emails that were well beyond the pale. And yes, there were specific threats of violence, sexual assault and worse. In the most stomach-churning case, a womanâs children â a toddler and a pre-schooler â were named and threatened. Why wouldnât she be rattled? She received those emails because she agreed to be photographed by a local newspaper to promote a community tree-planting event, and was briefly quoted as urging people to come along and plant trees to mitigate climate change. Disagree by all means, but write a letter to the newspaperâs editor, and sign it.

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

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

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

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

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

Well said Tim (Tim Lambert).

These cowardly denialists are making Australia a laughing stock. The press' spin meisters are running a close second to them.

If you make a death threat to try and stop research, that rather strongly suggests that you DON'T believe the research results are bullshit.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 05 Jun 2011 #permalink

The piñata of stupid again broken by Blair.

By Bill O'Slatter (not verified) on 05 Jun 2011 #permalink

You've got to love "what he described as death threats". Not actual death threats, mind you, just something that someone might have interpreted that way. Poorly phrased billets doux, perhaps.

By Hercules Grytp… (not verified) on 05 Jun 2011 #permalink

It's amazing that such people continue to fail in seeing that their antics are akin to those of creationist, exposing their argument as ideological and nothing more. Being the proud owner of more than a few fully functional brain cells leaves one able to argue on evidence and reason; not having to resort to bullying and intimidation.
It's disgusting that this behaviour persists into the modern age.

What a load of garbage its the old style message of attention seeking..making out one has received a deaththreat..fortunatley most are awake to it..but its a shame valuable police time is wasted on this and oh of course a day before climate change protest

By Robert Ellis (not verified) on 05 Jun 2011 #permalink

I don't suppose anyone caught QandA last week, where the mildly offensive George Brandis trotted out this gem:

the Coalitions' position is and always has been that we accept that the majority of scientific opinion is that climate change is a reality and that human activity is a contributor to it and there is a debate among scientists and among specialists as to the extent to which human activity contributes to it.

There is a minority point of view which perhaps this gentleman represents.Now, that's at variance with most scientific opinion but we don't de-legitimise people who are sceptics. We don't say, well, because you don't go along with the group think of the climate scientist that you have - you're not welcome in this debate, which is the approach that was pioneered when she was the minister by Penny Wong and is now being articulated again by Julia Gillard and every one of her front bench.

Well, George, there is a fair bit of de-legitimising coming from the skeptics side, isn't there? Even from within your own party. How about the one's carrying signs that said Julia was 'Bob Brown's bitch', that Tony carefully positioned himself under a month or two back?

Everything's all set up for a violent incident, but the coalition can just step back and say, "what, us?" No we have a climate change policy. We don't support violence against scientists.

But really, you do...

I'm surprised old glass jaw hasn't advised the ANU to send in the lawyers.

haviing read the article, I am changed. A great light has shone on me and I have been enlightened.

It's simple; the whole climate change whatsit is a conspiracy against me and my mates who like to watch footy on our flat-screens and drink a lot of VB(Victoria Bitter). It's all about class war between the sneering scientists who hate us bogans, even if we are cashed up(CUB).

The whole article is a ridiculous straw man argument. As noted, the dismissive attitude towards death threats is disgusting.

Just wondering, but if journalists/columnists on his paper were getting death threats, how would he react?

The denialists are getting more hysterical and detached from reality. Their world view is about to implode under the weight of evidence.

@6: Well- look what the IPA Sturmabteilung dragged in.

This would be the same Tim Blair who goes running to the lawyers every time an internet meanie hurts his feelings?

By Little Miss Sunshine (not verified) on 05 Jun 2011 #permalink

Robert Ellis opines:

>What a load of garbage its the old style message of attention seeking..making out one has received a deaththreat

I have no doubt at all that they've received death threats for simply doing their work.

I have personally been threatened with extreme violence on another forum for calling deniers on their false claims. At least I have the luxury of the semi-anonymity that I have maintained, so those threats are largely hollow, although it has meant that I've had to cancel a meeting later in the year, where my presence would have been made known to the person threatening me.

Will Steffen and the other climate scientists at ANU don't have that luxury of anonymity, and even if the people threatening them don't have the guts to actually kill someone, they could still very well attempt violence or property damage.

Frankly, I think that the police should be taking this very seriously, and that every conservative politician and shock-jock should be screaming from the roof-tops about how such vicious intimidation is absolutely intolerable. Watch instead for dog-whistling and other sly implications of tacit tolerance...

And Bobby-boy, if someone said that all deniers should be lined up and shot, how would you feel about that?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 05 Jun 2011 #permalink

@Bernard J

Will Steffen and the other climate scientists at ANU don't have that luxury of anonymity, and even if the people threatening them don't have the guts to actually kill someone, they could still very well attempt violence or property damage.
Frankly, I think that the police should be taking this very seriously ...

Of course they must take it very seriously. There is a history of bombings in Australia by right wing crazies. For example the local Nazis bombed the Brisbane office of the Communist Party in 1972 and there have been a number of bombings of left wing bookshops over the years. Even without an intent to kill it could very well happen.

Scientists, leftists, communists - it's all the same to some cranks.

One should not think these things cannot happen in Australia - they have and most likely will again sometime. There is no option but to take it seriously.

Also does it seem to anyone else that Blair is using his role as opinion editor to silence dissenting opinion?

By Little Miss Sunshine (not verified) on 05 Jun 2011 #permalink

Quick message to Tim Blair and George Rock:

PLEASE. GO. TO. HELL.

* * *

Seriously, how can anyone even justify someone threatening to rape someone else's family? Why isn't the Telegraph being buried in protest letters even as I write this?

-- frank

The denier apologists want to keep climate scientists out of their labs. I have always suspected that Moncton/Micheals/Watts/Idso et al know the truth about C02 and the temperature record.

The admission that their purpose is to stop the research confirms my suspicion. If deniers truly believed the science is wrong they would welcome more research.

By John McManus (not verified) on 06 Jun 2011 #permalink

Does anyone have a list -- or lists -- of deniers' family members and friends? Perhaps we can put such a list together and state publicly, for the record, that we will not rape, molest, sodomize, or otherwise sexually assault them, and we will not threaten to rape, molest, sodomize, or otherwise sexually assault them.

That'll drive the denialists absolutely bonkers!

-- frank

Lotharsson's comment at #2 cannot be emphasized too strongly: nobody is menaced by research that's patently bogus.

By Jeffrey Davis (not verified) on 06 Jun 2011 #permalink

This is what a civil discourse between a climate scientist and contrarian looks like.
The questioner in the video, Gordon Alderson, is the Family First Candidate for the seat of Orio.

By Uncle Buck (not verified) on 06 Jun 2011 #permalink

@#18 - Jeffrey Davis

Really? I took it as sneaky mockery of the "you wouldn't tell us we were wrong if we weren't right" meme that's common among all stripes of denialism. After all, bogus research that leads to a reduction of profits is the Greatest Menace Imaginable.

I'm with you frank, that's what Edward De Bono would do.

>This is starting to get coverage in the UK with The Guardian and The Telegraph covering the story. The commentators at The Telegraph are noticably unbothered by it

Lord Sidcup, the commenters at the Telegraph are also noticably unbothered by a commitment to fact. Nor do they bother with even a vague concession to logic.

As evidence may I proffer the meanderings of...

mhc:

>Given that trillions of Dollars in earnings are dependent on Global warming and not a cent on Global cooling, it is not surprising that sceptics are side lined to defend massive profits.

>Add to that, the reputations that are at stake, there is no way of finding out truth.

>The same tables can be used to show the temperature has increased or decreased. You just change the starting point.

aelfrith:

>This issue has become so convoluted with claims and counter-claims on all sides that the first question I find me asking myself is "Is this sceptics threatening these people or is it greens threatening to make it look like sceptics are unreasonable and out of control?"

>In truth I doubt if I'll ever know as, just with the debate itself, I suspect hardly anyone knows what is really going on and the few that do are never going to tell the truth.

kiml (this is just bizarrre, although the spaces before the punctuation marks suggest especially poor education):

>What I strongly suggest is that a good , honest , objective and fully scientific in depth appraisal be done on the whole AGW \ ACC issue before we move any further as a World .

>At the moment all we have got is a lot of poor science , a lot of politics , a lot of bad media and a lot of money being flung about . We need to put that all aside and to get down to the cold hard facts .

>The evaluation has to be started off at the basics and each statement has to be tested and proven \ dis-proven . The method has to be agreed to by all . It has to be set up properly . It has to be duplicated . There must be no conjecture - everything must be proven step by step .

>This would mean rolling everything back to the basic statements and testing them in the laboratory . For example - one of the most fundamental statements is that a rise in CO2 causes warming . Both this and the opposite - that warming causes a rise in CO2 - can be tested in properly set up laboratory conditions - in atmospheric chambers .

>Ultimately the science will prove the truth of the situation . Set up the Climate Laboratory - run the science - get the truth .

bufo75:

>Wishful thinking, it's long since ceased to be about the 'science', it's now all about politics, and whilst one side receives 12,000 times more funding than the other I can't see that we'll 'get the truth'.

And on it goes...

I apologise for the heavy quoting, but it staggers me not only that people can flippantly disregard active threats to scientists, but that they think that the science is uncertain fluff unfairly funded tens of thousands of times more than woo alternatives.

If our lay publics are this ignorant, our societies will never act in sufficent time to effectively mitigate against serious climate change.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 06 Jun 2011 #permalink

"It's amazing that such people continue to fail in seeing that their antics are akin to those of creationist"

More like Brown Shirts.

By Jim Eager (not verified) on 06 Jun 2011 #permalink

No police investigation?! "Hate crimes" are never perpetrated by activists...oh no, never! All those nooses and swasticas that were drawn on their own office door or put out on their own front tree by lefty activists? Never happened!

Googling "fake hate crime" is not for us!

Us Children of One Earth obey the most famous warmist of all, Dr. Charlie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmPzLzj-3XY

-=WE OBEY CLIMATE COPS=- http://oi52.tinypic.com/wlt4i8.jpg

-=WE OBEY CLIMATE CRIMINALS=- http://oi52.tinypic.com/1zqu71i.jpg

By NikFromNYC (not verified) on 06 Jun 2011 #permalink

> -= ABEND =-
>
> -= REDO FROM START =-

oh dear. could someone reboot Nik?

The UK Daily Telegraph has of course always been a class act, providing as it does practically the only public exposure of leading British intellectuals such as Christopher "asbestos talc" Booker and James "interpretation interpreter" Delingpole, amongst others.

No doubt one of the reasons global intelligentsia of the calibre of Nik-"blame the victim"-fromNYC enjoys it so much.

If any of the deniers get tazered will a video go up o Youtube?

By John McManus (not verified) on 06 Jun 2011 #permalink

> > Does anyone have a list -- or lists -- of deniers' family members and friends? Perhaps we can put such a list together and state publicly, for the record, that we will not rape, molest, sodomize, or otherwise sexually assault them, and we will not threaten to rape, molest, sodomize, or otherwise sexually assault them.

> I'm with you frank, that's what Edward De Bono would do.

Thanks Mandrake. Here's a candidate for starters: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/a-new-id/

I hereby pledge that I will not rape or threaten to rape 'skeptic' Jeff Id's wife or baby, and that I will not condone any attempts to do so.

Come on, inactivists. Prove your superior morals.

-- frank

Plenty of people and groups have 'form' in this area -- Greenpeace with its "we know where you live" polemic, 10/10 ("blow up your chilldren"), James Hansen (Nuremburg trials), James Hoggan (war criminals), Joe Romm (strangling) and on and on.

Issuing death threats is cowardly, stupid and self-defeating.

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 06 Jun 2011 #permalink

Given that a senior politician (Peter Phelps) at ABC's The Drum has recently been accusing scientists of 'operating in parallel with their socialist brothers' and claiming that - 'At the heart of many scientists - but not all scientists - lies the heart of a totalitarian planner' and "some of the strongest supporters of totalitarian regimes in the last century have been scientists', I'm not surprise that there are people who have come to literally see them as enemies deserving of extermination in pursuit of their non-totalitarian ideals. Death threats are a consequence of the kind of rhetoric people like Phelps espouse and Abbott tolerates and even encourages. I suspect this climate will continue to get worse, not better. At least until we get a crop of pollies capable of standing up and speaking out against the fringe nutters - instead of encouraging them for short term electoral gain.

By Ken Fabos (not verified) on 06 Jun 2011 #permalink

This only scratches the surface of the amount of abuse scientists get. If they really wanted to even the score they should publish it. Names, emails, IP addresses, phone numbers, everything.

What ever else one may say about climate science denier, Sen. Joyce, he has at least the good sense to defend freedom of speech and the right of climate scientists to it. A shame that other politicians have taken their time to express the same sentiments.

It is of course outrageous that anyone, climate scientists or deniers of climate science conclusions should be subject to threats for expressing their views. The police will, one sincerely hopes, identify those who threaten violence on anyone for freely expressing their views on climate science or any other subject.

By Mike Pope (not verified) on 06 Jun 2011 #permalink

This is part of the reason why I retired by own blog, Watching the Deniers.

The day I was compared to a pedophile priest I knew I'd had enough. When my readers started to get ominous emails about being "visited" by sceptics - deniers - I knew I had to stop.

When the deniers started emailing the family members of my readers I knew it was enough. People who'd never read my blog, whose only *crime* was to have someone in their family read my blog...

This is the level we've reached.

So dear deniers who read this.. go on. Explain that behaviour. Give justification.

There is nothing, now form of low behaviour these people will resort too to intimidate, threaten and silence.

But will the Bolt's of the world stop and think of the hate they have created, the vile they have generated and the attack on science?

No... of course not.

Sadly, history will be the only judge. The Murdoch Hate machine grinds on, and on.

Moth and I have been discussing this the relentless assault on climate scientists and activists here:

https://newanthropocene.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/demonizing-the-forward…

By Watching the deniers (not verified) on 06 Jun 2011 #permalink

The poor dears. Why don't they just tuffen up ?!

By Billy Bob Hall (not verified) on 06 Jun 2011 #permalink

>"What ever else one may say about climate science denier, Sen. Joyce, he has at least the good sense to defend freedom of speech and the right of climate scientists to it."

And I thought it was about science not human rights!

Attacking scientists is a political move, it has nothing to do with knowledge and science. The question of free speech shouldn't even be an issue. The issue is climate change and science.

Let the police crack down on the abusive emailers that can not express themselves without harming others.

>Plenty of people and groups have 'form' in this area -- 10/10 ("blow up your chilldren")...

The difference being that it wasn't a targeted personal attack and they admitted it was a mistake, withdrawing the movie.
It was the deniers that copied the movie and continued to show it illegally (without copyright permission).

So who has form?

Wouldn't it be interesting to use FOI requests to access the climate scientists' emails, specifically to find the variety of threats and attempts at intimidation. That would serve the dual purpose of exposing the deniers' email addresses etc, and also frees the climate scientists of the ethical bind of keeping their hate email confidential. Not that I condone this use of FOI's, this is just a hypothetical, okay?

However, I suspect the university will play it safe and refuse to release such emails. Still, it might be worth a try...we could post the results here :-)

By Donald Oats (not verified) on 06 Jun 2011 #permalink

Mandrake that looked like Joe Cambria on a good day. Bird on a so-so day.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 06 Jun 2011 #permalink

> 10/10 ("blow up your chilldren")...

So, you reckon that Friday 13th is a documentary telling people to use a chainsaw to kill kids...?

You may want to read up about the word "Fiction".

Ask a grown-up for help over the bigger words.

> No police investigation?! "Hate crimes" are never perpetrated by activists.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/24/ratcliffe-protesters-…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/26/mark-kennedy-undercov…

Hate crimes are not perpetrated by activitsts acting for the good of humanity (that would be counter productive), but they DO harm the profit levels of some of the wealthiest individuals and corporations on the planet, so they're investigated far FAR more often.

