Climate Scientists Recieve Death Threats

Halcyon Daze · June 24, 2011

Australia's top climate scientists have been receiving death threats, while Monckton Accuses Garnaut of being a Nazi.

As the world moves toward acting on Climate Change, many deniers are turning to more and more extreme measures.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/climate-scientists-angered-by-deniers-death-threat-campaign/story-e6frg6nf-1226079058193

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8594194/Outrage-as-Lord-Monckton-calls-Australian-climate-change-adviser-a-Nazi.html

synchromesh · June 24, 2011

The Carbon Tax is going to be the final nail in Australia's coffin. Enjoy!

hutch · June 24, 2011

The Carbon Tax is going to be the final nail in Australia's coffin. Enjoy!

Dead right!

Death threats...what crap, another beat up by scientists chucking hissy fits because they are getting caught out over and over again...must get embarrassing at times I suppose...Toughen up ya sooks.....sticks and stones and all that shit...

Whilst I was disappointed that Monckton got down in the gutter with your mob at least he has come out and apologised. But he was RIGHT anyway as far as I'm concerned and that in itself is very worrying... that's why this government must be sacked...Double standards are just typical from the alarmist crowd. How long have they been dishing out the term "denier". Is that not a link to nazi Germany and a denial of the holocaust?

Considering how HD has already indicated, on this forum that he believes he and his partner are made of better stuff than us bogans I can now understand Just why he is so keen to pay a great big new tax that he must acknowledge will do fuck all. That's what the better people do.....helps them sleep at night.

Emails reveal nature of attacks on climate scientists

CLIMATE scientists have long been the target for abuse and so the latest revelations that researchers have been on the receiving end of death threats won't surprise many people engaged in the issue.
From current and past experience of speaking with climate scientists, I know many have been receiving threatening and abusive communications for years.

In some ways it is seen as a part of their role. A quirk of the job which needs to be tolerated and managed, whether they like it or not.

For some, spam filters remove the need to engage directly with the emails. Some say they just brush off the conflict. Others ignore it. Some have internal systems to guard themselves from the communications.

But none of this makes it right.

The latest unsavoury swag of attacks targeting Australian climate scientists is now being reported in The Guardian and other news outlets around the world.

But just what is the nature of the threats? What kind of language is being used?

Here are some extracts of emails sent since January this year to three Australia-based senior scientists researching climate change and its impacts. Information which either identifies the recipient, or the sender, has been removed.

Please be advised the texts contain strong language.

arfgh shaddup you fckn wanker…go push you your yuppie bllshit propaganda to your useful idiot mates and shut the fck up… [clipped] how the fck do you know that? how old is our continent? what and how many extreme rain events have their been in the last 250 million years…yr a dckhead-and they made you a professor-wot out of a fckn cornflake packet?

The clipped section above was removed because it refers to a quote which the scientist had given,and so could be traced back to the individual. A second example follows.

Wouldn't mind that turds such as yourself spend your time masturbating and collecting grants but you are costing jobs, and billions to the tax payers your filthy piece of lying shit! Die you lying bastard!@

A third example follows.

You lying cocksucker! 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.. FUCK YOU SCUMBAG!

A fourth example

YOU ARE A FUCKING LYING PIECE OF SHIT COMMUNIST !!!!!!!!! GO FUCK YOURSELF AND DIE YOU CUNT !!!!!!!!!!

A fifth example.

You [clipped] are nothing but a Traitorous Lying Asshole !! The quicker that Cunts like you and your kind Die the better !!!!!!!

A sixth example.

Fuck off mate, stop the personal attacks. Just do your science or you will end up collateral damage in the war, GET IT

A seventh example.

…what a joke you wankers are! There will be a day of facing the music for the [clipped] type frauds. What a fucking idiot, the last decade has been the hottest in recorded history….. [clipped] you are a fucking fool!

An eighth example.

If we see you continue, we will get extremely organised and precise against you. We will not do so if you rightfully argue against our points from a science view. But we will if you choose to stray into attacks on us as people or as a movement. The institution and funders that support you will find the attention concerning.

