JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Pathological exaggerators caught on “death threats”: How 11 rude emails became a media blitz

Here’s a character test on climate scientists and some of the media. It tells us much how concerned they are about truth, and how willing they are to be gullible fools, to have manners, decency, to milk even the most vaporous wisp of evidence into a national headline. Credit to Simon Turnill and  The Australian which put the news on the front page today. At least one paper is working to correct the record.

Character is destiny. Can people who do not care about the truth be trusted on any issue?

How bad were those threats? What threats?

According to Privacy Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim, the 11 documents  “do not contain threats to kill” and the other “could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat”. [The Australian]

What kind of evidence does a climate scientist need to issue a press release?

Answer: none at all.

How important is accuracy to our climate scientists?

Answer: rudeness equals a death threat, just like “fail” equals “very accurate” for climate models.

How reasonable, rational and accurate are climate scientists like Will Steffen, Andy Pitman, David Karoly? Billions of dollars depends on their judgement, and what we find as we study the evidence, is that knowing what we know now, and quoting their own words, they either set out to deceive the public in order to smear those who disagree with them, or their judgement is seriously questionable — almost delusional. Our Chief Scientists admits he did not read the email threats himself before doing all those media interviews. What ho? He’s been caught here, but he also admits he does not know the evidence for climate change either. He trusts the opinion of these same scientists who either have little integrity or are completely irrational.

The evidence suggests they lack scruples and honesty. The serial exaggerators hide the data. When asked to provide examples they post weak excuses and try to prevent people seeing the evidence.

Remember that even if real death threats turn up (and I sincerely hope they don’t), nothing after the fact can change the truth that climate scientists like Will Steffen Andy Pitman, David Karoly felt no obligation to tell the Australian taxpayers the whole story. They are happy to stoop to smearing opponents. It’s more proof that they have no evidence, and resort to smears to win sympathy and distract the public from their vaporous case.

For the record: How 11 rude emails became a national media blitz

After receiving 11 rude emails, the ANU scientists issued media alerts calling them “death threats”, saying that they were so serious they’d moved the scientists to safer locations, they were switching to unlisted home numbers, deleting social media profiles that had been defaced. It was “intolerable”  and  they were shaking with fear.

After being asked via FOI to provide the “death threats” they hid them, improbably claiming their were privacy issues, and the release of 11 crude emails (with details redacted) may “endanger the life or physical safety of any person”.

Pathological exaggerators? Lets quote their exact words:

Will Steffen, head of the Climate Institute and paid thousands of dollars to advise on billion dollar policies, appears unable to tell the difference between a bad mannered email and a direct threat of violence. Just how good is his judgement on the finer points of feedback loops in complex models?

Professor Will Steffen, of the Australian National University’s Climate Change Institute, said some were direct threats of violence, while others were ”simply very nasty emails with veiled threats in them that what might happen to us in a very general way”.  Canberra Times

The serial exaggerators tossing baseless ad hominem smears then called for a “logical public debate” about the science.

Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, Professor Ian Young, said staff should not have to put up with such behaviour. “Professor Young says the outrageous behaviour [of receiving 11 rude emails] has left the scientists shaken.” “These are issues where we should have a logical public debate …” [ABC]

Prof David Karoly, of the University of Melbourne’s school of Earth science took the opportunity to suggest the 11 rude emails could be an organized campaign:

“It is clear that there is a campaign in terms of either organised or disorganised threats to discourage scientists from presenting the best available climate science on television or radio,” he said.

According to Andrew Macintosh, the 11 emails were an acceleration of a campaign running for years (What? Perhaps there was one email 5 years ago, and another 18 months ago? That bad eh?)

“Andrew Macintosh, associate director of the ANU Centre for Climate Law and Policy, said the scientists had been targeted for years but it had worsened. ”I received a few a couple of years ago. It was three letters, with pictures of dead animals and print cut out from newspapers. There was a variety of ways I was going to die. They were going to shoot me, gut me and so on. Since then I’ve had lots of abusive emails and phone calls.”   [ canberra times]

Instead of informing Canberran’s that the ANU had not reported the rude emails to police, journalist Eamonn Duff at The Canberra Times phrased it as such: “Federal police said they were aware of the issue.” A hired PR agent could hardly do better.
Not surprisingly Julia Gillard blamed Abbott:
Prime Minister Julia Gillard said the plunge in debate should be blamed on the Opposition’s preparedness to ”abuse scientists”.   canberratimes
She took the chance to smear the Tea Party too. Combet also held Abbott responsible.  Our current political leaders struggle somewhat with cause and effect.

The man trying to scare us into paying billions to stop storms and floods, Climate Minister Mr Combet, said:

“People whipping up anxiety over a carbon price should temper their language and engage in rational debate rather than irrational scare mongering,’’

 

The Climate Science smear campaign was a media success

Here are the headlines generated over 11 rude emails:

“Australian National University scientists moved to safe location after threats” The Australian

   “Death threats sent to top climate scientists” ABC

“Australian climate scientists receive death threats” [Guardian UK]

“Australian climate scientists face death threats” [Nature Blog]

Climate scientists receive death threats [SMH]

Death threats to scientists  [Canberra Times]

Chubb deplores ‘low’ climate debate [Canberra Times]

Climate debate hitting new lows – scientist [Daily Telegraph]

Climate change scientists threats reheated [news.com.au]

Climate debate ‘appalling’ [The Canberra Times]

 ”Climate of Fear” [The Canberra Times]

Universities condemn threats against climate scientists ABC Online

Australian climate change scientists receive death threats as debate heats upTelegraph.co.uk

The Australian -University World News -AFP

The Canberra Times, “Climate of Fear” article containing a false claim has disappeared off their site.

Perhaps they removed it because it wrongly claimed the police were investigating the death threats? A Canberra Times editorial has also disappeared (but is apparently copied here).

I found a copy of the most egregious beat-up of them all, the “Climate of Fear” article on a chat board:

BY ROSSLYN BEEBY SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT REPORTER
04 Jun, 2011 12:00 AM

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

Despite the climate scientists phenomenal PR success using lies to achieve national headlines that smeared their opponents, Ian Chubb, the chief scientist later said that scientists need to learn to manage the media.

SCIENTISTS need to be more skilled in using the media to sell the message that what they do is relevant and vital, according to Ian Chubb. 

“Science is not doing itself any favours,” Professor Chubb said. “Despite a specialisation called ‘science communication’, communication between science and the media is patchy, science makes an uneven use of the media to get its message out.”

The truth, of course, is that the political activists who masquerade as “Scientists” are excellent at PR and disinformation, shamelessly timing a beat up of the insulting boorish emails into a media storm. Instead it is those independent scientists trying to expose the failures of government funded “science” that need to be smarter about managing their PR.