It's the same with the Rep/Dem activities. When Shrub was in power, someone with an anti-Shrub T-shirt was arrested and detained as a risk to security at a GOP rally.

Only after a bullet went through a democrat window did the police get involved, despite the rhetoric about "second amendment solutions" on the Telly and from Teabagger heads.

Why? They protect the profits of corporations, so need to be sheltered.

>Quoted@41 from an email -- You lying [beep]sucker! How much did you take to blurt out that climate change bullshit? The IPCC was completely disgraced over a year ago and now you are too.. [beep] YOU SCUMBAG!

Erm... I think I have met that person a few times on some web sites.

I hope the police are really busy investigating these threats.
Has there been any progress ?

By No Worries (not verified) on 07 Jun 2011 #permalink

> James Hansen (Nuremburg trials), James Hoggan (war criminals)

Rick, don't you think that there is a difference between death threats and threatening people with the rule of law?

Denialists are killing people in large numbers, and they know, or ought to know it. No different from tobacco. Do you have a problem in principle with that being established to the standard of criminal law ("beyond reasonable doubt"), and leading to consequences for the perpetrators?

By Martin Vermeer (not verified) on 07 Jun 2011 #permalink

Apparently, the law courts are only there to kill people, according to Rick and that a trial is exactly the same as having no trial at all.

Really shows how he thinks, doesn't it.

First and foremost, my thoughts and support to the scientists. What a bloody nightmare.

Second, please tell me that the police are involved and that the ISPs are cooperating.

Third, these revelations really reveal what the denialist movement is all about (intimidate, distract etc.), and the actions in question are indefensible, period. Pathetic attempts by people like Tim Blair are laughable, are they so embroiled in their delusion that they fail to see that by doing so they are encouraging criminal behaviour and violence?

What is clear, is that as the reality that global warming is in fact very real and is having some nasty consequences dawns in their dim minds, they are now becoming even more deluded, hysterical and mean-spirited.

As for Blair's laughable claim "Well, that's not the message we got from their climate rap. "Perhaps," replied reader George Rock, "they shouldn't call people motherf ... ers if they don't want to fight".

Blair really ought to be better informed, climate scientists have been fighting the good fight for decades now, sometimes at great personal loss, and they long ago grew tired of the games being played by despicable and discredited people like Blair, Delingpole, Bolt, Morano and McIntyre (and so many others with their heads firmly buried in the ground/gutter)-- so pardon me if some of them, being humans and all, get a tad upset when they and they and their families are threatened with violence by hateful ideologues.

Further, the people with balls of steel and fortitude are in fact climate scientists-- people like Mann, Hansen, Santer, Schneider, and (if they'll forgive me for using their names in this analogy), Susan Solomon and Oreskes...

The deniers know that they can never aspire to have the courage, wisdom and foresight that these upstanding scientists have, and that apparently makes them very angry. But that is their problem and failing, not that of the scientists.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 07 Jun 2011 #permalink

I'd like to know who called "people" "mother f-ers".

I can't remember Hansen standing up in a TV show calling people that.

I can't remember any scientist doing that.

Wow @50,

It was from the Hungry Beast vid that featured a while ago. And is was made in reference to people who deny the existence of the greenhouse effect claiming that it is only a 'theory'.

"[denier] The greenhouse effect is just a theory sucker; [scientists] Yes, so is gravity, float away mother....". Too funny :)

To my knowledge non of the (multitude of) climate scientists who have received threats over the years were in the video.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 07 Jun 2011 #permalink

re: pough@18

People usually just tell ignorant pests to bugger off.

By Jeffrey Davis (not verified) on 07 Jun 2011 #permalink

The ABC's war on facts

This opinion piece from Ted Lapkin appeared on the ABC Drum 28 April 2011.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/387130.html

The ABC policy for opinion pieces is that the views of others should not be distorted.

After putting in a complaint that by omission of the full quote Lapkin had distorted the original meaning of Prof Schneider's plea I have received the following reply from Claire Gorman, AACA

"Of relevance to your concerns however the principles state "The accuracy standard requires that opinions be conveyed accurately, in the sense that quotes should be accurate and any editing should not distort the meaning of the opinion expressed."

On review we note that in editing the quote, Ted Lapkin is highlighting one of the points made by Schneider about the manner in which scientists might act in the face of an issue. We are of the view that he does not misrepresent Schneider on this point. He merely omits the second key point made by Schneider that: "This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

Accordingly, we are of the view that there has been no breach of editorial standards in the use of this quotation.

Thank you again for taking the time to write and express your views.

Yours sincerely

Claire M Gorman
Audience and Consumer Affairs

By john byatt (not verified) on 07 Jun 2011 #permalink

This is the relevant quote from Lapkin that the ABC claims is not misrepresentation

In a moment of unguarded candour, a major climate change guru once explained why he and his ideological fellow travellers didn't hesitate to play fast and loose with the truth. This revelation came during a 1989 interview with Discover Magazine, when Stanford Professor of Global Change Stephen Scheider said: âWe are not just scientists, but human beings as well. Like most people weâd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the publicâs imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.â

yer right

By john byatt (not verified) on 07 Jun 2011 #permalink

John Byatt.

What would need to happen for the generously-forgiving AACA to take the distortion of intent a little more seriously would be for Schneider to personally lodge a complaint, which of course is impossible now.

Perhaps if his estate, or a legal representative thereof, protested the committee might take it a little more seriously.

Either that, or suggest to Mediawatch that they focus on it - they've been very much on the ball this year with media issues relating to the misreperesentation of climate science, and 5 minutes of national shaming would have a greater effect than an obscure online apology for the Drum piece.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Jun 2011 #permalink

Sent it on to Media watch Bernard, ignored

By john byatt (not verified) on 07 Jun 2011 #permalink

Hi guys. Where's Marcel Kincaid? What about that bloke who endorsed his comments, scientist Jeff Harvey?

>Sent it on to Media watch Bernard, ignored

Heh, I'm a little surprised and disappointed to hear that John.

Perhaps a few more emails from some more of us will convince them to include it with another piece on media perfidy in the climate change arena.

I'll contact them too, and see what they say. In fact, I might even tell them that I'll let the thread know what they say...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Jun 2011 #permalink

The ABC is excessively harsh in the neverending quest for "balance" now. Lying by omission is acceptable as long as you hold an opposing point of view, but God forbid the response if a piece by Tim Flannery resorted to such cheap tricks.

James,

You must be REALLY desperate to wade in here by saying that I endorsed the comments of an aggressive contributor. Some of the scientific arguments Marcel said I agreed with, if not with his tone. But during the Lomborg brouhaha (I co-reviewed his tome for Nature and was one of his more vocal critics) I was called names on prominent web sites by well known pundits that were profoundly shameful, to say the least. At the same time, I received a lot of virus-laden emails and even a few insulting emails. I just ignored them. But it happened, nevertheless.

One pundit at the Reason Foundation called me a 'green harpy' on his blog for challenging Lomborg; others have said far worse. Dutch anti-environmental blogs (and even a few media sources here) were pretty insulting too. In the case of scientists, many of us have been called stuff that defies belief; if one had to equate the two sides, its clear that most of the hate and invective BY FAR comes from the deniers/anti-environmentalists. Heck, I even give invited lectures on the subject. So the fact that climate scientists receive death threats is hardly surprising to me.

That's why its pretty rich of you to dredge up one supporting comment I made on a threat here last year about Marcel Kincaid's posts, which represent a molehill of the tiniest proportions. My suggestion is that you take your pedantics elsewhere.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 Jun 2011 #permalink

John Bryatt @54, I too have had this experience with the ABC Complaints Dept. I am disappointed to hear of your experience with them, but unfortunately am no longer surprised.

By Donald Oats (not verified) on 07 Jun 2011 #permalink

John Bryatt @54, I too have had this experience with the ABC Complaints Dept. I am disappointed to hear of your experience with them, but unfortunately am no longer surprised.

By Donald Oats (not verified) on 07 Jun 2011 #permalink

This was your comment, Jeff.

"I am with Marcel 100% on this. It is not a civil debate because there should not really be a debate at all. By now, given the volumes of scientific evidence in favor of AGW, we should have moved on well into the policy arena. I think that, for the most part, those in denial do not deserve to be treated with anything other than contempt.

The issue of climate change finds scientists on the one side who are doing the research and who are in broad agreement over the issue; on the other side there is a hodge-podge assortment of different characters pushing various agendas. Their primary agenda, as I see it, is a political one, based on a far right idealogy which loathes the role of the government in the economy. Scientists are naturally sceptical but accept the burgeoning evidence behind AGW whereas the other side lies, distorts and twists the empirical data in support of a pre-determined worldview.

Speaking 'from the inside' (as a scientist) it is my opinion that the deniers do not deserve to be treated as intellectual equals. This is the way I see it, hence why I have no problem supporting Marcel's approach to them. In this case, I believe his derision of them and their arguments is correct.

Katherine (above) and Clive Hamilton alluded to the anti-intellectual culture that is embraced by many in the United States (and Europe for that matter), and this culture fits in well with right wing populism and a hatred of science and scientists. Anti-environmentalism and the growing backlash against evidence for AGW fits in well with this agenda."

How contemptibly arrogant of you to demand blind acceptance in the absence of a real debate. I'm not sure how you are funded, but science in Australia is funded largely by the taxpayer. Who do you think you are?

If your "science" has legs, then you should never have allowed your wagon to be hitched to Al Gore's horse. You (collectively speaking) should have been open and honest with your methods and data. You should have not manipulated the peer review process.

You want our money? Justify it. Because in this country (Australia) we're not buying it. The reason we're not buying it is because we think it's garbage. And it's not the fault of Big Oil or shock jocks, it's the failure to come to pass of all the grave predictions of Al Gore, Tim Flannery, and the like. If you had made your case, we're not a stupid nor a non-generous bunch, we'd be all aboard any decent solution.

If AGW is real, then the blame for it not being accepted lies entirely with you, Marcel and your kind.

Clive Hamilton?? Give me a break!

James, I think that you have just comprehensively proved the absolute accuracy of Jeff's comments, as cited by you. You really expect to 'win' at Deltoid, with this sort of crap?

"James"?? Give me a break!

> How contemptibly arrogant of you to demand blind acceptance in the absence of a real debate.

You seem to have completely missed the extensive real debate that has taken place in the scientific literature over several decades, which rather undermines the point you are trying to make.

> If your "science" has legs, then you should never have allowed your wagon to be hitched to Al Gore's horse.

Regrettably, you get cause and effect back to front, which rather undermines the implication you appear to be trying for, and your other assertions fare little better.

> If you had made your case, we're not a stupid nor a non-generous bunch, we'd be all aboard any decent solution.

You presume facts not in evidence. Indeed, the counter-evidence is fairly compelling.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 07 Jun 2011 #permalink

> It was from the Hungry Beast vid that featured a while ago.

So it wasn't the Scientists in Australia, then.

And it wasn't calling "people" mother f-ers, it was a play. Maybe these people use fiction in place of fact so often they no longer know the difference.

Wombat, of course I don't expect to win at Deltoid. My game is debate and logic. This blog is all about self and mutual affirmation.I just happen to enjoy exposing abject hypocrisy when I see it. Good day to you :)

James. Your game is political propaganda - debate and logic are as much part of your agenda as they are of Tony Abbott's. You only turn up at reality based blogs like Deltoid when there's a panic at the IPA or some other right-wing sheltered workshop, such as when your fellow travellers get exposed to scrutiny outside the Murdocracy. Or do you really believe that the semi-literate goons making death threats are the moral equivalent of Jeff's entirely accurate and reasonable characterisation of you and your ilk as intellectually and morally destitute? I would have said that it is quite reasonable to characterise you as denialist, Koch-sucking, Onanist whore, but I'm a somewhat outspoken and intemperate marsupial. The only abject hypocrisy you expose is your own.

My game is debate and logic

Which you go on to exemplify by means of unsubstantiated accusations of manipulation, secrecy, dishonesty and fabrication on the part of climate scientists.

I just happen to enjoy exposing abject hypocrisy when I see it.

Irony's not your strong suit, is it?

I actually wonder whether the goons sending the emails are not a bunch of scientists trying to engender sympathy for the climate science "profession" when their influence looks like it might be on the wane. The language certainly fits.

I wonder if James is one of the goons sending these emails. His contempt for science and the scientific method certainly fits with the tone of the emails.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 08 Jun 2011 #permalink

*I actually wonder whether the goons sending the emails are not a bunch of scientists trying to engender sympathy for the climate science "profession" when their influence looks like it might be on the wane*

What a load of complete tosh. Nothing more needs to be said about this kind of banal, stupid quip. Its typical of the stuff peddled by the denialists.

With respect to my comment you quoted, James, I stand by it 100 per cent. In my view the majority of those denying the human fingerprint on climate change - as well as downplaying a range of other antrhopogenic threats to the biosphere - are time-wasters who do little research on their own but spend most of their time sniping away at the sidelines at the scientists doring the actual research. Scientists have better things to do thatn to have to engage in 'debates' with know-nothing sceptics, some of whom are on the corporate payroll, or else who are supported by groups wioth a vested interest in denial. Do the antics and tactics of the contrarians piss me off? You bet they do. I have much more important things to do than to have to argue with people who are not at all interested in science but in distorting science to promote their own political and economic agendas. The debate in my view is not at all about science because for the most part that is settled, but about policies that have implications in terms of short-term profits and power.

Your last comment is utterly remarkable in its stupidity: *If AGW is real, then the blame for it not being accepted lies entirely with you, Marcel and your kind*.

Total bullshit. But coming from you its no surprise. The reason it is not accepted is because of the huge amounts of money being invested in denial (its a massive industry worth many billions of dollars involving corporations, think tanks, the public relations industry, and numerous astroturf groups they have set up to influence public opinion) and because for the media controversy sells but consensus doesn't. At the same time, most of the corporate media rely on advertising from industries whose profits hinge on the continued unabated dependence on fossil fuels, or else these industries own the media conglomerates. Even when the media talks about climate change, one should notice that it rarely discusses the means that should be taken to mitigate it, for the simple reason that this will clash with the agendas of their owners/advertisers. One can often find articles about global warming in the pages of the mainstream media juxtaposed with advertisements for cheap flights or SUVs. Its insanity but that is the way the system works. Another factor is that people in the developed world want to have their cake and eat it. They have been convinced through the well-organized denial lobby that any efforts to deal with climate change represent a threat to their way of life. Forget the fact that our way of life is ecologically rapacious and unsustainable, and that things cannot continue along this path indefinitely. Any propaganda which assuages any guilt we have have accrued as part of a generation that is committing ecocide in slow motion will be grasped by many. And the denial industry is using perception management, an important tool in their PR arsenal, to convince the public that we can continue to consume, consume, and consume more natural capital like there is no tomorrow and that there will be no real consequences.

Therefore, to blame scientists like me or bloggers like Marcel for the public's mistrust of scientists takes remarkable hubris, as well as ignorance. However, having seen that the intellectual content of your posts is about as deep as a puddle, it hardly surprises me that you would make such a remark.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Jun 2011 #permalink

"Scientists have better things to do thatn to have to engage in 'debates' with know-nothing sceptics, some of whom are on the corporate payroll, or else who are supported by groups wioth a vested interest in denial."

That's fine mate, then don't come crying to the taxpayers for money.

I love science and scientists. They have been responsible for fixing a number of broken bones and curing a number of ills. In fact they're responsible for pretty well most of the things I enjoy today.

What I detest are those who point to a bunch of letters after their name and seek to change the way people live, and the democratic way our nation is governed, and pay less than lip service to their obligation to explain why. Instead abuse those who ask why.

The world has seen your type before. With horrenous consequences. Now "this time" you may well be right. Who can possibly tell, especially when your modelling doesn't stack up and when the government reverts to telling outright falsehoods to implement the policies that you seek to be implemented. But I can gaurantee you one thing, people like me won't lie down in the face of your calls to authority, your attempts to stifle debate, and most importantly your abuse. We like our freedom and won't surrender it on the whim of a small group of eggheads like you.

"His contempt for science and the scientific method certainly fits with the tone of the emails."

I have no contempt for science. How could I? I am a beneficiary. I do have contempt for a scientific method that excludes those who may question the veracity of certain scientific theories. In fact, I had understood such questioning to be scientific by its very nature.

> I do have contempt for a scientific method that excludes those who may question the veracity of certain scientific theories.

Well that's because there's no science in the statement "That's wrong".

That's just denial.

To be science you have to explain why and how it's wrong and what may be right.

But you don't do that, so you hate the scientific method because it doesn't pander to your feelings.

> In fact, I had understood such questioning to be scientific by its very nature.

Questioning, yes. Refusal to look at evidence is anti-science.

I do have contempt for a scientific method that excludes those who may question the veracity of certain scientific theories.

That is fine if those who question the veracity of scientific theories are following the scientific method themselves. Most of the self-styled sceptics of AGW abondoned the scientific method long ago. They are no longer engaged in science - dysinformation, smears, and now intimidation are their chosen methods.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 08 Jun 2011 #permalink

I said:

> I pledge that I will not rape, molest, or sexually harass James, his family, his friends, or his pets.

> Your turn, James.

And guess what... James, despite all his attempts to sound civil and reasonable, just refuses to condemn the threats to sexually harass climate scientists' families.

As Watching the Deniers said:

> When the deniers started emailing the family members of my readers I knew it was enough. People who'd never read my blog, whose only crime was to have someone in their family read my blog...

> This is the level we've reached.

> So dear deniers who read this.. go on. Explain that behaviour. Give justification.

Come on, James and other so-called 'skeptics'. What freedom-loving reason can you give for threatening families of people who read blogs? What freedom-loving reason can you give for threatening to rape climate scientists' families?

Why won't you answer these questions directly?

-- frank

It's an odd question you ask, Frank. I'm not sure that anything I have written would suggest that I would condone any sort of harrassment and/or abuse.

For the record, I am entirely opposed to such behaviour. And I am entirely opposed to those who would condone it.

Now Frank, what do you think of Jeff's comments? What he is in support of are comments such as "Fuck off and die" and "lying filthy scum".

Slightly shorter James: "I allowed myself to be conned by charlatans, and I now realise I was wrong. I'm upset about that, but can't actually admit it publicly, so I'll deny my own contribution to that deceit, and make myself feel better by lashing out at you, so...MY MISTAKE WAS YOUR FAULT! There, I feel much better now..."

Don't worry James, I'm sensing that recently more and more people have climbed into that boat, people who are finally moving on from denial. Obviously some have only moved as far as anger, but you don't have to get stuck just because they are. Don't beat yourself up about it, we all make mistakes; what's important is that you continue your progress towards acceptence. Dr Kübler-Ross sends her encouragement. We're all on your side, James, but sometimes it takes tough love.

Hugs.

> That's fine mate, then don't come crying to the taxpayers for money.

What a wonderfully stupid non sequitur. Do you deliberately make statements that demonstrate your lack of intellectual clarity, or do they happen without trying?

> I do have contempt for a scientific method that excludes those who may question the veracity of certain scientific theories.

Again you presume facts not in evidence.

> ...and pay less than lip service to their obligation to explain why.

You [don't read much](http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml), do you?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 Jun 2011 #permalink

I do have contempt for a scientific method that excludes those who may question the veracity of certain scientific theories

And thus you hold in contempt all those members of numerous scientific disciplines, the theories they proved and the practices that followed because their members failed to consult you, even though you in all likelihood benefit from one or more of them, correct?

I do have contempt for a scientific method that excludes those who may question the veracity of certain scientific theories.

OK. Now's your chance. The basic science is that
1. CO2 is transparent to visible radiation but absorbs infrared radiation (known for 150 years).
2. Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will therefore tend to increase Earth's average temperature (effect first calculated over 100 years ago).
3. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing (known for 50 years).
4. Most, if not all, of this increase is coming from human activity (also known for 50 years, from several sources).
5. Therefore, anthropogenic global warming can be expected.
6. Multiple lines of evidence indicate that Earth's average temperature is increasing.
7. In addition, increasing the level of atmospheric CO2 will increase the amount dissolved in oceans, resulting in them becoming more acidic.

These are the basic issues, which are all but ignored by denialists. It seems to me that all else is peripheral.

If you want a real debate, perhaps you could tell us which of the above points you disagree with, and present evidence to support your views.

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 08 Jun 2011 #permalink

> And thus you hold in contempt all those members of numerous scientific disciplines, the theories they proved and the practices that followed because their members failed to consult you, even though you in all likelihood benefit from one or more of them, correct?

It's even worse than that, SteveC. He is so clueless about science he falsely claims people are excluded, when he or anyone else can submit a paper for publication to any journal they like, and if it is of sufficient quality it will get published.

(Sure, it might not be of sufficient quality to get published, or it might get massively stomped on in post-publication peer review, or it might prove robust - but those outcomes are patently not exclusion.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 Jun 2011 #permalink

James writes, *That's fine mate, then don't come crying to the taxpayers for money*

I never have, and never will. But its not part of my job description to have to waste my time in which I am supposed to be supervising students, preparing and giving lectures, writing articles for peer-reviewed journals, conducting experiments (you know, doing things a scientist does) responding to polemicists pushing political agendas that they claim are based on science but which is clear are not. When these people give some evidence of doing actual science themselves instead of hounding scientists, then I will take them more seriously. But very few of the denialati actually do any scientific research, or else they have appallingly poor publication records and are very rarely cited in the empirical literature.

The latter part of James' post (# 75) is the usual right wing clap-trap that routinely spews from the mouths of the tea-party-type brigade. *What I detest are those who point to a bunch of letters after their name and seek to change the way people live, and the democratic way our nation is governed, and pay less than lip service to their obligation to explain why. Instead abuse those who ask why*

How can one take any of this bilge seriously? Basically, what James is saying is that although the planet's natural economy may be going to hell in a handbasket, and there is plenty of evidence to show this, damn anyone who wants humanity to change course. He wants us to continue on our blind journey towards the looming precipice, and anyone who says otherwise is anti-democratic.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Jun 2011 #permalink

For someone who prances around wafting self-adulation about his apparent capacity for logic James, you are extraordinarily incompetent in its practice.

One thing that you have convinced me of James, is that the Dunning-Kruger effect is more than just an 'effect', and that it is, to all intents and purposes, a real medical syndrome. It is a psychological pathology, ranging in degree its of manifestation from mild impairment through to serious disease. Not only is it characterised by the DK signature of a delusional inability to quantify and to acknowledge one's own inexpertise, but by a perverse perception that whole disciplines-full of experts are wrong and that the afflictee actually understands the scientific details of why this is so. The syndrome necessarily incorporates the belief disconfirmation sequela of cognitive dissonance and frequently a greater or lesser degree of paranoia.

You claim that scientists are trying to remove people' freedoms. Eh?!

Scientists are only seeking to prevent humanity from over heating the planet. They are not seeking to remove people's freedom, as you seem so worked up about, unless it is the freedom to destroy the ecology of the planet.

It's no different from when scientists told society not to expose itself to too much radiation, and to beware of micro-organisms, and to avoid or moderate substances previously unrecognised as toxins. And it's no different from when scientists told society not to emit ozone-destroying halocarbons, and not to emit water-acidifying sulphates, and not to overfish the oceans, and not to over-fertilise the agricultural lands. As with all of these examples, and with many more, scientists have no political interest in the way that society chooses to confront the problems that science is pointing out - they simply hope to see that the best advice is followed.

And if scientists are now speaking out so conspicuously about the need for action against human-induced climate change, it is only because the problem is so profound that they cannot in good conscience, or for the security of their own descendants, keep quiet while the ignorati component of the lay public, and the vested interests and ideologues, obfuscate and dither until it's all too late.

Amongst other nonsense [you say](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.p…):

>How contemptibly arrogant of you to demand blind acceptance in the absence of a real debate.

Not being a scientist, you are obviously completely oblivious to the fact that there has been a decades-long discussion, testing, and yes, even debating, of the huge body of work that is climate science, and that includes the study of human-induced climate change. The only thing that is absent is the denialists' hoped-for refutation of the science, and this is absent because it was sought years - decades - ago and was found not to exist.

>If your "science" has legs, then you should never have allowed your wagon to be hitched to Al Gore's horse.

Al Gore's publicising of the science does not change the science itself. You are engaging in several fallacies of logic in this gambit alone, including that of attempting to poison the well, as well as waving a red herring. And [you claim to be playing a game of logic](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.p…)... Ha, you don't even understand the rules...

>You (collectively speaking) should have been open and honest with your methods and data. You should have not manipulated the peer review process.

The methods and data are open and honest. That you do not comprehend this simply indicates that you are not familiar with, nor in any way acquainted with, the primary literature.

The peer-review was not manipulated, and indeed [the authors who made this claim on behalf of the Denialati are themselves in hot water for doing exactly this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/05/wegmans_defence_makes_him_look…).

Like it or not Jimmy-boy, climatological data is about as bullet-proof as such complex data can be.

>You want our money? Justify it. Because in this country (Australia) we're not buying it.

Which simply illustrates the triumph of ignorance over intelligence.

>The reason we're not buying it is because we think it's garbage.

Again, a circumstance that simply illustrates the triumph of ignorance over intelligence and/or education.

>And it's not the fault of Big Oil or shock jocks...

Au contraire.

It is in fact in large part the fault of these people.

>it's the failure to come to pass of all the grave predictions of Al Gore, Tim Flannery, and the like.

The "failure to come to pass of all the grave predictions"? Exactly what predictions would these be? The impact of climate change will occur on the scale of decades to centuries to millenia, and Gore, Flannery and most of "the like" have only been at it for about a decade. The serious professionals have been at it for about three or four decades, and most of that time it was on the basis of the underlying physics rather than on the results of collection of empirical evidence that actually illustrated the manifestation of the predictions. Ironically, given this bizarre statement of yours, the science is actually demonstrably conservative it its predictions, as the rate of melting in the Arctic exemplifies.

>If you had made your case, we're not a stupid nor a non-generous bunch, we'd be all aboard any decent solution.

The has been made, but you're too ignorant to understand this.

And the cost of not acting is far greater than the cost of acting, and especially of acting early, so your vaunted generosity is suspect indeed.

And as for a "decent solution", the only solution is to strictly limit carbon emissions. That's it. How this is done is up to society, but if society is filled with people like you then no method to achieve this solution will ever be found.

If you disagree with anything that I say, I invite you to challenge me with point-by-point referenced, peer-reviewed (or otherwise competently and independently audited) documentation.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 08 Jun 2011 #permalink

>What I detest are those who point to a bunch of letters after their name and seek to change the way people live, and the democratic way our nation is governed, and pay less than lip service to their obligation to explain why. Instead abuse those who ask why.

Scientists do science. Suggesting scientists are embroiled in a plot to destroy democracy and our Western lifestyle says very little about your alleged superior logic, and more about your political motivations for denying the science.

*How contemptibly arrogant of you to demand blind acceptance in the absence of a real debate*

A typical no-brainer argument from Dunning-Kruger's latest moronic disciple to pollute this thread.

As Lotharsson said. Scientific knowledge is not based on 'debates'. Although there is rarely absolute proof of most theories and hypotheses in environmental science, public policy must be based on a consensus. The fact is that scientists rarely agree on anything. In few fields of science is there a stronger agreement than there is now in the field of climate science with respect to warming. If the sceptics had their way, nothing would ever change. They want 100% unequivocal proof of a process, when the fact is that this rarely if ever happens in 'messy' fields like ecology and the Earth sciences. The same trick has been used by the sceptics to dismiss a wide range of environmetnal threats: acid rain, biodiversity loss, climate change and other forms of pollution. Again, their strategy has been to (ab)use science as a tool in pushing a brazenly political agenda. In fact, IMHO most of the so-called sceptics hold science in complete and utter contempt.

James is no exception. He claims that the peer-review process has been 'manipulated' without a shred of evidence. Then he argues that the public 'aren't buying it' (actually, most polls show that the public is deeply concerned about climate change but I digress) and that this has nothing to do with corporate lobbying or media distortions but on the failure of predictions made by people like Al Gore. Clearly, James' kindergarten-level of understanding reckons that the effects of the human combustion of fossil fuels should be instantaneous or nearly so. Gore's film came out in 2006. Thus, in intervening 5 years, he suggests that the planet's climate control system should be running amok (it is actually, if one bears in mind recent extreme weather events) even though it operates over stupendously large spatio-temporal scales that is characterized by lags between cause-and-effect relationships that may take decades or even centuries to play themselves out (the extinction debt describes a similar ecological scenario between cause-and-effect in the effects of habitat loss on biodiversity and various kinds of ecosystem functions).

On the basis of his comments, James must also believe that the effects of increasing atmospheric concentrations of C02 on climate are linear and steeply so. There is no evidence that this should be the case, but that, like ecological simplification, systems may continue to function effectively until some threshold is reached whereafter dramatic shifts, or tipping points occur, leading to alternate states that may or may not be stable or functionally resistant.

But it is clear that I am talking way, way over the head of people like James and his acolytes. To be honest, this guy is a bigger waste of time and space in my view than even sunspot. His arguments are so devoid of any scientific rationale that its almost impossible to stoop to his level of understanding of science. As I said, its kindergarten-type stuff.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Jun 2011 #permalink

Frank, this concocted fantasy that scientists are faking emails is marvellous evidence that deniers really do just fabricate whatever they want to believe.

Maybe I should become a denier. It will be much easier to just make up for whatever I want to believe. When it turns out that AGW is actually happening and, whoops!, it's too late to do anything I'll just go down that merry path James has already suggested here - that it's all the scientists' fault people don't accept the evidence. God forbid anybody accept some personal responsibility!

That's the life for me!

Take me in your bosom James!

Take me!

>A typical no-brainer argument from Dunning-Kruger's latest moronic disciple to pollute this thread.

Watch James now argue that all the science is wrong because you called him "moronic".

I actually wonder whether the goons sending the emails are not a bunch of scientists trying to engender sympathy for the climate science "profession" when their influence looks like it might be on the wane

So. How's the "debate and logic" thing coming along James?

@ Lotharsson:

he or anyone else can submit a paper for publication to any journal they like, and if it is of sufficient quality it will get published

Well yes, but how would he get it past the likes of Jeff Harvey who have "manipulated the peer review process"?

And a ideological troll derails the thread, how convenient.

Jo Nova really is a piece of work ain't she? Has she any evidence to support here claims, or are her allegations just as vacuous as her understanding of the science?

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 08 Jun 2011 #permalink

To be fair, what JoNova said was that climate activists were manufacturing the threats and sending them to scientists, rather than the scientists faking the threats themselves.

...then again, with friends like Tim Blair who happily cheer on the threats of death and sexual assault against families, does JoNova really need enemies? Unless she's saying that the Tim Blair we're reading is, um, not the real Tim Blair. Or something.

-- frank

Frank, this concocted fantasy that scientists are faking emails is marvellous evidence that deniers really do just fabricate whatever they want to believe.

and shows that the giant conspiracy theory is unfalsifiable.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 08 Jun 2011 #permalink

Gotta luv the trolls. This one is so DH he is classic DK effect.

More to the point, John mate, anyone who actually understands enough about the subsject matter is able to submit articles critical of current scientific status of specific aspects of climate science as it relates to the Anthropocene. The key is whether you even know enough in the first place to write something sensible, let alone make a scientific contribution that correctly finds flaws (ie the evidence of the flaws is statistically significant) in the analysis of the huge mound of climate data of all kinds.

Go for it mate, find those flaws and submit your journal article; if it is good enough it will get published, and if not, there is always room for recycling it in the littlest room in the house.