 

Once again, where was the truth? It was in the new media, on the blogs, not in the newspapers. They did not report the death threats to the police, so  in June 2011 it was obvious to any journalist who was not a gullible hack that the whole story may have been a baseless beat up.

Shame on you:  Will Steffen, Andy Pitman, David Karoly, Ian Young, Andrew Macintosh, Ian Chubb, Rosslyn Beeby, Eamonn Duff.

Who will apologize for baseless slurs?

My previous posts:

Death Threats? Respect the science? Start with some evidence.

To a climate scientist, *swearing* equals a Death Threat (no wonder these guys can’t predict the weather)

Death threats are never OK, but for those without morals they can be a useful PR tool

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (100 votes cast)
Pathological exaggerators caught on "death threats": How 11 rude emails became a media blitz, 9.5 out of 10 based on 100 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/cf5rdyt

144 comments to Pathological exaggerators caught on “death threats”: How 11 rude emails became a media blitz

  • #
    Richard

    as my friend Steve declared, “their idea of a death threat is to be told they will be held accountable!”
    Their response is directly proportional to their knowledge of just how much they have to be held accountable for…
    If you don’t fiddle the results, funding, etc., being held to account holds no fear…


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Sonny

    Climate Scientists have issued many more “death threats” to all of us through their alarmism regarding global warming, sea level rise and extreme weather events.
    What is more they have facilitated and been the direct beneficiaries of a global political and economic con job that will impoverish and potentially kill people by the thousand. Funding that could have been directed to solve real health and environment issues have been fraudulently misapropriated by “climate scientists” and their political masters. I do not condone death threats of any kind real or imaginary.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Ross

      Sonny , we have not forgotten that threat on the Greenpeace website a few years ago.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Kevin Moore

      By “intimidating the public or a section of the public”, the government is damned by its own words.

      In Australia, what constitutes an act of terrorism is defined in Commonwealth legislation. The Criminal Code Act 1995 states that a terrorist act means an action or threat of action where the action causes certain defined forms of harm or interference and the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause. Further, the Act states that ‘the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of:

      i. coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of the Commonwealth or a State, Territory or foreign country, or part of a State, Territory or foreign country; or

      ii. intimidating the public or a section of the public;

      and where the action

      (a) causes serious harm that is physical harm to a person; or

      (b) causes serious damage to property; or

      (c) causes a person’s death; or

      (d) endangers a person’s life, other than the life of the person taking the action; or

      (e) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; or

      (f) seriously interferes with, seriously disrupts, or destroys, an electronic system including, but not limited to: (i) an information system; or (ii) a telecommunications system; or (iii) a financial system; or (iv) a system used for the delivery of essential government services; or (v) a system used for, or by, an essential public utility; or (vi) a system used for, or by, a transport system.

      The Criminal Code makes it an offence if a person commits a terrorist act, provides or receives training connected with terrorist acts, possesses a thing connected with terrorist acts, collects or makes documents likely to facilitate terrorist acts, or does any act in preparation for or planning of terrorist acts. The penalty for engaging in a terrorist act is life imprisonment.

      The penalty for other terrorism-related offences outlined above ranges from ten years to life imprisonment.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Gee Aye

        on topic as ever, misunderstanding law as ever.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        For once, Gee Aye has a point.

        The operative phrase appears to be “and where the action”, following the subclause you quoted. You would have to demonstrate, by direct cause and effect, that at least one of the subparagraphs following were true.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      MattB

      You may not condone them… but no-one ever sticks up for me when MV salivates over the thought of lining me and others up in front of a pit and opening fire.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    macha

    is it just my pc or has the font on this website gone as miniscule as the temperature rise in the last 15yrs…..wtf?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    What a wunch of bankers…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mick Buckley

    I hope this post does not draw too many commenters away from the previous one, ‘The IPCC FAR predictions …’. Jo and David still have questions to answer over there.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    Bunnings is selling something that might pacify them – solar powered wind chimes!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Gee Aye

      you put these next to a sound powered fan, next to a wind powered torch that powers the chime, and you get the most fabulous positive feedback loop. The world is yours.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Dave

        .
        Gee Aye
        Better still – set up sound and solar powered fans to supply wind to power wind turbines to generate electricity. When you need power – go outside and yell loudly if the sun not out! And better still, have sound powered turbines to generate wind to power the wind turbines to generate light beams to generate power to the solar powered wind turbines to blow wind on the wind turbines – problem solved – just yell – and YES POWER! Grant very close!


        Report this

        00

    • #
      The Black Adder

      …solar powered wind chimes!

      ..but Olaf, do they work at night?


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Say, while we seem to be having a bit of fun at Solar power’s expense here, sometimes I see things and my brain immediately ticks into gear.

        A nearby neighbour recently put up solar lights all along his balcony at the back, 24 of them in fact. They’re on special at Bunnings etc, and you can get a reasonable set of 24 for around $60 to $80.

        They have a small solar panel on top. The Sun produces the electrical power that is used during daylight hours to charge a AA NiCd rechargeable battery. At Sunset or a preset time, the electronics in the unit switch over and the battery is used to power a low power high intensity brightness bulb. The bulb stays lit for around 8 hours provided it has been a bright sunny, cloud free day.

        Now, typically, to keep the initial price low, they use those NiCd batteries, and all going well, you’ll get around 200 or so full cycles from them, Charge during the day, and flatten all the way at night.

        Hey I’m sanguine so let’s say you get a full year from the batteries, provided the solar panel is kept pristine all the time.

        At the end of the year, (and here let’s actually pretend I would actually even consider getting something like this in the first place) I would invest in NiMH batteries. I might get a few more cycles out of them, hopefully even 2 years perhaps. They have a higher current rating, but all that means is that your lights will stay lit for longer before the battery goes flat, so instead of winking out at say 1AM, they could stay lit till 4AM.

        Keep in mind here that for the life of the battery to be extended for as long as possible, then it should be totally flat prior to a recharge, otherwise the battery ‘remembers’ (it’s a techo electrical concept not easily explained) its charge if not fully discharged, effectively shortening the life of the battery. (Always run a rechargeable battery completely flat before recharging, always)

        So, let’s forget the initial outlay and just go on the batteries alone. You can get them cheap at DSE or the like and an 8 Pack off AA rechargeable NiMH might be as low as $40, so for 24 lights, hence 24 Batteries, hence three packs, hence $120. Each year.

        Not too bad really.

        OK then, same set of 24 lights, same intensity bulbs, only instead of solar powered, a plug into the wall and run through a transformer type system, you know, one of those small black boxes attached to the power cord.

        Cost of running it for the same time each night using normal household power $12.60 a year.

        Did you see that?

        $12.60 a year.

        Or $120 a year for the batteries.

        Nice effect though.

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Mark D.

          (Always run a rechargeable battery completely flat before recharging, always)

          Tony, a friendly amendment to your post:
          Nicad batteries, yes use till flat (dead) before recharging)
          NiMH do not need to be run till flat
          Lead Acid (gell cell type) MUST NOT be run below 80% of charge, This is true for all lead acid types whether “deep cycle” or not. Most devices that work with lead acid rechargeable batteries are “smart” such that they do not draw below the 80% mark.

          A very short battery life will be the result if the lead acid rechargeable batteries are run till completely flat.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Lead Acid (gell [sic] cell type) MUST NOT be run below 80% of charge, This is true for all lead acid types whether “deep cycle” or not. Most devices that work with lead acid rechargeable batteries are “smart” such that they do not draw below the 80% mark.

            Maybe that’s why my top of the line APC Uninterruptable Power Source (UPS) batteries have needed replacing before their expected life was over.

            Nice to have a device that’s useful until you use it.

            Nuts!


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Not quite true about sealed lead acid batteries. The number of cycles you get depends on the depth of discharge. Many perform very well in “float” service as alarm backups etc with only the occasional deep discharge. If you discharge them, charge them right away, do not wait for days.
            As you increase the depth of discharge routinely you will greatly reduce the cycle life. It isn’t a linear function.
            We’ve used these in gliders for the last 40 years for powering radios and instruments.

            If you have a serious application then lithium iron phosphate batteries are better. This is the safest current lithium technology. About 2.3 times the energy/Kg of the sealed lead acid type. You do need a more sophisticated charger though.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            MarkD,

            I stand corrected, so thanks for that.

            I know that we’re way off topic here (guilty again Tony tut tut) but as usual these comments here at Joanne’s site always throw up something of interest, even during a jocular aside.

            I suppose I should really have added the words ‘in a similar small gadget application’ here, mainly referencing those batteries you would use in situations like this, because there’s absolutely no way known I would use a SLAB for what is basically a toy. (garden lights)

            Tony.

            SLAB – Sealed Lead Acid Battery


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Mike Borgelt makes a salient point here.

            Lets actually pretend I do the good greenie thing and install rooftop solar power. (Judas Priest, why oh why would I, especially, even consider that)

            I’m looking at around 60K+ to do that. (and here’s the link for that so you know I’m not having a lend, and scroll almost to the bottom, and then click on Remote Area Pricing Guide and see the all up cost, pre subsidy, because being a moral person, you wouldn’t have me bludging on the rest of the consumers now would you) and then notice the cost for an average residential consumption of around 17 to 20KWH per day.

            Part of that outlay is a battery bank, not just the odd AA cell, but a bank of batteries, large heavy duty batteries. The panels generate power under the sunlight, and the Inverter converts it to the 240V/50Hz power used by the residence. At the same time a small trickle charge, not inconsiderable, then charges up the battery bank.

            After sunset, the batteries then provide the power source for the Inverter to keep supplying the residence.

            As we have mentioned here, batteries have a finite life, and in applications like a full rooftop solar system, you could get five, and maybe even 7 years life out of the battery bank.

            So, you’re looking at a whole new replacement battery bank every 7 years say (best case) sp hoping against hope that the panels actually last 25 years, there’s 3 replacement battery banks in that time, and trust me they are not cheap (One link and a second link)

            Oh, and try getting the full 25 years out of the inverter too (link to prices for those)

            So when you hear wonderful glowing stories of how ‘My rooftop solar system is the ducks guts’, I’m willing to bet they haven’t reached that battery bank replacement time yet, or the inverter replacement time yet.

            Now perhaps you can see why rooftop solar has huge initial subsidies and feed in tariff of up to three times retail electricity prices, because if the whole cost had to be borne by the user, they would never pay for themselves, and let me repeat that word ….. NEVER.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Gee Aye

          Tony this is nothing to do with your calculations but those lights can go on for years with the original battery and dirty PVs. Basically they get enough charge to run for a couple of hours after dark. For sleep starved parents like myself this is about all you need for finding the way to the compost heap after dinner.


          Report this

          00

          • #

            Correct Gee, er, providing you keep replacing the batteries that is.

            And any batteries, especially in applications like this, AA for garden lights, only have a limited number of cycles in them, eg, charge during the day, discharge at night. Even so, batteries in applications like this, cycling every day, lose on average 1% of their capacity a day, more in hotter climates.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Gee Aye

            seriously… I get enough glow from 3 year old batteries to find the path to the clothesline!


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Bob Massey

          Tony, you didn’t add in the costs for getting rid of the NiCad Batteries or their inherently toxic affect on the environment but this is the type of situation the AGW Madness that we all know and love has produced :)


          Report this

          00

        • #
          brc

          I got some of those solar lights.

          They didn’t last 3 months.

          I replaced the batteries with new ones.

          Those lasted another 2 months.

          I don’t know what it is – perhaps it’s being stored out in the elements – but they are completely useless.

          Next purchase will be some low voltage garden lighting.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Otter

        If you use the tide-powered night light.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Dave

    .

    Mike, Matt, MattyB, Bennet, Brookes, Buckles Buckley,

    I hope this post does not draw too many commenters away from the previous one

    Why???? Is this a Pathological exaggeratoration of the topic – or you’re missing something like the IPCC 1990 FAR reached lies?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Harpo

    I’m confused…. What does a threat to suspend democracy amount to…. How about a suggestion to gas people…. Or tattooing your opponents so that future generations can “identify” them… Are the alarmists saying that a threat only exists when it is contained in a private email that nobody is allowed to read, Where as a public declaration is somehow virtuos…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    Well they and the Prime Minister have something in common.The truth or lack there of.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    (Fade in)

    Good evening. Tonight we are talking to Dr John Pitball, who is a Climate Scientist.

    Addressing Dr Pitball: “Good evening, Dr Pitball,”

    Dr Pitball: “Good evening Brian, and you can call me Doctor John, or John for short.”

    Brian: “Thank you John”.

    John: “Pleasure Brian”

    Brian: “Well John, we wondered why somebody would want to write weird letters to you”.

    John: “You almost lost your R’s there. It is really quite simple, they are threatening letters, Brian”

    Brian: “Threatening, You say?”

    John: “Absolutely Brian, very threatening”.

    Brian: “In what way, John?”

    John: “In the worst possible way, Brian”

    Brian: “Yes, I understand that, but how bad were they?”

    Johnl: “Very bad, Brian. Nobody should have to put up with letters like that”

    Brian: “Yes, but what did the letters say, exactly?”

    John: “Oh, horrible and horrendous stuff, Brian. I was shocked, shocked, I tell you”

    Brian: “So, what was so horrible and horrendous about it, John”

    John: “Well it made death threats, personal death threats, threats against me.”

    Brian: “Ah, I see. Um, what sort of death threats were these, John?”

    John (looking perplexed): “Well death threats. Threats against my person. It was horrible and horr …”

    Brian (interjecting): “Yes, yes, but what exactly did they say?”

    John (puzzled): “Well they said somebody was going to kill me”.