By Donald Oats (not verified) on 08 Jun 2011 #permalink

How can one take any of this bilge seriously? Basically, what James is saying is that although the planet's natural economy may be going to hell in a handbasket, and there is plenty of evidence to show this, damn anyone who wants humanity to change course. He wants us to continue on our blind journey towards the looming precipice, and anyone who says otherwise is anti-democratic.

It's worse. What James is saying is based entirely on fearful thinking â you know, like wishful thinking, only in the other direction.

I see two possibilities.

1) James, and other Internet libertarians, understands full well that AGW is real and can only be stopped by reducing our carbon dioxide emissions. Patently lacking in imagination, as is typical of Internet libertarians, the only way to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions that comes to his mind is a totalitarian world government. He'd rather suffer from heat than from totalitarianism, so he believes we should rather keep burning oil till there's none left.

2) Having come to the conclusion that climatologists are totalitarians who want to Take Over The World™, they put the cart before the horse and come to believe that climatologists claim AGW exists because it gives them an excuse to call for totalitarianism (...which they actually don't, but clearly want to â James et al. listened to them thinking, and they thought it really loud). It logically follows that AGW doesn't need to exist for the commie climatologists to claim it does, and then the Principle of Perverse Parsimony dictates that AGW is a big fat conspiratory lie, as fat as Al Gore is. Hey, perhaps Gore used a secret government time machine to inspire Arrhenius to write his 1896 paper?

Right-wingers generally, and extremists generally, are scared out of their wits.

By David MarjanoviÄ (not verified) on 08 Jun 2011 #permalink

For the record, I haven't seen any evidence that totalitarian measures would be necessary to do something about AGW, and the only people I've seen claim that totalitarian measures would be necessary were denialists.

All that's necessary is that we act fast. I really don't want us to have to evacuate Bangladesh.

As a first step, I suggest that Americans start heaping scorn on those congresscritters who keep cutting and delaying Obama's plans for building a First-World railway system. On average, Americans produce twice as much carbon dioxide per year and person as Germans, and that at a slightly lower average standard of living.

By David MarjanoviÄ (not verified) on 08 Jun 2011 #permalink

All that's necessary is that we act fast. I really don't want us to have to evacuate Bangladesh.

We won't ... if it becomes necessary, AGW denialism will just get more rabid in order to justify inaction in the face of "natural variability".

Yes, I am a cynical curmudgeon, but what makes you think these people will change their spots? Judith Curry will still be spouting off about "uncertainty", RPJr will use economics to show us that there's little cost to humanity if those poor brown people's suffering increases (remember, they're already poor, brown and suffering!), Watts will insist that the flooding of Bangladesh is a sure sign of the next ice age, etc.

You really think it will be different?

I am in dhogaza's camp.

I seriously doubt that these recalcitrant Denialati will ever change their stance, [even when the impacts have been long manifesting in their extremes](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8IBnfkcrsM).

We just have to hope that they don't have too much impact on the rest of the world's decision to act.

Events to date suggest that they do.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 08 Jun 2011 #permalink

Deloids,

As I read through the comments on this thread, I can't help but think that too often we are talking past one another. That we fail ocassionally to assume the good-faith of our fellow commentators and that, sometimes, our comments even verge on incivility. And I also think we are sometimes too quick to seek to "label" one another. I, for example, have been unfairly categorized as a "skeptic" and even a "denier" simply because I do not want a world where the philosopher-kings and cull-masters are nothing but a bunch of booger-head nose-bleeders, with Buddy Holly birth-control glasses perched on their well-picked hooters, and with oat-breath and adult-acne and high-fiber flatulence issues.

So, Deltoids, I recommend we all step back and take a deep breath and resolve to show a decent and kindly respect for one another however much we might disagree.

Blair and Bolt are now claiming, on the basis of [this story](http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/carbon-death-threats-go-…) by Andrew Carswell in the Daily Telegraph, that this story is a deliberate beatup by ANU about something that happened several years ago. I'm skeptical, because a) it's News Ltd b) the story calls Jo Nova a "scientist" (admittedly, she does have a science degree, but still) and c) the ANU's had those swipe cards for years. However, if Tim or someone wanted to check the veracity of the claim and counterclaim, I think that would be good.

PS I am not the other James!

By James Haughton (not verified) on 08 Jun 2011 #permalink

> Joanne Nova pays lip service to the idea that death threats and threats of sexual vilence are bad...

> ...and then goes on to speculate that the threats were manufactured by climate activists to help scientists gain sympathy.

In other (old) news, Joanne Nova pays lip service to the idea of good science...and then proceeds to butcher it in favour of deeply dodgy "science" instead.

And in still other (old) news, Joanne Nova pays lip service to the idea that ad hominem arguments are bad and reveal a lack of an argument...and then proceeds to use ad homs - and falsely label other people's comments ad hom in order to dismiss them.

Why, it's almost starting to look like a pattern...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 Jun 2011 #permalink

Don't be a tone troll Mike.

>I do not want a world where the philosopher-kings and cull-masters are nothing but a bunch of booger-head nose-bleeders, with Buddy Holly birth-control glasses perched on their well-picked hooters, and with oat-breath and adult-acne and high-fiber flatulence issues.

Of course for deniers civility can only extend one way.

"Only two of ANU's climate change scientists allegedly received death threats, the first in a letter posted in 2006-2007 and the other an offhand remark made in person 12 months ago."

Typical.

Some people might be more impressed by a strictly religious interpretation of how we got into our climate predicament -

Devil: Wealth and Power unimaginable, great war machines to smite your enemies. These are what the treasures from my domain can give you. Um... sorry about the smell.
Humanity: There has to be catch. Besides the smell.
Devil: Well, yes. A very small change to the world's energy budget. Very small. You'd have to burn thousands of millions of tons of the stuff each year continuously for decades to even notice. I mean, that would take the whole population of the civilised world digging full time. I'd be sceptical of anyone who tells you it could ever happen. But, yes, it can be Like a little bit of Hell's heat leaks into the world if you overdo it -
Humanity: Hang on a sec! What was that bit again -
Devil: A very small change to the energy budget -
Humanity: Not that! What was the bit about wealth and power and war machines to smite our enemies?

By Ken Fabos (not verified) on 08 Jun 2011 #permalink

Mike @ 104

I sorta, kinda, maybe agree with you. We shouldn't be quick to play the denier card. People who ask innocent questions should be given the benefit of the doubt (isn't there the 3 strikes rule before one is named a "troll"?).

That said, as an actual, real person working in something approximating climate science (I study internal variability of the atmosphere and ocean) I've been accused of being a:
- Communist;
- Liar and fraud;
- Prostitute;
- Thief;
- Part of a grand conspiracy, together with the Queen of England, to use "So called climate change" to kill a large fraction of the worlds population, specifically poor people in Africa and Asia (no, really).

In order to undertake work trying to understand that which those who deny AGW repeatedly claim to be responsible for current temperature trends ("natural variability"), I left a good job in that most holy institution, the private sector, took a pay cut of close to 50%, increased my working hours by 10-15%, so I can beaver away in a lab squinting at 2 meter long equations. These are not the actions of someone in it for the gold of research grants.

If I'm to take people on good faith, why isn't it returned? Why don't those who clearly deny scientific evidence allow for one tiny second, the possibility there might be a reason Earth scientists are concerned about rising green house gases? No, I must say the things I say, do the things I do, because I'm hell bent on world domination! Why does saying "motherfucker" in a clearly tongue-cheek-video induce much pearl clutching, whilst accusing scientists of fraud (at the least) get a pass?

Thanks to the work of those like Tim Blair, many ordinary people see climatologists as people who would sell their own child to Satan for a bit of that sweet, sweet grant money. Civility is a two way street. As such, I suggest you go repost your rant over on Tim Blair and Andrew bolts web site.

/rant

> That's fine mate, then don't come crying to the taxpayers for money. [...] I do have contempt for a scientific method that excludes those who may question the veracity of certain scientific theories.

i've just written to [the STFC](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Technology_Facilities_Council), suggesting that funding for astronomy research should be contingent on debating geocentrists and flat-earthers. their voices must not be suppressed!

i've not yet heard back from them, but i'm hopeful.

@ mike

I recommend we all step back and take a deep breath and resolve to show a decent and kindly respect for one another however much we might disagree.

Well said mike. Please do be sure to let us know how you get on spreading your message of peace and love over at Blot, WTFUWT, Marohasy's bog, JoNova and BishopDill.

James:
>I love science and scientists. They have been responsible for fixing a number of broken bones and curing a number of ills. In fact they're responsible for pretty well most of the things I enjoy today.

Then you love them for the wrong reason. You are looking for only positive outcomes, that is a mistake and isn't what science is about. It explains why you are wrong in your outlook and in your philosophy.
If science says humans are doing something wrong, you need to accept that and do something about what you are doing wrong. On a global scale, you have to take the rough with the smooth, life isn't ever intended to be only positive.

James:
>What I detest are those who point to a bunch of letters after their name and seek to change the way people live, and the democratic way our nation is governed, and pay less than lip service to their obligation to explain why. Instead abuse those who ask why.

You need to analyse why you think like that. You give the impression that you don't 'have letters after your name'. Actually many scientists don't like putting letters after their name, they prefer to be judged on merit rather than letters. But the main issue is your own prejudices towards those with letters or qualifications. I suggest this issue has come up in other areas of your life, in which case your reaction has nothing to do with the subject.

James:
>The world has seen your type before. With horrenous consequences. Now "this time" you may well be right. Who can possibly tell, especially when your modelling doesn't stack up and when the government reverts to telling outright falsehoods to implement the policies that you seek to be implemented.

So because science says humans are doing something wrong, there must be a conspiracy?
You need to analyse yourself and why you would think that.

James:
>But I can gaurantee you one thing, people like me won't lie down in the face of your calls to authority, your attempts to stifle debate, and most importantly your abuse. We like our freedom and won't surrender it on the whim of a small group of eggheads like you.

This again relates to your prejudices regarding those that have letters or have a higher qualification. This has nothing to do with the debate.

Jesus. The usual rules apply, I see. 1 Troll (James) ties up what, 10 people?

And it's not like it's intelligent trolling, it's scripted trolling. Alas.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 08 Jun 2011 #permalink

Is 'intelligent trolling' an oxymoron?

(Not much of a question to ponder perhaps, but it's probably no more futile than debating the likes of 'James'!)

@SteveC

Yr comment no. 111 "Well said Mike."

Thanks for the compliment, Steve. But you did read my comment no. 104, didn't you? I mean read it carefully?

But Marion, troll-goring is fun, especially since this issue is a very public own-goal by the Murdocrats. The zeitgeist over here seems to be swinging in favour of reality - there were very large rallies in all the Oz capitals last weekend in favour of addressing climate change. That's why the domestic Koch-suckers and IPA Sturm Abteilung are fulminating so hard.

Mike@115: Troll is irony-deficient.

rhwombat,

Yr. comment no. 117

Not bad, at all. You're getting better all the time "bat"-man.

OK I'm am guilty of feeding the troll...

>What I detest are those who point to a bunch of letters after their name

Isn't the problem... people with letters before and after their name??

eg:

The Hon. Anthony (Tony) Abbott BEc, LLB (Syd), MA (Oxon).
The Hon. Julia Gillard BA, LLB (Melb).

Poor old Mike can't even play by his own rules of civility, the sniveling coward.

John,

Yr. no. 120.

Oh brother, John. What can I say. It's guys like you that give greenshirts their reputation as diaper-pail creep-outs.

Look at me, John. Look at me. You've really got to learn to be less of a cheese-booger doofus. You know what I mean, John?

>So, Deltoids, I recommend we all step back and take a deep breath and resolve to show a decent and kindly respect for one another however much we might disagree.

Come on Mike. Don't be so easily rattled. Play by the rules you demand everyone else play by, or be branded a hypocrite. It's your call.

Actually, if you go to my original post on the subject, I've derailed nothing. I was just interested in what your (and particularly Tim's) standards are when it comes to levels of abuse. Bang on topic.

OK. Now's your chance. The basic science is that
1. CO2 is transparent to visible radiation but absorbs infrared radiation (known for 150 years).
2. Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will therefore tend to increase Earth's average temperature (effect first calculated over 100 years ago).
3. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing (known for 50 years).
4. Most, if not all, of this increase is coming from human activity (also known for 50 years, from several sources).
5. Therefore, anthropogenic global warming can be expected.
6. Multiple lines of evidence indicate that Earth's average temperature is increasing.
7. In addition, increasing the level of atmospheric CO2 will increase the amount dissolved in oceans, resulting in them becoming more acidic.

1. Would not have a clue.

2. Perhaps, although I understand it also works the other way around. Not relevant (the other way around bit) unless you are Al Gore I guess.

3. Accepted

4. Wrong

5. No, not really.

6. For the three decades up until 2001 perhaps. The last decade has been largely stable.

7. Not necessarily.

It's telling that not once did you mention water vapour in your summary of global warming. I also understand that water vapour is given scant regard in the IPCC reports. Why is that when I understand it is by far the most important of the greenhouse gases and ocean currents have such a large bearing on climate and weather?

By the way, seems I am so far half right on my conspiracy theory regarding the emails. Apparently it all happened some years ago. Why then would it be raised as an issue right now? Engender sympathy perhaps?

James the troll is spouting all the usual denialist talking points, even the ones most are too embarrassed to use like "the CO2 rise isn't us". He claims to "not have a clue" about the greenhouse gas properties of CO2. Continuing to feed his ego by replying to him will surely have "horrenous consequences" for this thread. JMHO

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 09 Jun 2011 #permalink

> Perhaps, although I understand it also works the other way around

Now look at your earlier answer re: CO2:

> Would not have a clue.

So do you have an understanding that's clueless or are you understanding you're clueless?

Or just making shit up?

> 4 Wrong

Uhm, why? Because you say so?

> 5 No, not really.

See "wouldn't have a clue" again.

> 6 For the three decades up until 2001 perhaps.

So you're clueless about statistics and graph trends too.

> 7 Not necessarily.

It is. Even if it isn't necessarily so in the abstract, in the concrete world we live in, it is.

>Perhaps, although I understand it also works the other way around. Not relevant (the other way around bit) unless you are Al Gore I guess.

James, are you saying that more Co2 in the atmosphere will decrease the world's temperature? Or are you referring to ice ages when there were higher concentrations of Co2 in the atmosphere?

I'm glad you brought this up.

Wouldn't common sense tell you that it was the high concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere that caused warming and brought us out of the ice age?

Or is it like heating up a room - does the room heat instantly the second the heater is turned on? Or does it heat slowly?

Does the heater being turned on high but the room being cold means the heater cools the room? Because this is what you are arguing.

As for point four - we can read the isotopes so we know the extra Co2 is through burning fossil fuels. You are so incredibly wrong on this, as if you didn't need to be discredited further.

Kudos on 1 though. You really should have been honest and answered every question with that. You really have no idea.

Marion Delgado:

> Jesus. The usual rules apply, I see. 1 Troll (James) ties up what, 10 people?

> And it's not like it's intelligent trolling, it's scripted trolling. Alas.

Yep. Apparently, some people have this idea that when some people threatens to , and other people cheer them on, then we can somehow persuade these other people to change their minds using calm dispassionate evidence and logic. Hello?!?!?!?

If this is how 'we' are going to do climate change 'activism', then we're screwed.

-- frank

Let me try that again...

* * *

Marion Delgado:

> Jesus. The usual rules apply, I see. 1 Troll (James) ties up what, 10 people?

> And it's not like it's intelligent trolling, it's scripted trolling. Alas.

Yep. Apparently, some people have this idea that when some people threatens to sexually assault climate scientists' families, and other people cheer them on, then we can somehow persuade these other people to change their minds using calm dispassionate evidence and logic. Hello?!?!?!?

If this is how 'we' are going to do climate change 'activism', then we're screwed.

-- frank

Mike @118&121: Oh. So you're that Mike. Not just irony challenged then. Mikey boy: The frustrated-fantasy-USMC-wannabe-wingnut-welfare-wacko who trolls Oz climate blogs, presumably 'cause he has developed a taste for his own arse (that's ass to you, Septic), whether or not it's in a nappy-bucket.

James @ 123: "1. Would not have a clue" summarises you perfectly: Denialist. Even a DK troll should have the insight to spot the flaw in the water vapour trolling point ( though perhaps I credit you with too much intelligence - hmm, wonder if you can work out what it is?). To quote GBS (allegedly to one of the Astor's about to marry another peer, when she took umbrage at being compared to a prostitute): "Madame, we have already agreed what you are, now we are merely haggling about the price".

> seems I am so far half right on my conspiracy theory regarding the emails.

Yes, you're right that there are emails. Emails exist.

The conspiracy not so much.

> Or is it like heating up a room - does the room heat instantly the second the heater is turned on? Or does it heat slowly?

Read on SkS an equivalent:

James, turn on your oven, set it for 400F. Wait ten seconds. If it isn't at 400F, then the theory of ovens is false.

You guys should first start by dealing with what I do write rather than inserting your own meanings to suit yourselves then arguing aginst those.

Frank, I really don't get what you are on about with that raping families stuff. If you are implying that I have made that threat or "cheered on" someone else who has done so perhaps you would like to make that allegation in person?

Anyway, didn't the Institute of Physics have something to say about this whole business?

"James, turn on your oven, set it for 400F. Wait ten seconds. If it isn't at 400F, then the theory of ovens is false."

You guys really do love your false analogies don't you. I think you allow about 20mins for an oven to preheat.

So if I turned it on then checked it after say 5 minutes and it was at 100F, then checked it after 10mins and it was still at 100F, I'd be checking whether I had turned the knob to the right spot and if so, I'd be looking for a new oven.

James, then maybe you can tell us why, even as you claim to oppose death threats and rape threats, you keep blaming the climate scientists, when the only people who are known to have been threatening sexual harassment are global warming denialists.

> Anyway, didn't the Institute of Physics have something to say about this whole business?

About what? Your vague allusions to vague stuff? Stop talking about everything and nothing at the same time. Talk about the death threats, because it's what this very thread is about.

You say that the scientists themselves faked the death threats. Do you have any evidence at all?

-- frank

James, are you saying that more Co2 in the atmosphere will decrease the world's temperature? Or are you referring to ice ages when there were higher concentrations of Co2 in the atmosphere?

I'm glad you brought this up.

Wouldn't common sense tell you that it was the high concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere that caused warming and brought us out of the ice age?

John I don't think you are up with the science. The warming preceded the CO2 by some 800 years.

I thought we had moved beyond arguments of linear warming and historical CO2 levels matching temperature lines.

"I think you allow about 20mins for an oven to preheat."

And you have to allow how long to see how far the earth will heat..?

You see, you know that your point about cooling is a load of bullshit, but you won't admit it in the context of AGW, just admit it in the context of something mundane like your oven.

"So if I turned it on then checked it after say 5 minutes and it was at 100F, then checked it after 10mins and it was still at 100F"

But you're checking after 6 minutes, seeing it at 100F when your error of estimation is +/- 20F and going "It's cooling" when you state that it's been the same temperature since 1998.

@ frank:

Apparently, some people have this idea that when some people threatens to sexually assault climate scientists' families, and other people cheer them on, then we can somehow persuade these other people to change their minds using calm dispassionate evidence and logic. Hello?!?!?!?

If this is how 'we' are going to do climate change 'activism', then we're screwed.

I take your point, it's a bit like swatting flies when the most effective action is to get the dung that's their breeding ground out of the room.

We need more dung beetles and fewer fly-swatters I guess.

> If you are implying that I have made that threat or "cheered on" someone else who has done so

Frank isn't saying anything of the sort.

But you've never said you don't agree with them and you've never said that their actions are killing their stance of skepticism.

Silent approval:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tacit
3. Archaic Not speaking; silent.

Or, in other words, if you're not against the child rapists, you're for them.

You haven't been against them, so you must be for them.

You see, you know that your point about cooling is a load of bullshit, but you won't admit it in the context of AGW, just admit it in the context of something mundane like your oven.

I don't think I said anything about cooling, although I did say something about manufacturing my points to make it easier for you to argue with.

>Anyway, didn't the Institute of Physics have something to say about this whole business?

Yes:

>The institute's position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing, and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change.

Back to you:

>You guys should first start by dealing with what I do write rather than inserting your own meanings to suit yourselves then arguing aginst those.

You said that adding Co2 to the atmosphere "works the other way round" i.e. causes cooling. This is fantasy. At equilibrium with no other forcings, adding Co2 to the atmosphere will only cause warming.

My analogy is perfectly correct.

Wow:

OK, I stand corrected... James did say,

> I'm not sure that anything I have written would suggest that I would condone any sort of harrassment and/or abuse.

> For the record, I am entirely opposed to such behaviour. And I am entirely opposed to those who would condone it.

But, just like Joanne Nova, he miraculously manages to blame the current spate of death threats and rape threats on ... scientists.

(Of course, if they're all the scientists' fault, then these threats won't undermine denialism, at least in the denialists' minds...)

-- frank

> John I don't think you are up with the science. The warming preceded the CO2 by some 800 years.

Not in the PETM.

(But I wouldn't expect honesty from a supporter of child rapists.)

So, if you take the trend for the past 11 years the error in determination of the final endpoint 800 years in the future would be 800/11 or 72x as high as the sampled error in trend. You DID do an error bar on that level trend since 1998, didn't you?

>I don't think I said anything about cooling, although I did say something about manufacturing my points to make it easier for you to argue with.

Explain to us what Co2 "works the other way round" means if not causing cooling instead of warming.

Frank isn't saying anything of the sort.

But you've never said you don't agree with them and you've never said that their actions are killing their stance of skepticism.

Silent approval:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tacit 3. Archaic Not speaking; silent.

What a contemptible conclusion to come to, even if I had remained silent on the subject. I did not, by the way.

You guys are really pretty poor at this.

Or, in other words, if you're not against the child rapists, you're for them.

You haven't been against them, so you must be for them.

>I thought we had moved beyond arguments of linear warming and historical CO2 levels matching temperature lines.

Expect I'm saying precisely that they didn't match.

Explain to us what Co2 "works the other way round" means if not causing cooling instead of warming.

Heating begets CO2.

> What a contemptible conclusion to come to

Why? You don't seem to care about the future generations if it's you that has to pay for it.

And (to Frank), he's only *Hypothetically* stated he's against such threats. *IF* the threats came from denialists, he'd tell them off. But he's actually blaming the scientists themselves and insists that this is all a scam to gain sympathy, ergo, he's not actually against the threats made, he's dismissive of their existence.

Oh, come on James. No one older than 7 is that facile. You're being paid to troll aren't you?

My post at 146 should have read thus...

Frank isn't saying anything of the sort.

But you've never said you don't agree with them and you've never said that their actions are killing their stance of skepticism.

Silent approval:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tacit 3. Archaic Not speaking; silent.

Or, in other words, if you're not against the child rapists, you're for them.

You haven't been against them, so you must be for them.

What a contemptible conclusion to come to, even if I had remained silent on the subject. I did not, by the way.

You guys are really pretty poor at this.

Keyboard Warrior Wow. Any chance you might say that in person? I think you illustrate my original point very nicely. Twit.

"You're being paid to troll aren't you?"

Nope, on the contrary, it's just a little personal thing of mine. But have a look above. Lambert gets on his high horse about abuse. I mention that Lambert and others on this blog didn't appear to have much of a concern about such abuse in March 2010. And Lookey here, I'm being called a supporter of child rapists all of a sudden.

Now you tell me where the abuse is most likely to originate.

> Heating begets CO2.

How? Combustion is usually done at a few hundred degrees C. Are you saying that the earth was a few hundred degrees C recently?

> didn't appear to have much of a concern about such abuse in March 2010

Which was what?

Or are you thinking that satire is as bad as threatening to rape kids?

>Heating begets CO2.

Right but so wrong.

>This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earthâs orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earthâs surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

The part I emphasised sounds remarkably familiar to what I wrote above.

> Now you tell me where the abuse is most likely to originate.

From denialists when they have nothing other than hate to hold back their fears.

John, it's not even getting that far before being wrong.

That outgassing was from the oceans. That reduction in CO2 would cause the oceans to become more alkaline.

Since the oceans are becoming more acidic, the CO2 can't be coming from there.

Combustion must be James' source for CO2.

Unless he's thinking of temperatures enough to create carbon and oxygen atoms from nuclear processes...

This is the part where James furiously Googles to prove me wrong, because he knows deep in his heart that AGW is "garbage" and he simply *must* be right.

James,

Its not about abuse but about physical threats. But, just for the record, in the literature the deniers/contrarians/shills/astroturfers have been far, far worse in smearing, insulting and threatening scientists than the other side has ever been towards them. I can give you a list of books/articles where scientists and environmentalists have been called stuff by groups like 'Wise Use' and others in the anti-environmental arena that would (or should) shock you. These vile smears even appear in books that are supposed to be 'Rational' and 'Balanced' but are anything but. Try reading 'Rational Readings ofn Environmental Concerns' (1991) with chapters authored by a number of contrarians, most of whom are hardly experts in the fields on which they write. And look at the way they describe people or groups with opposing views. I can give you examples if you like. This was occurring only at the dawn of what we now understand about the recent climate change - these people were writing about acid rain, biodiversity, forest loss, and other areas that were topical back then (as they are now). Its hardly surprising that many of these people jumped onto the climate change denier bandwagon as well when that got rolling. And, as I have said before, it had nothing to do with 'sound science' but about a desire to eviscerate the role of the government in the economy in pursuit of private profit. The song remains the same in various fields of environmental and Earth science as far as these people are concerned. Most of them are 'wholsale' deniers - they not only vehemently oppose the argument that humans are primarily responsible for climate warming, but also downplay or ridicule other areas that I have described. Are scientists therefore wrong in every field of environmental science when we raise the alarm about potential anthropogenic threats? And why are the same people often seen time and time again involved in such wide-ranging debates as deniers?

I used to give lectures on this subject at Universities in Europe and the United States - and when I began researching the field in the 1990s I began to accrue evidence showing a concerted and well-organized effort by the well-funded denial lobby aimed at smearing scientists, as well as using greenwashing techniques aimed at legitimizing some pretty wretched organizations and groups.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 09 Jun 2011 #permalink

James tries to dissemble yet again:

>Wouldn't common sense tell you that it was the high concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere that caused warming and brought us out of the ice age?

>John I don't think you are up with the science. The warming preceded the CO2 by some 800 years.

So? That was then.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that current atmospheric CO2 is increasing only in response to warming? If not, then your whole point in the quote above is spurious... I therefore assume that you really are trying to claim that current CO2 is increasing only in response to warming resulting from other factors.

And in doing so you are wrong.

The fundamental mistake misrepresentation that you are making is that CO2 is merely a feedback, and not also a forcing. Unfortunately for you it is both, and in the contemporary warming event it is first and foremost a forcing.

Your homework is to learn to distinguish between forcing and feedback.

For poorly-educated/perniciously dissembling people such as yourself, James, twelve minutes spent watching [this video by Peter Sinclair](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/c/029130BFDC78FA33/0/8nrvrkV…) will demonstrate to you why only the naïve, the foolish, the lying and the deluded would make the point that you did.

Watch it and report back, and explain to us why you are wrong in what you said. Failure to do so in your next post will be taken as explicit admission that you are indeed wrong, and James believe me when I say that I will use this admission in any further replies directed at you and your inept trolling...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 Jun 2011 #permalink

Heating begets CO2.

Good grief James! Understanding the difference between CO2 as a feedback mechanism and CO2 as a climate forcing is such elementary stuff! Please, go and do some reading.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 09 Jun 2011 #permalink

Oh, FFS, at the risk of feeding a stupid troll:

Shorter James, by analogy:

> Since lighting a match produces heat, heating a match cannot cause it to burn.

Somehow I doubt the analogy will be within his comprehension. After all, mere _primary school kids_ can point out why it's false.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Jun 2011 #permalink

@ James

"Now you tell me where the abuse is most likely to originate."

With people like kick-them-while-they-are-down Morano, Inhofe (his black list of 17). Really this is stupid, and I have no idea while we are feeding a troll while scientists are having their lives threatened.

Yes, it it might be fun to show how misguided and wrong James is, but it misses the very important point of this post.

Also, he could simply be here mining/trolling for quotes. Incite, bait and aggravate, people then get frustrated and say something silly and then he's off to some denier blog saying "Look how mean they are to skeptics, and they say that we are bad".

Can we keep our eyes on the ball please?

PS: As for the T leading CO2 in the past refuting AGW, maybe James ought to actually read Caillon et al. (2003), or maybe Peter Sinclair can help.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 09 Jun 2011 #permalink

lord_sidcup:

Heating begets CO2.

Good grief James! Understanding the difference between CO2 as a feedback mechanism and CO2 as a climate forcing is such elementary stuff!

Hey, we do usually *burn* fossil fuels! He's right!

(does James really warrant any comment more serious than this? Just think of all the disk storage being wasted by feeding this exceptionally voracious troll!)

MapleLeaf:

> With people like kick-them-while-they-are-down Morano, Inhofe (his black list of 17). Really this is stupid, and I have no idea while we are feeding a troll while scientists are having their lives threatened.

> Yes, it it might be fun to show how misguided and wrong James is, but it misses the very important point of this post.

OK, now that I've protested enough against these nonsensical threats, here's what I think we should try to do: find ways to beef up the physical security and the cybersecurity of climate scientists and people associated with them.

I'm not sure about the physical security part, but for cybersecurity, I suspect part of the answer lies in providing knowledge and tools to good scientists and activists to help them secure their machines.

(Yep, I know the Obama administration is interested in achieving "cybersecurity" by dropping bombs. But I digress.)

-- frank

Hi frank @165,

Thanks. I (sadly) agree, the resource that you suggest would be useful to many. For example, I have noticed my Mac doing some odd things a few times now after rustling some feathers at denier/contrarian blogs. Yes, I might be being paranoid, but the fact that I do not have the skills to assess why my machine suddenly starts behaving oddly at those particular times does makes me nervous.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 09 Jun 2011 #permalink

MapleLeaf:

I hope you're not using MacDefender. :)

(True story: I did actually stumble upon a fake anti-virus web site once. In the end I didn't download any software from them, but in retrospect I should've terminated the browser process with greater extreme prejudice than I did...)

I'll see if I can kick-start something more substantial in the cybersecurity direction.

-- frank

Hey guys, I didn't set the level of the climate debate here, don't blame me for poor analagious examples. Look where the standard was set and have a go at the likes of Wow etc.

I'm just here to point out that the abuse lamented by Lambert above exists right in his very blog. Now I'm heading off for 5 days, it's none of your business of course but note this when the sychophants start screaming that I've "run away".

Hooray! He's run away!

James claimed

"I'm not sure that anything I have written would suggest that I would condone any sort of harrassment and/or abuse.

For the record, I am entirely opposed to such behaviour. And I am entirely opposed to those who would condone it."

Unless of course someone has called you names already?

"Marcel, I'll quite happily respond to your posts in person in a bar. Or a park. Or wherever. "

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…

It's certainly not the first time either

'You would never do it in person, because you know you would wind up in hospital. That makes you a coward.'

http://guttertrash.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/tony-abbott-at-an-all-time-…

Which is kind of remarkable, for somebody who has a reputation for the same thing Marcel is guilty of (ie, abuse)

'You are a prized dumb fuck,'

http://guttertrash.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/latest-poll-results-choose-…

Also, it's kind of remarkable that, for someone who claims to be so interested in logic, that he has failed to notice that the scientists' receiving these threats are not entered into an anonymous srgument on a blog site. They are just doing their job. But, logic has never been his strong point

May I take James place while he's away...I'm familiar with the science.

James:

> I'm just here to point out that the abuse lamented by Lambert above exists right in his very blog.