    Brian: “Kill you? Somebody threatened to murder you?”

    John: “Well, not in so many words, Brian. In a few less words than that actually.”

    Brian: “So, what words were those, John?”

    John: “They said, ‘You will die”

    Brian: “Really? They said ‘you will die’, just like that?”

    John: “Yes, Brian. And then there was more stuff about leaving something called a legacy, and family, and society, but it definitely said ‘You will die’, and I was shocked …”

    Brian: “Yes, we understand, it must have been awful for you. Er, can you show us the letter?”

    John: “I don’t think I can do that Brian”

    Brian: ” Why not?”

    John: “Well, it might contain some personal stuff”

    Brian (puzzled): “But you must know, you read it didn’t you?”

    John: “Well not after it said I was going to die, I mean threats like that are quite unnerving, I’m sure you wouldn’t want to read on when somebody you don’t know has said ‘you are going to die’”.

    Brian: “No, indeed. Do you perhaps happen to have the letter with you?”

    John: “Well yes I do, but it is not in very good shape.”

    Brian: “Not in good shape — what do you mean?”

    John: “Well, because the dog ate it”

    Brian: “But it might still be readable, even if a little slobbery?”

    John: “Yes, I suppose so.

    Brian: “Could I ask you to read, say, the first few paragraphs, just to give us an idea of what the letter is like? You can stop if you get to anything personal.”

    John (reluctantly): “Well all right, But it is horrible and horr …”

    Brian (interjecting again): “Yes John, we know that. Could you just read a little bit for us?”

    John, “Dear Dr Pitball, Given you are now approaching the normal age of retirement, you have to consider what will happen to your family if you are not there.”

    Brian: “Go on”

    John: “This is the horrible part.”

    Brian: “But, I am sure you can do it.”

    John: “… if you are not there. You are going to die. And who will look after … oh my god … it is worse than I thought”

    Brian: “What’s worse … ?”

    John: “It’s a letter from a bloody insurance company … that means they know where I live … and that means they can come for me at any time …”

    Brian: “Yes, well, thank you for being on the show tonight, Dr Pitball, it was nice talking to you”

    John: “Yes, yes, nice talking to you to … I bet is was the bloody bank that gave them my address … I always knew you couldn’t trust banks, worse than lawyers …”

    (Fade out)

    Come back Speedy, all is forgiven


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MadJak

      Well done Rereke,

      Of course, the twitch with what you have written is that we don’t appear to have many interviewers around who actually persist like Brian does in your example.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      The Black Adder

      Hahaha LOL !!!

      Not bad for a KIWI Rereke!!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Er, me mate, John Clarke is a kiwi as well. He is just in Auztralier ‘cos of an higher calling – better dosh.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Rereke,

          without doubt, he’s a gem.

          best thing he did was The Games, in the run up to the Sydney Olympics.

          I still get emails from friends in the US about one of their clips first aired in July 1991 called The Front Fell Off, and some of those people actually believed it was a real interview with an Australian politician, in this case the late Senator Bob Collins.

          Hard to believe this is more than 20 years old. This is just one of a number of the same videos with more than a million hits all up.

          The Front Fell Off

          It even has its own entry in Scopes Urban Legends at this link.

          Tony.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Tony,

            Some of his best work was done in New Zealand where he played the part of Fred Dagg in a satirical section in the otherwise serious TV show called Country Calendar. He wore a black singlet, rugby shorts, a battered hat, and gum boots.

            When the Muldoon Government introduced a scheme to pay farmers to not sell their sheep in times when the exchange rate was not in New Zealand’s favour, Clarke did a sketch where the plot focussed on the fact that some farmers overstated the number of sheep that they had. One classic line was when he is being interviewed about this, and points out a sheep in the distance. The interviewer says, “That doesn’t look like a sheep, it looks more like a rock”. Clarke just takes the interviewers glasses, puts them on, stares at the “sheep” again, takes the glasses off, gives them back to the interviewer, and very seriously says, “Yeah, it looks like a rock to me through those glasses. I would get them checked, if I was you. (pause) You didn’t drive yourself here did you?” His timing is immaculate.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Speedy

      Off topic I know but Rereke did issue an invitation!

      If the ABC was Relevant (Part 50)(Superstition)

      If Climate Scientists wrote Horoscopes – would it sound like an IPCC report?

      Aires

      Strong climate forcings due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, combined with other powerful positive warming feedbacks, could cause the earth’s climate to reach a “tipping point”, beyond which further intervention is impossible. This would make it likely that the earth will subside into a Venus-like greenhouse climate; cute little polar bears will become extinct and you will die, alone and shabbily dressed.

      Taurus

      Some Scientists predict that carbon dioxide pollution may cause a return of famine and disease to an extent not seen since the plagues of the Middle Ages. Under this scenario, your house will become infested by rats; shortly afterwards your skin will display hereto unobserved blotches and painful boils. After your slow and agonising death, you will be cremated by family and friends in what proves to be an unsuccessful attempt to spare the lives of the remaining few.

      Gemini

      You neglect to turn off the light when you leave the room. Fortunately, a celebrity emergency response team (Richard Branson, Al Gore and a minor Hollywood deity) is on standby for such an emergency; they promptly arrive (via personal jet) to inform you of the error of your ways. Overcome by remorse, your final plea for forgiveness will be found, clutched in your lifeless hands, a few days after neighbours notice a “funny smell”.

      Cancer

      World-famous climate scientists have concluded that global warming is significant, catastrophic and man-made. Anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, notably CO2, must be immediately reduced to levels last seen during the black plague. Unless decisive action is taken immediately to combat climate change, then the ice caps will melt, and you and your cat will drown pathetically in the resulting floods. Cats will be provided on request.

      Leo

      Robust climate modeling has established that your western way of life is deleterious to the planet’s well-being. It appears that you exhale a lethal cocktail of greenhouse gases, including CO2, on a regular basis. In a long-overdue action to combat Global Warming, government legislation will require you to hold your breath for the entire duration of “Earth Hour.” Fortunately, like all those born under the sign of Leo you are wise, sociable, generous and – best of all – biodegradable.

      Virgo

      Ever-increasing emissions of CO2 will cause the acidification of the oceans and extinction of sea life. You will mistake a salmonella-ridden victim of ocean acidification for a pickled roll-mop, and perish ingloriously from dysentery.

      Libra

      Scientists warn that the continued spread of Global Warming, due to man’s increasing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, may contribute to world-wide pandemics of hereto dormant diseases such as anthrax, smallpox and leprosy. Knock, knock? Who’s there? Not you…

      Scorpio

      Rising sea levels, accompanied by unstable tectonic conditions associated with Global Warming, are expected to significantly increase the frequency and severity of Tsunami – style disasters. In one such event, you will be swept from your bed, washed out to sea and drowned. No-one will miss you.