Which, as pointed out to him again and again, is patently false. Nobody has threatened to rape James's family and friends, for one thing, so why does this lying idiot keep idiotically lying?

> Now I'm heading off for 5 days,

Dollars to doughnuts "5 days" actually means something like "less than 10 hours", and he'll miraculously find time to answer our "libelous" and "abusive" replies or some such, and then make up some bullshit excuse.

-- frank

> May I take James place while he's away...I'm familiar with the science.

El Gordo, are you also a supporter of child rapists like James? What excuse can you give for people who threaten to rape climate scientists' family members?

-- frank

El Gordo said:

I'm as unfamiliar with the science as James is

There I have corrected it for you.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 09 Jun 2011 #permalink

Is that a yes? I need your support to comment because Tim or his minder usually snip my comments.

James:

John I don't think you are up with the science. The warming preceded the CO2 by some 800 years.

Which Lorius et al predicted in 1990 before it was observed in the ice-cores:

changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by AMPLIFYING, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak ORBITAL FORCING

So, the orbital forcing comes first, THEN it's AMPLIFIED by the consequential CO2, CH4 and Northern Hemisphere ice sheet changes.

Denialists like James go deliberately dense at this point.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 09 Jun 2011 #permalink

CON, greetings!

You haven't heard of Nasif Nahle and his CO2 coolant theory?

rhwombat,

Yr. no. 130

Good to hear from you, rhwombat ol'man. Your zany mental-illness always produces comments that are a source of real insight into the latest greenshirt thinking. Not to mention a refreshing contrast to Wow's studied hysterics and Bernard J's oat and umlaut orotundities.

Incidentally, I'm not a "USMC wannabe". Sorry to disappoint you, guy.

You know, rhwombat, if I understood your comments on another blog, you're not some kid after all, but a zit-popper well into middle-age. Also, if I read your comments on that other blog correctly, you're even some sort of heroic provider of lefty medical care to the masses.

Deltoids, rhwombat is not altogether reliable or stable, so I ask you, is ol' 'dingbat really the face of socialized medicine? If so: Good Golly Miss Molly!

Who would want to do such a despicable thing as sending death threats to climate scientists when they're all doing such a lousy job of communicating their alarmist message?

Even the Greens recently had to disappear their Web poll after it showed 80% of Australians opposed to their emissions trading scheme.

Time for another struggle meeting, perhaps?

Leave the scientists alone and let them get on with it!

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 09 Jun 2011 #permalink

@176: Bows. You're a puzzle mikey. You put up all the Koch-sucking agitprop bluster, but you use words like orotundities. I suspect you're another bitter ex-Trot Arts graduate who jumped the fence into the UnterMurdocracy, or some other fascist fantasy factory, when the Cheney administration demonstrated that whoring for the filthy rich was the only way to feed yourself. That's why you are trolling in defence of outraged jellyfish like James. It's all going pear shaped for you guys, isn't it?

>Even the Greens recently had to disappear their Web poll after it showed 80% of Australians opposed to their emissions trading scheme.

Not even you believe that one.

It's interesting that this issue has the nutters out in force to defend their denier buddies.

In fact Rick 72% of Australians (according to either News or Essential) believe that AGW is happening. Only 6% don't.

I shouldn't be surprised that you claim an internet poll represents all of Australia. Just keep the lies coming.

I might try to answer James' question.

Why does CO2 lag warming when we're coming out of an Ice Age?

  1. Ice Ages (Glacial Maximums) are triggers primarily by variations in the Earth's orbit around the sun, and it's "tilt" over long periods of time. These cycles are called "Milankovitch Cycles", and they effect the amount of the sun's energy reaching Earth, and how that energy is distributed over the Earth's surface;
  2. Cold water dissolves more CO2 than warm water. When some cooling occurs on the Earth due to a cold phase Milankovitch Cycle, the ocean's suck up more of the gas. Likewise, when there is warming, they expel it. In the case of a Milankovitch Cycle, CO2 (and water vapour) act as a feedback to orbital forcing ;
  3. When we go from an ice age to a warm period, the first thing that happens is we get a bit more energy from the Sun, which melts a bit of ice, and warms the oceans. The oceans, after warming, expel some CO2. CO2, being a green house gas, heats up the atmosphere a little more, releasing ever more CO2. This cycle carries on until the climate finds a new equilibrium;
  4. It takes warming to release CO2 in an ice age. This is why CO2 lags the warming in the ice core records. After about 800 years, CO2 starts to lead the warming. CO2 Once in the atmosphere, the CO2 can do its thing. It amplifies the warming, it does not initiate it. Many scientists argue that without CO2, solar forcing along is insufficient to change the climate from an ice age to a warm period.

Currently, we're dumping tons and tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is the forcing . Water vapour, melting ice sheets and such are the feedback . As CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it will warm the atmosphere, just as it does during ice age transitions.

Back at [#136](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.p…) Jimmy-boy brought up (and reinforced [at #148](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.p…)) the canard that CO2 is not responsible for the contemporary warming event.

He was taken to task about this not once, or twice, but many times - at [#155](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.p…), at [#160](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.p…), at [#161](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.p…), at [#163](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.p…), at [#175](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.p…), and at [#180](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.p…).

Further, James entered into an explicit contract with me, when I put forward at [#160](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.p…) that he watch Peter Sinclair's video and report back, and explain to us why he was wrong in what he said about CO2 and warming, and that failure to do so in his next post would be taken as explicit admission that he was indeed wrong. James' next post was at [#168](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.p…) where he says nothing about the physics of forcings and of feedbacks and how these pertain to CO2 and warming. Rather, all he could manage was a petulant:

Now I'm heading off for 5 days, it's none of your business of course but note this when the sychophants start screaming that I've "run away".

which constitutes about as spectacular an admission of defeat, in fulfillment of his contract, as he could have managed given his state of denial.

There you have it people. James, a troll of climate physics denialism, [acknowledges that he was w-w-w-w-rong](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkqgDoo_eZE).

Science 1, James 0.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 Jun 2011 #permalink

James stops, el Gordo starts...same person, perhaps? :-)

By Donald Oats (not verified) on 09 Jun 2011 #permalink

> ...same person, perhaps?

Or simply that there's <= 1 working brain between them? (And that upper bound appears to be generous.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Jun 2011 #permalink

fat boy knows he is only supposed to post on his own thread, hence his crawling, whining, toadying plea for permission to post on this one.

> I'm just here to point out that the abuse lamented by Lambert above exists right in his very blog.

You have nothing to fear except that which you bring with you.

So, Jimmy, how does warming create CO2? You haven't answered yet whether you think it's being combusted, meaning that sometime in the past the earth got to several hundred degrees Celsius.

Maybe during your time off you can check the required temperature for combustion and see if your thesis is correct.

I tried posting this earlier, so sorry if it appears twice.

sancty/james is nothing more than a troll like grodo, as exposed by his crocodile tears of being threatened by someone whom he had threatened. And it is a pattern with him

http://guttertrash.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/tony-abbott-at-an-all-time-…

"You would never do it in person, because you know you would wind up in hospital. That makes you a coward."

He also fails to comprehend the difference between threats between anonymous posters in heated arguments on blogs, compared to threats to public people just going about their jobs from anonymous sources. But, as has been pointed out, logic is not his strong point

Even the Greens recently had to disappear their Web poll after it showed 80% of Australians opposed to their emissions trading scheme.

You wouldn't have had any involvement in gaming that poll, by any chance? Or know the people who did? Because I'm kind of curious about how you would know that...

What do you know, I googled your phrase and got a hit on Jo Nova - you really must try to be a bit more creative - where she openly boasts about having gamed the poll. Here you'll find -

Even though this poll started on May 4th, 2009, within 2 hours of the link being posted here, a dreadful accident must have occurred and the page disappeared to a 403 error.

Follow the link and in the quote to 'Skeptics rule online polls' and you'll find the first prompt to pay the Greens a visit. And this charming little gloat -

UPDATE: And they are running scared.

The Greens poll has been up for around 2 weeks, and I linked to it today, and within hours itâs gone (h/t cohenite, alan and andy)

But you knew that already. And you just had to run right over here to tell us all...

The trouble, of course, is that the Greens are basically decent people, which puts them at a distinct disadvantage. What they don't understand is the kind of person who really has the mentality to succeed in this sad, venal little world.

Violence has always been a tool of the political right, and denialists have proven over and over that they are ideologically committed to the political right, so these threats should come as no surprise to political observers.

bill, I had a suspicion that The (Google) Galileo Movement is also gaming their own poll, but no solid evidence. Wouldn't put it past them - but I also don't underestimate the self-selection bias that is an entirely plausible hypothesis.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Jun 2011 #permalink

Inactivists "el Gordo", "mike", and "Rick Bradford" apparently have no problem with people threatening to rape climate scientists' families. That says it all.

-- frank

frank:

Inactivists "el Gordo", "mike", and "Rick Bradford" apparently have no problem with people threatening to rape climate scientists' families. That says it all.

I'd say it makes them activists, at heart, in a very disturbing way ...

@ frank

I made the mistake of READING that JoNova page you linked to a few days back. I'm still trying to get rid of the sensation of being infected with something, perhaps I should bathe in a bath of bleach.

If there's a slimier, more dishonest webpage out there on the interwebz on this subject, I don't want to know about it.

And to think Nova got some sort of tertiary science qualification. Anyone know which institution it was that permanently tainted itself by doing so?

Graeme Bird admits to "Here is the one that could be mine:" in the comments section replying to someone bringing up the threats to climate scientists . He recognised his style of swearing apparently. The blog post itself is a piece of scientific wonderment. He discusses the hollowing out of Phobos by some civilisation with an industrial outpost on Mars.

frank,

Yr no. 191

PART 1

frank, if you don't mind, I'll spread my reply over several comments.

You know, frank, you've made quite a provocative and presumptuous statement. Especially since my view of rape, and most particularly child-rape has never been sought by you. So I'm not sure what that snot-nosed crack you directed at me was all about, but let me clear the air. I condemn rape without qualification to include the rape of climate scientists' families. And when it comes to child-rape I don't even want to tell you my desired dealings with some low-life pervert piece of shit that would rape a child. Because if I did, it would have some of the more sensitive Deltoids "clutching their pearls."

But I'm something of a prude, frank. For example, take the movie 10:10 which garnered honors here at Deltoid for its fine-spun hilarity. You know the film, right? I mean, the one where kids are killed when they show insufficient zeal for the greenshirt orthodoxy. The one where the kids' heads explode in blood-splatter. That one. Well, I'm such an ol' fuddy-duddy that I expressed my distaste for that little masterpiece of film-making on this very blog and for my troubles, I recall, I was denounced as a concern troll.

So please excuse all the baggage I carry.

PART 2

And by the way, frank, while we're discussing child-rape, let me point out an international organization with a "little problem" in this area (it seems the Catholic Church is not the only organization with its "little problem"):

Google: "telegraph six-year-old sexually abused by un peacekeepers"

"independent un shame over sex scandal" (Teaser: a somali tyke is roasted alive in this article 10:10 lovers!)

"foreign policy blogs un peacekeepers and abuse of children" (Dig deeper Deltoids and you'll find that some Belgian troops of the storied "Marc Dutroux" Brigade, along with some others of Europe's finest, are mentioned in dispatches.)

Let me add, frank, that in common with most stories about pedophilia the focus in the above articles is heavily weighted to discussions of the rape of young girls. I mean, it's almost as if young boys are considered expendable fair-game for the pedos. This reticence to discuss the rape of young boys in respectable publications is a real curiosity to me, frank. It's not some sort of courtesy extended to a segment of the lefty/greenshirt nomenklatura, is it? I mean, I don't know, frank, do you? Any Deltoid with the answer, please chime in.

Regardless, I condemn child-rape by UN Peacekeeping Troops and their fellow NGO pervert-scum. Care to join me in that condemnation, frank? How about the rest of you Deltoids?

@191 frank & @193 dhogaza.

In my only 2 posts on this thread I have condemned the sending of death threats to scientists in the plainest terms.

I have called it "cowardly, stupid and self-defeating" and "despicable", so stop making unpleasant false accusations to try and gain brownie points from your cronies.

@188 bill. "Decent people", eh? Hah!

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 10 Jun 2011 #permalink

PART 3

Now, frank, let's again relate, but from a different angle, child-rape and climate science, O. K.? I mean, I know this subject is dear to your bleeding lefty heart.

Google: "washington post cancun horror story"

"sun brutal reality I'm 14 and sold for sex"

"fairtourismsa prostitution in south africa" (Deltoids may be astonished to learned there are an estimated 400,000 child prostitutes in South Africa--Durban gets some special mention.)

Recognize anything of interest, frank, in the above articles--Cancun? South Africa? No? Well, believe it or not, frank the above locales are the immediate past and immediate future venues of the IPCC's annual, high-carbon pig-out party. So do you share with me, frank, the sense of outrage that a tax-payer funded organization like the UN regularly holds one of its premier blow-outs in destinations favored by pedophile sex-tourists? Especially since the UN has a known "little problem."

I condemn the IPCC for its decision to hold its annual conferences in locales notorious for commercialized child-rape and I will boycott the IPCC's next conference unless the venue is changed (I recommend Provo, Utah). So how about you, frank? Will you join with me in my condemnation and boycott? Deltoids, how about you?

Re the above: while this may be a great forensic example of the pathology of what passes for an 'analogy' in some minds, why bother to rise to this kind of bait? Best simply ignored, for mine.

Interesting. Mike=COINTELPRO

The response (also abuse and threats and death threats) to Richard Glover's satirical article on climate change deniers http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-climate-change-wave… is quite frightening, like the earlier revelation that climate change scientists at ANU, like their British and American counterparts, were now receiving death threats. The whipping up of hate, by shock jocks and populist politicians, bodes very badly for all our democracies.

There is another satirical look at them here http://davidhortonsblog.com/2011/06/11/over-the-cuckoos-nest/ but it is hard to retain a sense of humour about the kind of madness that appears on climate change threads these days.

Interesting article, LB--thanks for the heads-up. I only picked Provo because I had a naive thought it would be pedophile-free. Do you know a better place, LB? If so, I'm with you.

I only picked Provo because I had a naive thought it would be pedophile-free. Do you know a better place, LB? If so, I'm with you.

The Vatican? Maybe it's pedophile-free (snicker).

The notion that *any* place is "pedophile free" is naive belong belief. And Mormon country? How do you feel about anal sex? And the fact that in rural Utah it's fairly common for young women to (technically) maintain their virginity by engaging in anal sex before marriage ...

"Do you know a better place"

Apparently anywhere but "Watts Up With That?"
(but you already knew that)

dhogaza and elspi,

Let's see now. No outrage directed at a vast industry that enslaves kids for the pleasure of western pedophile sex tourists. Rather, just some dumb-butt "debate-team" point scoring. Good show dhogaza and elspi! But let's keep this simple, greenshirts: Everyone--keep your fucking hands off the kids! See that's not hard, is it.

I will say that there is no indication in LB's article that Provo, Utah supports a "kiddie-slave" prostitution industry. Also, it is undoubtedly true that pedophiles "are everywhere" but the key difference is the community attitude to child-rape. Provo, Utah is pretty clearly not supporting of such crimes (victims receive restitution and by hook or crook the predators get justice). Not the sort of thing that appears to happen often in Cancun or the major cities of South Africa. But you knew that distinction didn't you, d & e, but scoring points is all that matters when it's for the "cause", right?

So here's the solution greenshirts: Video-conference all IPCC conferences.

Video conferences of IPCC meetings will reduce CO2 emissions--lots and lots of emissions. And that makes Gaia happy, right? And it allows the IPCC to show itself a leader in carbon reduction. And don't greenshirts always want to lead from the front and by example when it comes to the fate of the earth?

It will save taxpayer monies. Now we all know that the various lefty/greenshirt hustles are specifically designed to separate the taxpayer from his dough. But look at it this way, a video-conferenced IPCC would open up opportunities for some humbug PR which you greenshirts could exploit to paint yourselves as faithful stewards of the public purse.