      Sagittarius

      Mankind’s activities are causing irreparable damage to the ecosystem. Luckily, your activities have attracted the attention of a race of hyper-intelligent, green-loving aliens, who will protect the planet by blowing you away after breakfast.

      Capricorn

      An incontrovertible truth of global warming is the dramatically increased incidence of hurricanes, tornadoes and other extreme weather events. You will be sucked into a hurricane and never seen again.

      Aquarius

      In a warmer world resulting from mankind’s addiction to fossil fuels, the viable range of parasites such as mosquitoes will be greatly enhanced. The next mosquito you encounter may well be from the species anopheles, culminating in your slow and painful demise.

      Pisces

      Climate Scientists now recognise that severe cold weather events are a clear manifestation of Global Warming, which is due to mankind’s emission of greenhouse gases, notably CO2. You will pay the price of your polluting lifestyle when you too become a victim of this increasingly common form of global warming. Your frozen body will be chipped away from the electric heater you formerly relied on for warmth. The heater will be recycled via an approved facility.

      Cheers,

      Speedy


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Sonny

        Very funny! Love your work Speedy!


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Mark D.

        There goes the rest of my morning coffee (now all over the screen)!

        Thanks to both of you :)


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Shevva

        I’m glad I’m not a warmista because funny stuff like this and good old Josh would go straight over my head.

        Brilliant. (I’m a Leo, holding breath now).

        Side note to Mike Buckley it’s not Britney Spears anymore it’s the bat mobile.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Speedy

          The interesting thing is that the “horoscope” is only the same old scary stuff they trot out for the punters – and the press love it. (Or used to.)

          At heart, the greenies are a miserable bunch of gits. Sod ‘em.

          Cheers,

          Speedy.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Ian Hill

        Seeing as I’m a Cancer I need a cat. Can I have a better one than Sarah Hyphen-Young’s?


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Mick Buckley

        Thanks Speedy. I’m a Scorpio so nobody’s going to miss me. I think you already knew that.

        This is from the other side but also funny. (I assume it’s a spoof.)

        The Truth About Wind Energy.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Grant (NZ)

        Knock, knock? Who’s there? Not you…

        Speedy, I am going to sue you for the irreparable pain and injury you caused me laughing at what I suppose you think of as humour.

        Good stuff. :-)


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Dave

        .
        Speedy,

        My star sign is isn’t there!!
        .
        I’m a test tube baby!
        .
        I think the star sign from tests is “Pyrex®”!


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Speedy

          Sorry, I forgot you’re a Pyrex…

          Pyrex
          Melting of the Greenland ice table is predicted to cause unpredictable tectonic shifts and significantly increased volcanic activity. Taking the dog for a walk one evening, you will understand how unpredictable this effect can be, after you are suddenly engulfed by a seismic vent.

          Pyrex is surprisingly heat resistant, but, sadly for you, not that much…

          Pleasant dreams.

          Speedy


          Report this

          00

  • #
    John M

    One can only imagine how much Johnathon Holmes must be salivating with excitement on being able to expose such media incompetence, and not just in the MSM, but also at his own ABC !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    The timing was also perfect for the most incompetent government of our time.

    The reporters who wrote every one of those pieces should be named and shamed. I spot a couple up there, but we should have a more comprehensive list.

    Of course, it’s the usual list of catastrafarian scientists at the centre, as usual. Are they household names for all the wrong reasons yet?

    Whenever they are referenced by anyone, we should point out that they aren’t really reporters, they are just press releasers for vested interests.

    The Media gave the catastrafarians a massive free kick with this smear.

    As such, the individuals who wrote about it should be named indefinitely unless they personally issue an unreserved retraction and apology.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    I must say I do feel very sorry for the “climate scientists” – poor darlings.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      The Black Adder

      what for Sonny? /.sarc

      poor darlings.

      Flim Flannery is on $180,000 for 3 days a week.

      And he isn`t even a Climate Scientist!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Rod

    Call a big fat liar fat and they will lie to the police.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Dave

    If Media Watch weren’t biased they would have investigated this when it happened. We all knew, so did they, they just chose not to go there.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MichaelC58

    Prof Ian Chubb has come out looking very badly in this matter.

    Chief Scientist Ian Chubb, who was the ANU’s vice-chancellor at the time, last night admitted he did not have any recollection of reading the [death threat] emails before relocating the university’s researchers. “I don’t believe I did,” Professor Chubb told The Australian.

    Instead, he said he had responded “as a responsible employer”.

    “With hindsight, we can say nobody chased them down. What do you do?”

    So, as a responsible employer, why did the good professor not ensure that the police was called in? Why did he not ensure that this criminal offence against his employees was reported to the police? Did he really believe putting a few locks on their doors would protect them from serious death threats? Or did he know they were not really death threats?

    Then the “no recollection” defence from our Chief Scientist. Shameful evasion worthy of a politician and a Chief Scientist. Does he expects us to believe he does not recollect whether he did or did not read a death threat against his employees. What? Is he reading deaths threats every week that he can’t remember reading these ones? His evasion is simply not believable.

    He certainly remembered “death threats” when he spoke at the AIBN Annual Research Symposium on 22 July 2011:

    “We’ve seen this in the climate change debate; we’ve seen it with GM foods and crops, and with embryonic stem cells. Scientists have had to confront death threats, destruction of their research, legal action and misinformation campaigns from those ideologically opposed to their work.”

    And he certainly agreed with Tony Jones that there were death threats to climate scientists on LateLine on the following day:

    TONY JONES: But should your role as Chief Scientist be to come out or spring to the defence of these scientists who are getting death threats? I mean, are you worried about the atmosphere that’s evolving here?

    IAN CHUBB: Oh, absolutely. I mean, I think it’s appalling.

    What is his defence of this seeming his own ‘disinformation”? Was he referring to other threats he did see? Or was he relying on media reports about what was happening in his own university, and thus was mislead?

    Prof. Ian Chubb, our Chief Scientist, has come out looking more like an untrustworthy politician than the honoured Chief Scientist. He has certainly brought this office into disrepute in my eyes and probably many others. So this may be the real reason why people day by day are becoming more sceptic and not any ignorance or denial of science.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sonny

      Yes, that’s one of many many reasons.
      People are just sick of the melo-drama especially now that it will cost them directly via the crapon tax


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Fred Allen

    Geez, these so-called “scientists” are doing themselves no favours. They’ve always had the reputation for nerdish behaviour, but these latest revelations put them in the realm of disconnected freaks. Climate science may have had a growing reputation for a short while, but it won’t be long before a climatology degree will have a reputation similar to that of an astrology degree or be as searched out by corporations as a degree in medieval history.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Allen Ford

      I would expect, at the very least, that the universities would treat “climate science” with the same objectivity as they are being urged to treat the teaching of “alternative medicine” in their medical faculties.

      Forelorn hope!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Rod

        When I studied science we had fun but understood a kind of loyalty to fact gained by observation. We didn’t feel a need to pander to emos and hystericals. We didn’t have to cater to GLBT or the indigenous or feminists or the downtrodden. As I plied my slide rule I cared not one whit about other peoples feelings.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Climate science may have had a growing reputation for a short while,

      Oh contrare – the reputation of climate science is growing very well indeed, but it is a reputation for BS.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    gnomish

    bravo! go Jo!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Perhaps we should feel sorry for the ‘climate scientists’ as they can’t seem to help themselves from almost always having to lie and deceive.

    ‘Climate science’ is an industry based on lies – such as: i) supposed death threats, ii) soon-to-be-extinct polar bears, iii) supposed melting ice caps, iv) supposed abnormal levels of extreme weather events – tornodos, hurricanes etc., v) supposed catastrophic sea level increases and so on.

    ‘Climate science’ is also an industry based on data distortion, twisted conclusions and grant addiction throughout its adherants. Unfortunately, there are too many instances of this, some of the more obvious being Mann’s hockey stick and the new Crutem4 statistics.

    One day hopefully not in the too distant future, when the inevitable happens and the CAGW hoax is finally accepted for what it is – just an elaborate con, then there will be thousands of so called scientists joining the ranks of the long term unemployed (who would give a job to any scientist known to falsify his data and conclusions?) – that day cannot come a moment too soon.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    chestdocmd

    The nominees for Best Actor in a Science-Fiction Horror Movie are: Will Steffen, Andy Pitman, David Karoly, Ian Young, Andrew Macintosh, Ian Chubb, Rosslyn Beeby, Eamonn Duff…..

    And the winner is: Andrew Macintosh!!

    His histrionic portrayal of a delusional paranoid thin skinned egocentric climate scientist brought tears (of laughter) to the audience’s eyes. His acting ability for the gullible public was really tested when he pretended that the Deniers had put him a cross to be sacrificed in an attempt to appease Big Oil. The part of the movie that was cut and wound up on the editing room floor was when the rest of the Alarmists told him to get down off his cross because they needed to burn the wood as CO2 levels weren’t climbing fast enough……


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rod

      It wouldn’t be so bad if they really were good actors like say Patrick Stewart and there was proper music and lighting.

      If they did it properly I’d go along with it.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    You mean every time we give a “fail” to a poster, if they are an alarmist, we are stroking their ego? ;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    I was surprised to see the very left wing (but great actor) Noni Hazelhurst cast as the ‘heretic’ in the play by that name about to be staged by the Melbourne Theatre Company. (If I lived in Melbourne I’d definitely check it out). But perhaps she too has jumped off the Climate Change bandwagon, sick of all the lies and misinformation?

    BTW – So glad this matter was looked into by the Privacy Commission and not Fair Work Australia!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    The Google logo on my screen this morning is interesting. For a start the letter “L” appears to represent a green dragon. The “X” on the red winged being has a special meaning.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Off Topic…looks like I’ve flushed out some warmists at one of The Australian blogs.

    One thing that James Delingpole said the other night pricked my ears. The connection between Combet and Pacific Hydro that was not in his article yesterday.

    Passed it on to an investigative reporter I know to see what he can dig up.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Pathological exaggerators caught on “death threats”: How 11 rude emails became a media blitz [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    agwnonsense

    Apart from the original LIE the problem is Braindead Cut and Paste journalism.They could have checked up on this story and saved some of their threadbare credibility by printing the truth. Have a great day in our Beautiful Everchanging World,


    Report this

    00

  • #
    imdying

    That aside from failing to report death threats under antiterrorism rules, I think its going to get a lot worse. Basically they defrauded the govt by deception to receive benefits such as a new workplace and maybe taxpayer funded accommodation. This is as stupid as claiming your dying from cancer and need money for a wedding.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Is it a blog beat-up for an article like this to be so full out fauxtrage, only to conclude “may have been a baseless beat up.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Was looking for advice on solar panels.

    I can get about 19 panels on my roof facing north any suggestions which company go with?

    All ideas welcome

    Cheers

    Crakar


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Is this a wind up?

      See the link at 6.2.1.1.4

      That’s about the average.

      Tony.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      jl

      Crakar, it doesn’t matter which company you go with, they all deliver the same thing: A first price to get you hooked, a second price because your situation is ‘difficult’. Then if you agree, you will be the owner of your very own power station that will seldom perform to your expectations ( are you cleaning your panels every fortnight? ). You will also see a reduced power bill, this may repeat until whatever state you reside in revokes the ‘stealing-from-the-poor-to-pay-the-rich-feed-in-tariff’ at which point your investment is dead. And one more thing… hailstones can take out your whole array in seconds!
      This is the advice you will not see on any glossy brochure.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Not quite true.

        I have a 1.5Kw peak system performing slightly better than my assumptions. My work colleague has one the same. We are both happy. I’m getting a 25% ROI . What’s not to like? I’m about to put in another 1.5Kw with no subsidy. I did the numbers with just the meter running backwards and the ROI is OK then too. Hailstones? My house insurance policy covers the panels.
        The effect of the feed in tariff is interesting. It increases the price of electricity during the day to what the feed in is. About double currently in Queensland. Interesting way to decrease peak requirements.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Dave

          .
          Who pays for the high KWh rate?
          Who pays for the increased insurance premiums?
          Does the CO2 emmissions from the coal power stations decrease during the day?
          Is it also insured against inverter failure?
          How long is your warranty?

          It’s only really about the money – not the emissions!

          You’re ahead – Good luck!
          But nothing changes!
          Only the money!
          Unbelievable!


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Rod

            If it made any sense at all to do it a commercial entity would find flat waste ground and bulk buy a bunch of large panels that they could cheaply clean and motorize to face the sun. How can people be so stupid as to think that if no business person in their right mind would do it with the best of capital that it could ever be of any worth for a householder to do it on their roof? Sheesh people are dumb.

            Such a power station probably could be built. Maybe supply 10000 households if they weren’t too fussy about brownouts. Maybe operate just to pay the wages of 4 or 5 workers once built and loans taken out. And charge about 85 cents per kwh.

            Oh but the technology will get cheaper! What a load of crap. Are peoples wages going to become less? Is it going to become cheaper just around the corner to move earth, lift weights, grow wheat, herd cattle? I don’t think so. Will wishful thinking deliver more sunlight but only on our panels?

            The only way I’d use panels is for a shack in the bush.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Penndragon

    Some years ago I worked as a solicitor in a major university and had to advise on a problem where a student made seemingly serious death threats to a senior academic. We took precautions, but the strong police advice was that death threats are made frequently to people and 99.9% of the time amount to nothing. Apparently the critical thing is not the threat but if the person making the threat takes any actual action to implement the threat. He did take some action but it was more of a defamatory gesture than anything to become alarmed about. We kept it all secret to try to contain it.