And finally, if there is even a one in a million chance that even one delegate to an IPCC conference in a locale that caters to child-rapists would end up in a local brothel raping a child, then the precautionary principle compels us to video-conference. Precautionary principle and for the children--get it?

LB,

Please let me reconsider my comment no. 209. In my over-eager desire to indicate that I condemn pedophilia whatever its source, I did not consider the article you provided carefully. As dhogaza noted, in his clever way, pedophilia is to be found to some degree most everywhere. However, there is no indication that the events in the article you provided are anything but isolated. Also, the victims were compensated and their predators received some measure of justice, however belatedly. Most importantly, the article you provided does not indicate that Provo, Utah supports a "kiddie" sex-slave industry.

Regardless, the best solution for the IPCC annual conferences would be to video-conference them:

Save on Co2

Save taxpayer monies

Possibly save a kid (precautionary principle)

@dhogaza no. 209

Don't want to let your valuable insights into Mormon courtship practices pass without comment, dhogaza. The product of your own antrhopological research, perhaps? Any peer-reviewed literature?

The product of your own antrhopological research, perhaps?

Actually, the clinical practice of a nurse practitioner who dealt with some of the physical consequences in rural Utah for some years.

I suppose you're totally unaware that this practice to preserver (technical) virginity is not limited to Mormons here in the US (much less the world)

It's a well-known phenomena, though the Christian-right is not terribly interested in publicizing the reality.

Also, the victims were compensated and their predators received some measure of justice, however belatedly.

The identified victims of busted and prosecuted predators ...

You really haven't understood my snarky reference to the Vatican, have you?

mike has provided a fascinating insight into the way the deniers minds' work.

While discussing the topic of death threats being directed towards scientists, he decides that instead of taking this tack, he'll insinuate that people involved with climate science are into child prostitution.

What a despicable little grub.

It's bizarre to see the kind of pathology that arises when people feel threatened by objective reality.

Back under your rock mike(or maybe it's time for disemvowelling?).

*mike has provided a fascinating insight into the way the deniers minds' work.*

No, he hasn't, any more than 'frank' has provided a fascinating insight into the way the warmists minds' work with his comment #191 charging that I "apparently have no problem with people threatening to rape climate scientists' families" when I have in fact have denounced the sending of death threats very clearly.

There's a despicable little grub, if you're looking for one.

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 11 Jun 2011 #permalink

@dhogaza no. 214

Hey, guy, not really sure what you're talking about. Actually, not really sure you know what you're talking about. But to help you out, the line you quoted from my comment no. 211 was in response to one of LB's comments and was in reference to some Boy Scout victims of pedophilia from Utah.

So yes, I missed your "snarky" reference to the Vatican. Indeed, I'm still not sure I "get it." Maybe you're "snarkily" suggesting that since Mormons have pre-marital anal-sex and the Catholic Church has a well-publicized history of pedophilia, then child sex-slavery is no big deal and the IPCC should patronize locales that host child-rape industries, without the slightest hesitation. Is that it, dhogaza? I mean, understanding your "snark" is very important to me, so I want to get it right.

Incidentally, while I've got you on the hook, dhogaza, I want you to know that you're the very first person in my entire blogospheric experience to ask me "How do you feel about anal sex?" (yr no. 209) More snark? I hope you don't mind if I draw the veil of modesty on my thoughts on that delicate subject. But you might ask rhwombat the question. He likes talking about himself and will probably give you an answer. Ol' rhwombat is a bit of a chatterbox, but he thinks I'm the "Secret Agent Man" and anyone who thinks that is all right in my book.

@Michael no. 215

You're really on top of your game with that last, Michael, ol' buddy. Some top-notch booger-flicking. But you take yourself a little too seriousily to be taken seriously.

mike displays the other common characteristic of the denier/delusionist - the penchant to ramble along irrelevant tangents (to the science that is, these tangents are very relevant to their goals)and avoid, whenever possible, any substantive discussion of the science.

That took you a while, mike. What are the hourly rates for Koch-sucking in Utah?

It's guys like you that give greenshirts their reputation as diaper-pail creep-outs.

Look at me, John. Look at me. You've really got to learn to be less of a cheese-booger doofus.

a zit-popper well into middle-age

Some top-notch booger-flicking.

And this isn't an insight into how denier minds work? I beg to differ! A call-out box in the DSM V awaits!

What is it about deniers and this crass, oafish sub-Rodney-Dangerfield 'wit'? And then we're meant to credit the incongruous hysterical self-righteousness... sheesh!...

Gee, the blokes at ScienceBlogs must be thrilled with the scientific quality of this thread....

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 12 Jun 2011 #permalink

Troll infestations tend to do that Rick.

True.

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 12 Jun 2011 #permalink

>Gee, the blokes at ScienceBlogs must be thrilled with the scientific quality of this thread....

Not to worry.

The scientific quality of the thread will pick up when you, James, mike, and your mates depart.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Jun 2011 #permalink

The scientific quality of the thread will pick up when you, James, mike, and your mates depart.

And we promise not to pry into whatever it is those guys choose to do in private. Just as long as it's in private, not here.

> And we promise not to pry into whatever it is those guys choose to do in private. Just as long as it's in private, not here.

Raising the level of debate on your own, I see...

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 12 Jun 2011 #permalink

... except you and your misled cronies don't have any relevant debate, do you "Rick"?

Jess scared li'll critters whistling loudly into a darkness you don't even comprehend yet

ScienceBlogs must be thrilled with the scientific quality of this thread....

Do we assume Rick hasn't spent much time over at PZ Myer's place?

Rick hasn't yet worked out the raison d'etre of ScienceBlogs. He still thinks it's about Daddy's approval, like everything else in his life.

rhwombat wins.

BernardJ nails it above. Everyone will talk nice again when those nasty deniers go away. It's their fault after all that we are calling them child rapists. What else can we do when people come here, completely uninvited and start DISAGREEING WITH US! How can we possibly respond other than with personal abuse? We're not expected to actually address their arguments are we?
Those bloody deniers make us play nasty..... MUUUUMMMMYYY!!!!

Rick, Mike and all of those others who have kindly condemned use of threats of violence against climate scientists here are to be congratulated on their courage. Obviously it takes some considerable courage to come here and debate (however obtusely) with those who are not threatening violence against you.

However, I would ask you to up the stakes. Instead of trolling here, why don't you pop on over to some of the sites which are promoting (or at least not actively condemning) the use of violence against scientists. This way you can actually put your money where your mouth is.

And we can all get back to the science.

@231: Mummy? I think I've struck a nerve.

James:
>We're not expected to actually address their arguments are we?

What arguments do you think you've made that haven't been addressed? All I've seen from you is personal abuse and [zombie talking points](http://www.skepticalscience.com/fixednum.php), which commenters here have kindly taken the trouble to address for you yet again while you stick your fingers in your ears.

> What else can we do when people come here, completely uninvited and start DISAGREEING WITH US!

Jimmy, you're rather like the Monty Python sketch about the five-minute argument.

Hey, maybe you should consider that we're just disagreeing with you and just accept it. Or is nobody allowed to disagree with you?

James:

We're not expected to actually address their arguments are we?

I did address your argument. Since you're now being deliberately dense, I'll repeat it:

The warming preceded the CO2 by some 800 years.

Which Lorius et al predicted in 1990 before it was observed in the ice-cores:

"changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by AMPLIFYING, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak ORBITAL FORCING"

So, the orbital forcing comes first, THEN it's AMPLIFIED by the consequential CO2, CH4 and Northern Hemisphere ice sheet changes.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 12 Jun 2011 #permalink

Let's not forget that James was arguing that the Co2 increase caused by man wasn't actually caused by man - an argument I can't recall any other denier making.

People, if you keep on using evidence to prove James wrong he's only going to fake another five day trip.

BTW:
>>2. Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will therefore tend to increase Earth's average temperature

>Perhaps

Are you the same James who [said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man…):
>No sceptic (or very few) denies the greenhouse effect of CO2.

Are you one of the "very few" who denies the greenhouse effect? Or are you just one of the very many who "accepts" the greenhouse effect and just denies that it has any effect?

>Let's not forget that James was arguing that the Co2 increase caused by man wasn't actually caused by man - an argument I can't recall any other denier making.

Br*nt made that argument on the empirical evidence thread and/or his subsequent jail thread.

I've also seen it from others e.g. over at BAUT.

By proving me wrong you are abusing me. Stop or I will go away and not come back for five days.

Not sure I argued any of those things attributed to me. But you guys keep right on constructing the debate in terms that suit you.

Mummy they are causing me to say mean things!!!!!

Besides, you claimed that your arguments had not been addressed. I asked you which arguments you had made that hadn't been addressed. Answer that question or withdraw the claim.

Many of us remember James' performance over at Hot Topic, where he was apparently kidnapped by disgruntled Patagonian beaver-herds and subsequently forcibly deprived of internet access at a crucial stage in the development of his argument.

He also claimed to have a life, which I guess is strictly true.

Certainly there was no question of running away.

Whatever the reason, he didn't show up again, and there was much rejoicing!

James, you were asked:

>4. Most, if not all, of this increase is coming from human activity (also known for 50 years, from several sources).

You said:

>4. Wrong.

Now you deny this. How unsurprising.

> Instead of trolling here...

Oh, I'm not trolling, in the sense that the word is normally used, that of deliberately trying to derail discussions.

I post here in order to learn what makes you all tick. It is more like a Freudian analyst gently probing a distressed patient.

Of course, I receive unpleasant abuse from time to time, but that is always the case when dealing with troubled, angry people.

It's not what y'all say, but how you say it, that is the most revealing aspect.

I thank whatever powers there are that I don't have to live with the levels of rage and pessimism that seem to inhabit so many regular posters here.

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 13 Jun 2011 #permalink

Ah, I get it, Rick is concern trolling in the sense that *that* phrase is commonly used.

Thanks for clarifying, Rick!

Bill. You have the wrong James. Have never visited a place called Hot Topic. Dave it was question 4 not 1 and the cause of the increase in CO2 in the last decade has not been known for 50 years. That is self evident and a dumb thing to assert. And Dave, if you are going to quote me then use the entire quote. I believe I said that what was at issue was the extent to which greenhouse gases caused any warming over recent decades. Add that in and you find nothing contradictory at all. But that would be honesty now wouldn't it.

What do all you blokes actually do? You seem incapable of even presenting your own case, about which you are at least passionate though apparently not expert.

> Ah, I get it, Rick is concern trolling in the sense that that phrase is commonly used.

No, you don't get it at all.

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 13 Jun 2011 #permalink

"Rick" said: "I post here in order to learn what makes you all tick. It is more like a Freudian analyst gently probing a distressed patient".

What "Rick" means is that he once read the first paragraph or two of an introduction to pop psychology in a Reader's Digest while passing the time in a waiting room somewhere a long time ago.

Of course, in comparison his familiarity with climate science is nowhere near so detailed.

Good to see you confirming my point that it's not what you say, but how you say it, that is the most revealing aspect.

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 13 Jun 2011 #permalink

[Rick Bradford](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.p…).

>I post here in order to learn what makes you all tick. It is more like a Freudian analyst gently probing a distressed patient.

Sorry, but to use [Lotharsson's turn of phrase](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/shorter_clive_james.php#comment…), that post hoc rationalisation has [already been proffered](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/shorter_clive_james.php#comment…).

And whatever your excuse, it doesn't in any way improve the very poor understanding that you have of science. Disagree? Then link us to your best killer comment on Deltoid - or elsewhere - where you have demolished any accepted part of the mainstream climatological science.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 13 Jun 2011 #permalink

I'm aware it was question 4, but the formatting reformatted it to 1. Either way it was still the question and answer. And I'm John, not Dave.

>the cause of the increase in CO2 in the last decade has not been known for 50 years. That is self evident and a dumb thing to assert.

Wrong.

>I said that what was at issue was the extent to which greenhouse gases caused any warming over recent decades.

Based on what?

>Dave it was question 4 not 1

I didn't say anything about a question 4 or 1. If you deny that too, cite the post. Otherwise apologise.

>the cause of the increase in CO2 in the last decade has not been known for 50 years

I didn't say anything about the increase in CO2 during the last decade. If you deny that too, cite the post. Otherwise apologise.

The cause of the increase in CO2 during industrial era is demonstrated by Suess 1955, and Revelle and Suess 1957.

>And Dave, if you are going to quote me

Hypocritical moron.

> And Dave, if you are going to quote me then use the entire quote. I believe I said ...

If you have to "believe" what you said, then you can't even quote yourself. Making your demand to Dave rather ironic.

> what was at issue was the extent to which greenhouse gases caused any warming over recent decades.

Almost all of the 0.8C average change seen. Sun has gotten cooler, so that means more "other" forcing that CO2 has to take up. Black carbon deposits can't change an awful lot because there isn't that much black increasing on the earth (else it would be very obvious from space), so unless you can assert something different, most of that warming is from CO2.

If that really is the issue, then you will have to come up with a more rigorous and evidence-filled attribution of the 0.8C warming than you have done so far.

>I believe I said that what was at issue was the extent to which greenhouse gases caused any warming over recent decades.

Just another thing that James believes that is false - James has never made any statement about the cuase of rising CO2 in recent decades in this thread. His simply replied to the proposition "Most, if not all, of this increase [the increase in CO2] is coming from human activity" with this single word "Wrong". No timeframe was mentioned until it became useful for him to try to wriggle away from an earlier stupidity. John's original diagnosis - denial - is spot on.

First James doesn't think he said what he did say (Not sure I argued any of those things attributed to me"). Then he thinks he says what he didn't say. The gap between James' reality and real reality continues to grow...

>I believe I said that what was at issue was the extent to which greenhouse gases caused any warming over recent decades.

Just another thing that James believes that is false. No timeframe was mentioned regarding CO2 until it became useful for him to try to wriggle away from an earlier stupidity. John's original diagnosis - denial - is spot on.

First James doesn't think he said what he did say ("Not sure I argued any of those things attributed to me"). Then he thinks he says what he didn't say. The gap between James' reality and real reality continues to grow...

Rick,

>I post here in order to learn what makes you all tick. It is more like a Freudian analyst gently probing a distressed patient.

You have an odd way of establishing trust, which is the first thing a Freudian analyst would do, but only in a clinical setting. Blog comment threads aren't the best place for this.

I, too, have an interest in Freudian analysis. However, in my case, it would be Anna rather than Sigmund. Particularly the mechanism of denial.

1. Denial is usually motivated by a desire to suppress the emotional response arising from a frightening or disturbing environmental occurrence and the necessity of taking responsibility for one's own actions, or the actions of others with whom the subject has a strong emotional attachment as being the cause for such an occurrence, or for the need of responding sensibly to the threat represented by the occurrence.

2. The initial response is to intellectualize or rationalize away the occurrence, with the pretense that it either does not exist, or that if it does exist, it isn't threatening, or else that it isn't one's own responsibility to face the threat.

3. When confronted by others that the subject is rationalizing away a very real environmental threat, it is common for one in denial to project his own suppressed emotional response upon those confronting him and claim that those confronting him are engaging in personal abuse. A behavior known as DARVO: Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender.

>Of course, I receive unpleasant abuse from time to time, but that is always the case when dealing with troubled, angry people.

>I thank whatever powers there are that I don't have to live with the levels of rage and pessimism that seem to inhabit so many regular posters here.

In common parlance this is known as 'blaming the messenger'.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 13 Jun 2011 #permalink

> I post here in order to learn what makes you all tick.

Why?

Frottaging internet-style?

To return back to the topic of the thread, for a moment; the Canberra Times have published a [follow-up article](http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/change-o…) providing more detail on the abuse suffered by our scientific community and refuting claims by Bolt and (shamefully, and astoundingly) Opposition science spokeswoman Sophie Mirabella that the threats were a tailored beat-up by the ANU and the media.