    As a lawyer on a pro bono matter I was once threatened by a successful businessman I had never met or heard of that I would never get another job again if I did not withdraw from providing free legal services to my client. For many in the legal profession threats like this are something of a “right of passage”. It comes with the territory and yes, his threat was ignored, so I passed that test of my professionalism. I gave a few minutes thought about what I could do, decided I could not even prove it had been made, moved on and told very few people about it.

    Many years later I met a relation of an author of one of the books pointing out the fakery of the warmist religion and was able to reassure that relation that they should not worry and why and what to look out for. The interesting contrast was that their reaction was to avoid trouble by not making a big public deal of it.

    Consequently I have, for a long time now, suspected that these academics might be “crying wolf” for the cause.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    first, no media other than the Australian has yet covered the story at all. surprised? of course not.

    and here is the pathetic response by the Coalition’s Climate Change Spokesman. all about the “carbon tax” is it, Greg? wouldn’t want to mention the ETS, would you? or the fact the Coalition pretends it believes the “science”?

    what a joke:

    3 May: Australian: Lanai Vasek: Safeguard free speech on climate, says Coalition
    Opposition climate spokesman Greg Hunt said threats were “completely unacceptable” but claims should not be exaggerated.
    “There is no place for overstatement,” he said.
    Mr Hunt said members of the public were angry because the government did not accept any opinions against the carbon tax and they should be allowed to do so.
    “Everyone has the right to a view and one of the frustrations is that the government denounces anyone who disagrees with it,” Mr Hunt said.
    “The real issue is the carbon tax and now it appears that even its own backbench and ministers are divided on the carbon tax but gagged from speaking.
    “The Prime Minister should lift the gag on free speech among her members and let them speak openly on the carbon tax.”…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/safeguard-free-speech-on-climate-says-coalition/story-e6frg6xf-1226345778967


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    Revkin the Gatekeeper manages to keep the meme going!

    from the Revkin article: Casey Doyle, a student at Warren Wilson College who writes for the Swannanoa Journal, the publication of the school’s Environmental Leadership Center, had the opportunity to speak with the climate scientist Michael Mann when he visited the campus to speak about his book, “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars.”:

    3 May: NYT Dot Earth: Andrew C. Revkin: A Student’s Conversation With Michael Mann on Climate Science and Climate Wars
    Q. I understand that you have received threats due to your reporting on climate data. Who or what is the threat?
    A. Many climate scientists have received hundreds, and probably now even thousands of threatening emails… attacking us, or using very nasty language to criticize us… Some emails, letters, and phone messages that have been left on my office phone contain thinly veiled threats of violence, death threats. I had an envelope sent to my work address that contained a white powder, obviously it was intended to make we think I had been exposed to anthrax. The FBI had to send that off to the regional lab to test it, and it turns out it was just cornmeal, but using the mail to intimidate in that way is a felony… I’m not sure if they were ever able to track down the person who was responsible, but there are dozens of climate scientists who had been subjected to threats of violence and death threats…. Anytime that the findings of science have come into conflict with the interests of certain industries there has been a fairly nasty effort to try and intimidate the scientists through whatever means possible, and I’ve seen some of the worst aspects of that myself…
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/a-students-conversation-with-michael-mann-on-climate-science-and-climate-wars/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John from CA

    Kevin and Ross,
    Thanks for the tips!

    Cheers


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KeithH

      John. It’s actually Keith if you’re referring to the Green Agenda/Agenda 21 tip in the previous thread. Apologies if not! I had the same reaction as you when I first found it, but all the links and attributions I followed proved correct. Keep your eye on Rio-20 in June when even the most gullible of those who don’t think there’s any truth in the Global Government goal of the UN under the guise of “sustainable development” should have their eyes opened! Cheers to you.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        ExWarmist

        I personally think that the biggest threat to the “Global Government” movement is the current monetary system and it’s apparent direction into a state of collapse, at which point the “…centre will not hold…”.

        The second biggest threat to the “Global Government” movement is the arrogance/hubris of it’s proponents – over-reach leading to catastrophic failure.

        I think that we will see many attempts (which will be destructive of value, in and of themselves) in the near future to install a global government – but that such an entity will not actually work.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          John from CA

          The idea of a global government is absurd. Countries are culturally diverse and have trouble getting along. The idea of the UN as the global government is beyond absurd. Someone has been reading to much Star Trek.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        John from CA

        Sorry Keith,
        Typed that too quickly. Thanks for the link!


        Report this

        00

  • #
    rightlysouthern

    Every now and then you have to shoo the critters away to keep the crops growing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew

    These people are damned liars and charlatans. They are demonstrably dishonest and deceptive crooks. And yet our numbskull politicians squander our (taxpayer) money in the tens of millions of dollars pandering to these dishonest and corrupt psuedo-scientists.

    How about some sackings? Now that these liars have been shown for what they are – LIARS – how about a full audit of: 1) their work (is this all LIES too?) and 2) on the university accounts – to assure that our money has not been fraudulently mis-used?

    These LIARS should lose their positions and their salaries. Starting with that shameless bum, Chubb. His head should be the very first off the block.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sonny

      Andrew,
      The climate scientists only lie because that’s what our leaders in governments are paying them the big bucks to do. “He who pays the piper calls the tune”.

      However, they don’t need to remain complicit. Look at Dr Evans, he abandoned the ‘gravy train’ based on his principals and is now risking a lot to convey the truth to us. Any real scientists should value the truth over and above their salary and acceptance within the regulating class.
      Unfortunately, it is human nature to value our own needs of happiness, wealth, security and acceptance over and above such lofty ideals as being rigorous, honest, upstanding and ethical.
      Nevertheless, individuals who choose a path of selfishness must take the consequences as well.
      In this case, as evidenced by this post, “climate scientists” are less popular than parking inspectors or even lawyers. (no offense lawyers).

      At least even these professions have some redeeming social value.
      Perhaps in some time “climate scientists” will prove to have some value as an example of the ease with which governments can manipulate and coerce professionals into becoming subservient muppets extending the power and reach of a fractional ruling class, while subjugating and alienating everybody else.

      If you guys are unpopular you only have yourselves to blame.
      You need to come clean and repent ala James Lovecock.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Dave

    .
    And they wonder why we don’t like them!!
    Average income – NO – way above 90% of all taxpayers!
    USERS of taxpayers – YES – and they don’t care – it’s all about the money!

    TAXPAYERS will fork out $90 million a year to keep more than 400 public servants employed within the federal Climate Change Department – despite most now having nothing to do until 2013.

    Should the Department of Climate Change be disbanded?
    Yes 88.16% (1348 votes)
    No 11.84% (181 votes)

    The Head of the Department of Climate Change – is set to earn $700,000 per year by 2014! WTF!!!