An extended quote:
"Various bloggers have accused us of ''beating up'' our front-page story from a handful of complaints. Not so. We spoke to more than 30 scientists, in all states and territories, to ascertain if threats were confined to pockets of high-profile scientists regularly quoted by the media. They were not. It seems anyone speaking up on climate change - however briefly - is fair game in this trolling campaign.

Two of the most shocking cases involved young women who have had little media experience or exposure. One was invited to speak on climate change at a suburban library. Her brief was simple - talk about everyday things people can do to cut their carbon footprint, talk about climate books available at the library (list provided), leave time for questions, and mingle afterwards. The other woman was asked by a local newspaper to pose with her young children for a photograph to illustrate an article promoting a community tree-planting event. She was briefly quoted as saying planting trees could help mitigate climate change. Two days after the article appeared, she received emails containing threats of sexual assault and violence against her children.

As for the woman speaking at the library, her car windscreen was smeared with excrement - animal or human, does it matter? - and the words ''climate turd'' written (also in excrement) across the car bonnet. Proof perhaps, of a climate dissenter with a Freudian complex indicating arrested development."

By James Haughton (not verified) on 13 Jun 2011 #permalink

James H: Thanks for that. What say you James the Troll and Rick Bradford? I agree with the Freudian take - and find it revealing how both Troll James and Bradford reacted to the Daddy issues jibe: Bradford by transference (look it up, amateur), and Jimmy the Troll by scripting a psychodrama in which the rest of the commentariat call for their mother. Neither of you are very self-aware are you?

> Neither of you are very self-aware are you?

rhwombat FTW!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 13 Jun 2011 #permalink

The Telegraph story that there were only two threats and that they dated back years has been thoroughly discredited by the Canberra Times, which broke the original story. Several instances, and confirmation that the threats and the action by the ANU were within the last twelve months and that threats are continuing, form part of the Canberra Times follow-up story. As a computer illiterate I have not inserted the link but I am sure the Canberra Times site will give the follow up story readily; it published yesterday.

Sophie Mirabella's speech demanding (to summarise) that scientists explain why they dared to receive death threats is [here](http://www.sophiemirabella.com.au/Media/PortfolioMedia/MediaReleases/ta…), and her contact page is [here](http://www.sophiemirabella.com.au/Contact/tabid/62/Default.aspx).

I am going to write to her to ask that she reconsider her public statements and I urge everyone here to do the same. Some points which might be relevant:
Her electorate is Indi in Northeastern Victoria, which includes the headwaters of the river Murray, already badly affected by climate change, and was badly damaged by the record bushfires of 2003. These are both linked to climate change according to [recent research](http://www.seaci.org/publications/publications-journals.html).

She is a mother of three daughters who has campaigned against negative portrayals of women in the media (and so IMHO should have more sympathy for the young female scientists victimised in this case).

By James Haughton (not verified) on 14 Jun 2011 #permalink

@luminous beauty

> You have an odd way of establishing trust, which is the first thing a Freudian analyst would do...

With certain categories of patient -- particularly narcissists -- trust is not an achievable goal, as they do not see other people as distinct individuals, but as 'fodder'; impersonalised helpers or hinderers of the narcissists' lifelong grandiosity project.

Your description of denial is solid, but remember that 'denial' is not limited to people who deny the notion of CAGW; it also applies to people who deny that CAGW is the biggest scientific fraud in the history of the planet.

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 14 Jun 2011 #permalink

frank - I think you're misunderstanding who they hope to reach.

> frank - I think you're misunderstanding who they hope to reach.

Then I wonder who that'll be. Is it the group of people who are too dumb, or too busy, or too apathetic to realize that inactivists have been full of illogic all this while, and that they're threatening to rape children -- yet the same group of people are willing to sit down and read a reasonably detailed account of how climate science works?

-- frank

@ luminous

but that doesn't mean calm, rational discourse should be abandoned, does it?

The point being that those amenable to calm, rational discourse are unlikely to be those issuing the threats of violence. Secondly, I think what frank is expressing (if he will forgive me for the presumption) is the sheer bloody frustration and futility of it all. With the best will in the world, Prof Mandia and all those other eminent names on the list (Karoly, Enting, England, Lewandowsky etc) seem to assume that them putting their names to a strongly worded "conversation" will have any real effect at all on the "opinion makers" and the sheeples that unthinkingly follow them. This is not to say I discourage any attempt by those with the expertise to speak on the issues to a wider audience - far from it - but there does seem to be an assumption by Prof Mandia et al that anyone on the "sceptical" "side" of the fence will take any notice of it all, save to scorn.

As demonstrated by the responses of some on this one thread (out of many on this one blog alone, let alone the multitudes of others), the political arena associated with climate change overtook the science several laps ago. It's now about politics (no matter what some would have you believe otherwise) and money and influence and PR and massaging the message, and that (regreattably) is where the rubber hits the road.

IMO in some sense it doesn't matter how much more the scientific evidence piles up, this is now (and has been for some years) a political stoush between those of us who know we're screwing the one life-support system we have, and those who will defend whatever corner they occupy at any expense. And for all that I wholeheartedly respect and admire the Mandias, Karolys and Quiggins of the world, I just don't think their passionate pleadings on a uni website (or even in a national newspaper) will cut much ice any more.

And as if to reinforce the point, just go have a look at the "debating points" several "sceptics" who have posted on that The Conversation thread. I've not been involved in this stuff very long, but I must have seen identical "arguments" raised hundreds of times here on Tim's blog, at RC, Eli's, Bart's place, Stoat etc etc., all of them shot down in flames several times over. In truth this isn't quibbles about the science, it's politics, and it's about time the science got political.

IMO the biggest hypocrites of the lot (no names, no pack drill) are those with some science chops who, backed by their legions of fawning admirers, make a lot of noise about climate scientists dabbling in political positions, yet who conveniently sidestep the fact that in doing so they adopt a political position.

Sophie Mirabella's speech demanding (to summarise) that scientists explain why they dared to receive death threats

She helpfully pointed out that 2 of them received their death threats before the Gillard government announced a carbon tax. Therefore their death threats have nothing to do with the current carbon tax debate.

What sort of mentality does it take to come up with that sort of logic?

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 14 Jun 2011 #permalink

James@231: It'll do no good for Rupert to call for his Mummy: she's just cosigned a letter to the SMH pointing out the evil bullshit the Deniers are spreading.

*it also applies to people who deny that CAGW is the biggest scientific fraud in the history of the planet*

You have to hand it to Rick for writing comic-book level stuff. His latest musings are up there with some of the dumbest stuff I have yet read on Deltoid. History of the planet? What kind of babble is this? Homo sapiens has only been around 200,000 years or so, and so-called civilization for the past 8,000 years. So stretching this out to include the 'history of the planet' is farcical, to say the least. But exactly what one would expect from a true denier.

Lastly, old Rick mistakes that the real interpretation of the term ' denial' is based on a *denial of empirical evidence*. In other words, in the face of a large and growing body of scientific evidence, deniers are those who, for reasons that should be patently obvious, downplay, ignore or distort the science. Most of the deniers also have little scientific pedigree in related fields, making their views even more ridiculous.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Jun 2011 #permalink

WARNING TO DELTOIDS:

rhwombat is a creation of Dr. Evil. He is a weaponized weener-head. We have activated him. He is your problem now. Deal with it.

Fair enough, mike, now please fook off and let us deal with him.

Feel free to grace WTFUWT with your presence.

mike: I did warn you about stopping your medications.

Your description of denial is solid, but remember that 'denial' is not limited to people who deny the notion of CAGW; it also applies to people who deny that CAGW is the biggest scientific fraud in the history of the planet.

Memo Rick: You really should put your mind in gear before you hit "Post".

> Most of the deniers also have little scientific pedigree in related fields

Gee, that's no good is it? It's nearly as bad as getting Greenpeace activists to write formal IPCC reports on renewable energy, a piece of deception so egregious that even Mark Lynas is disgusted.

Take the morally superior smirk off your face -- it looks ridiculous.

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 15 Jun 2011 #permalink

> Gee, that's no good is it?

Maybe you'd take the exhortations of your local priest that to cure your infection, all you need to do is pray hard, and can ignore the doctor because he only knows about infections, and how can THAT help him ascertain the best course of action in medicine, huh?

Just because your priest doesn't have an MD after his name, refusing his advice on your medical condition would be as bad as getting Greenpeace activists to write a report on something they know about.

I would certainly ignore the doctor if I knew he stood to make millions from an alarmist diagnosis.

In fact, I wouldn't go to him in the first place.

But the IPCC does, time after embarrassing time.

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 15 Jun 2011 #permalink

Rick Bradford:

When people threaten to rape other people's families, I put the blame squarely on them. There is simply no excuse whatsoever.

You, in contrast, want to put the blame on the people who are being threatened.

Three words: Shame on you!

* * *

> Secondly, I think what frank is expressing (if he will forgive me for the presumption) is the sheer bloody frustration and futility of it all. With the best will in the world, Prof Mandia and all those other eminent names on the list (Karoly, Enting, England, Lewandowsky etc) seem to assume that them putting their names to a strongly worded "conversation" will have any real effect at all on the "opinion makers" and the sheeples that unthinkingly follow them. [...]

> [...] In truth this isn't quibbles about the science, it's politics, and it's about time the science got political.

SteveC, that's exactly what I think. More precisely, I think it's time that scientists get political, even as they continue to do science as objectively as they can.

Everyone has the right to do their job without being hounded by death threats and rape threats against them or their families. Why do our scholars repeatedly refuse to defend what's rightfully theirs?

They should take some time off their book-reading, their tree ring analysis, their Fortran programming, whatever, and get on some real political action. Pool their money together and sue Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair, and the whole gang of crazies for libel. Call for those police officers who insist on doing nothing to resign. Protest at the Daily Telegraph for defending people who threaten child rape. Things like that.

Writing another series of essays isn't "Accountability", it's slacktivism.

-- frank

> I would certainly ignore the doctor if I knew he stood to make millions from an alarmist diagnosis.

GSK makes billions.

So why are you believing your doctor? Go out there and use some healing crystals!

> But the IPCC does, time after embarrassing time.

I think you're mistaking the NIPCC. They're the ones going to bogus studies.

There are things that Greenpeace have printed that they know about.

YOU have to prove what it is you believe with your whole heart that the IPCC used that Greenpeace didn't know anything about.

I'd wish you luck, but you're a prick.

Rick,

Mark Lynas' misrepresentation of Sven Teske's contribution to one chapter of eleven in the IPCC report is highly exaggerated, (He is one of nine contributing lead authors and not a co-ordinating lead author. He did not personally write the chapter, much less the entire report. Teske's affiliation is declared in Annex IV, so the charge of deception is baseless.) and entirely due to being filtered through the disingenuous maunderings of one Steve McIntyre.

The fact that you'll repeat anything that agrees with your pre-conceived opinion without examination of the underlying facts is damning evidence of your inability to apply proper scientific skepticism.

"Take the morally superior smirk off your face -- it looks ridiculous."

Back atcha.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 15 Jun 2011 #permalink


I would certainly ignore the doctor if I knew he stood to make millions from an alarmist diagnosis.

In fact, I wouldn't go to him in the first place.

But the IPCC does, time after embarrassing time.

The IPCC, with a paid staff of about a dozen, and which relies on volunteers to perform the lion's share of its work, stands to "make millions from an alarmist diagnosis"?

Is there something in tinfoil-hats that destroys brain cells?

By caerbannog (not verified) on 15 Jun 2011 #permalink

#$! tags! Everything looked ok in preview mode!

By caerbannog (not verified) on 15 Jun 2011 #permalink

@ Rick bradford

I would certainly ignore the doctor if I knew he stood to make millions from an alarmist diagnosis

So you get the diagnosis and dismiss it. Later it turns out the "alarmist" diagnosis was right, and the doctor makes a small fortune on the back of a bet he had with another specialist in the same field. You, meanwhile, are dead because you ignored the diagnosis.

Remind me, who's the winner here?

Bradford:

I would certainly ignore the doctor if I knew he stood to make millions from an alarmist diagnosis.

Surgeons do make millions actually.

In fact, I wouldn't go to him in the first place.

You can be stupid if you like just don't take the rest of us down with you.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 15 Jun 2011 #permalink

I would certainly ignore the doctor if I knew he stood to make millions from an alarmist diagnosis.
In fact, I wouldn't go to him in the first place.
But the IPCC does, time after embarrassing time.

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

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

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

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

A follow on article of The Canberra times by same author http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/change-o… providing more detail into the abuse suffered by our scientific community. (Faeces smeared on a young researchers car after she gave an invited talk at a suburban library - FFS)

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

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

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

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

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 16 Jun 2011 #permalink

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

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

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

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 16 Jun 2011 #permalink

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

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

> Step forward Jones, Mann, Briffa et al.

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

In short "Rick", as Wow points out, you've been had.

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 16 Jun 2011 #permalink

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

Rick Bradford.

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

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

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

Over to you, sunshine.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 Jun 2011 #permalink

Hey Rick Bradford -- a quickie technical question for you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

By caerbannog (not verified) on 16 Jun 2011 #permalink

@294

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Vince whirlwind (not verified) on 16 Jun 2011 #permalink

From the Canberra Times follow-up article linked to -

As for the woman speaking at the library, her car windscreen was smeared with excrement - animal or human, does it matter? - and the words ''climate turd'' written (also in excrement) across the car bonnet. Proof perhaps, of a climate dissenter with a Freudian complex indicating arrested development. Proof perhaps, of a climate dissenter with a Freudian complex indicating arrested development.

Anyone else reminded of the above?

@comment no. 303

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

Folks,

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

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

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 17 Jun 2011 #permalink

Shorter Rick Bradford:

>I have nothing.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 17 Jun 2011 #permalink

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

Citation needed.

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

> who criminally dodge FOI requests

Criminally? Sorry, no crime was found.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quite the welcome gent at some "alternative" parties...


Scientists who pull stuff like saying they "have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period"...

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

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

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

By caerbannog (not verified) on 17 Jun 2011 #permalink

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

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

> Criminally? Sorry, no crime was found.

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

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

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 18 Jun 2011 #permalink

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

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

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

-- frank

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

Rick Bradford.

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

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

Now, why is that not a surprise?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 18 Jun 2011 #permalink

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

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

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 19 Jun 2011 #permalink

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

Your actions belie your words.

What 'actions' are those?

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 19 Jun 2011 #permalink

>What 'actions' are those?

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

Rick Bradford.

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

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

Riiight...

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

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

Frankly, [I nailed it the first time](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.p…).

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 19 Jun 2011 #permalink

@Dave R

You're letting the side down badly.

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

Enlighten us all to your thought processes, please.

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

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 19 Jun 2011 #permalink

Rick Bradford:

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

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

* * *

Rick Bradford:

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

In other words, Montford's supposedly definitive "extensive documentation" of climate scientists' supposed crimes against science is now merely ... an opinion?

So,

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

Rick Bradford somehow thinks the former is more important.

-- frank

[Rick,](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.p…)

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

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

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

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 19 Jun 2011 #permalink


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

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

By caerbannog (not verified) on 19 Jun 2011 #permalink

@luminous beauty

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

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

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

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

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

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 19 Jun 2011 #permalink

Rick,

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

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

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

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 19 Jun 2011 #permalink

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

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

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

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 20 Jun 2011 #permalink

[Rick Bradford](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/06/australian_climate_scientists.p…), the troll whose only reference thus far as been Montford's partisan opinion piece, says:

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

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

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 20 Jun 2011 #permalink

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

> > Criminally? Sorry, no crime was found.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prima facie evidence of a lie by dick.

John:

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

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

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

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

-- frank

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

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

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

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

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 21 Jun 2011 #permalink

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

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

Pinning this on Monckton is 100% valid.

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

How awfully gay of you.

> and many more similar sentiments.

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

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

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

David Wendt thinks that satire is equivalent to child rape.

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