    The head of US Treasury earns about $200,000 and the head of the Bank of England earns $487,000 per annum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

    Australia – the leader of salaries of the WORLD – what do we get in return? SFA!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robert

    Eleven whole emails, 10 of which contained no significant threat and one which was kinda sorta a threat…..vicious and unrelenting no doubt.

    Boy, what a bunch of precious little princes and princesses. Reinforces my view that a University is a sheltered workshop for the mentally abled….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rod

    It could be argued that death threats save lives. My neighbour knows that if his dog shits on my lawn that I will kill him. He didn’t know that until I told him.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rod

      People who are lying bastards know that they are lying bastards and always have at the back of their minds that one day their skull might be crushed and that their last awareness will be someone saying, “You lying bastard”. They wonder that they will experience extreme pain and panic and that as their temporal lobe becomes anoxic they might suffer this state forever.

      So if you call a lying bastard a lying bastard they can actually feel as if you are crushing their skull. They actually feel the same fear at being called a lying bastard as a sensible person might feel at the prospect of actual death.

      Which in a way is at it should be. I would rather be dead than be known as a lying bastard. Some lying bastards might in desperation plead that they come from a long line of lying bastards and should be given leniency on the grounds of their familial loyalty.

      I say they are full of crap because any time they like they can make an honest attempt to check the facts.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Dave

    .

    My neighbour knows that if his dog shits on my lawn that I will kill him.

    The dog or the neighbour??? :)


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rod

      The neighbour of course. But we get on fine. He’s here now having drinks but he knows that if his dog shits on my lawn I’ll kill him.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Sonny

    Watching christine Milne @ climate action summit 2012 on foxtel….
    What a disgrace!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sonny

      They sound so desperate and pathetic I actually feel sorry for them!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Rod

      When I was a kid I was kind of fond of the homespun style of Bob Browne. Thirty years later Christine Milne is the literal embodiment of pretty much everything I despise in people.

      Apart from being a lifelong imbecile it’s apparent that in the past couple of weeks she’s been massaged by advisers.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    DavidH

    Sorry, off topic, but the BEEB is reporting “Greenland’s glaciers are not speeding up as much as previously thought, researchers have estimated.”. Plenty of caveats about how it may flow faster in future, it’s still worse than we thought, not enough time to be sure, we don’t really know what the hell is happening but the first and last paragraphs still say “we got it wrong” (please give us more money to keep investigating).

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17952317


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Dave

      “But the team, writing in Science, said the glaciers could eventually flow faster than earlier studies estimated.”

      They always could flow faster in the future. Why mention something that is always true? It’s not science reporting it’s scaremongering.


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #

    [...] “could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat”. http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/pat…a-media-blitz/ So naturally we have a typical warmmonger smear. A claim was made without evidence. They then [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    There is more to this story:
    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/05/threats-in-australia-more-to-story.html

    ———————–
    REPLY: Apologies for the delay while I am away. Appell has merely dug up the same old rude emails that were scraped together last time this came out. They were not death threats then, and still aren’t now. His big breakthrough is that the privacy commissioner did not consider some other non-death threats? So? Is 20 rude emails that different from 11? Check my index for “death threats”, I’ve already written about these exact emails. This only shows how desperate they are. At the time they made the claims about deaths threats so assertively and repetitively, there was nothing to base it on. How exactly are rude emails, made to people outside the ANU, a good reason to shift ANU scientists to new offices? – Jo


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Moderator: My comment is not “moving the goalpost” — it’s saying that the Privacy Commissioner’s report covered only a subset of the threats made in Australia, and hence was not definitive (as people like Jo Nova and Anthony Watts took it to be).

    (We are holding it in the pending bin for Jo to read since you post a link back to your blog with NO intent to discuss it here with Jo and her readers) CTS
    ———————-
    REPLY: Not definitive? No way. They were busted. The ANU team has been caught wildly hyping up some rude emails for their PR sympathy value. Appell’s “find” changes exactly nothing. Will Steffen said there were death threats — the headlines repeated that, but it was all based on no evidence. If these scientists are so happy to be dishonest to “save the planet”, what does that tell us about their science? – Jo


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike Larsen

    Don’t believe what the Murdoch Press or any media print FACTS here in context not the spin by skeptic sites or media lies …

    The original Canberra Times story had pointed out, the newspaper had found evidence of a campaign against at least 30 climate scientists at institutions across the country.

    One researcher’s two young children were named and threatened.

    Truly sick crap from so called Australians

    Professor Will Steffen, the director of the ANU Climate Change Institute, has now told me staff were moved to a more secure area in April 2010, well before the period covered by the Privacy Commissioners report.

    He said: “I and my Climate Change Institute staff were moved to more secure quarters around March/April 2010 because of concerns my staff had about the very open and accessible premises we had at that time. I had a duty of care to my staff to respond to these concerns. The move was taken in consultation with the Vice-Chancellor and with the ANU security office. This, of course, is well before the Jan-Jun 2011 period that the FOI request is concerned with.”

    I understand there were several incidents at the ANU in early 2010. On two separate occasions, individuals had walked into institute premises demanding to see particular staff members. Both individuals were acting “aggressively” Professor Steffen said. The institute’s offices were on the ground floor with open access with no security restrictions. The institute’s website had also been subjected to what Prof Steffen described as a “cyber attack”.

    At the same time, other climate scientists at other institutions had been receiving abusive messages and emails.

    Shortly after ANU staff were moved, there was an incident at an ANU public engagement event where a climate sceptic who had been invited to attend had become frustrated. During an exchange, the individual had showed what he claimed was a gun licence to people sitting at the table, before claiming he was a “good shot”. The individual is understood to have left voluntarily.

    The same as all the comment here all dismiss it as nothing but it is sites like this spurring it on creating the hate in todays society even this title Pathological exaggerators caught on “death threats”… is a hate title

    How about if it was a skeptics family or kids involved it certainly would not exaggerated then

    http://www.readfearn.com/2012/05/hate-campaign-against-climate-scientists-has-not-be-debunked/


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Good lord! Don’t bother with logic or facts. Just keep smearing.

    You assume that any and all death threats MUST be mentioned in this small set of emails, or they didn’t happen?

    No wonder serious scientists treat most of your prognostications as total rubbish. You can’t even think straight.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike

    Yes their was a focused campaign waged against about 30 climate scientist across Australia .. It was not exaggerated as some would have you believe.. A scientist / researcher was threatened along with her kids.. Truly sick stuff but oh no they were exaggerating….

    Another scientist was confronted by a person who showed them his gun license followed by i am a very good shot or similar comment .. But no that is just exaggerating…

    It would not be tolerated by the skeptics if it was them but why threaten kids is disgusting .. Sort of sums up Australia and where we have come to thanks to a few

    [Do you have any links that might prove the claims you've made?. Mod oggi]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike

    see post 45 they had same story cover


    Report this

    00

  • #