Whether or not some of these emails constitute a genuine threat to someone's life is up for interpretation,but there's little doubt that they are threatening and abusive. These texts are not a full representative sample of all the attacks which climate scientists are receiving. Neither are attacks of this nature isolated.

What cannot be in doubt, though, is that climate scientists are routinely subjected to abuse and threats which are either direct or implied. There is no doubt either in my mind that the conduct of those sending these emails is deplorable and should be impossible to condone. Yet at least one commentator in a newspaper, one of Australia's highest selling tabloids, not only failed to condemn the actions of the perpetrators but suggested the scientists deserved it.

Earlier today, two government ministers did condemn the attacks, saying they had no place in Australian society.

Commentators engaged in the climate change issue, even those who question the science, have an important role to play in either encouraging or condemning such behaviour among their readers and listeners. As Professor Clive Hamilton explains, they help to set the tone.

You could consider that threats like this are heard in playgrounds every lunch time across the world and this might be so. But those are children trying to win a playground argument. The senders of these emails are, presumably, not juveniles. This is not just friendly banter or sledging at a cricket match.

This is not a playground argument.

http://www.readfearn...ate-scientists/

CARBON TAX ADVOCATES HUMILIATED....here.. http://www.menziesho...ated-on-qa.html

way out of her depth.......

rahli · June 24, 2011

I hope these arseholes are getting payed by the concerned busness intrests to undertake this malicious campaign. Elsewise they are risking their freedom to further short term profits of the mega rich with no personal monetary gain for themselves. Might be cheaper and more profitable for big business to just stir up the mentally ill and get the job done for free. Wouldn't put it past them to take advantage of the vulnerable to turn a profit. Nothings changed it seems.

Halcyon Daze · June 25, 2011

You're a true champion for the cause Hutch,

First sentence of my first link.

'executive director Anna-Maria Arabia received an email saying she would be "strung up by the neck" and killed for her promotion of mainstream climate science.'

Sorry Hutch but your argument that nobody is even getting death threats is quite simply full of crap, like most of your arguments.

And as for your cheap shots on me (well I couldn't care less really) but you're way wrong.

Anyone who bases their arguments on insults is not helping the debate.

hutch · June 25, 2011

You're a true champion for the cause Hutch,

First sentence of my first link.

'executive director Anna-Maria Arabia received an email saying she would be "strung up by the neck" and killed for her promotion of mainstream climate science.'

Sorry Hutch but your argument that nobody is even getting death threats is quite simply full of crap, like most of your arguments.

And as for your cheap shots on me (well I couldn't care less really) but you're way wrong.

Anyone who bases their arguments on insults is not helping the debate.

Poor things....you call that a death threat and you think only those in your camp get them. Are you a child?

Here's a death threat directed at you...

"ALL THE HERO'S (sic) AND LIONS OF ALLAH WHOM (sic) HAD THE CHANCE TO COME TO THE COURT AND FIGHT FOR THE SAKE OF ALLAH ... ALLAH HAS GRANTED YOUR OPPRESSED SISTER VICTORY OVER HIS ENEMIES AND HE GRANTED US A JUDGE THAT FROM THE WORD GO HE WAS DEFENDING YOUR SISTER WHERE EVERYONE ELSE WAS DETERMINED TO SEE HER JAILED, BUT ALLAH HAD OTHER PLANS".
His Facebook page, with the profile picture of a bloodied fist replaced yesterday by a handcuffed figure in a burqa, has messages from supporters such as: "Allah akbar, may all the pigs burn in hell inshallah".

It features videos of Osama bin Laden, slurs against infidels and "Kufaars" (non-Muslims), "American pig savages" and "Zionist dogs".

Last weekend Ibrahim wrote: "YA ZIONIST DOGS THERE WILL BE A DAY VERY SOON THAT YOULL FIND NO SHELTR NOR A WALL TO HIND (sic) BEHIND AND WE WILL EAT YOUR FLESH AND SPIT IT TO OUR DOGS TO CHEW OFF."

And this: "HOW LONG ARE WE GOING TO STAY WEAK, NO MORe MR NICE GUY, WE WILL DEFEND OUR iSLAM AND OUR SISTERS WITH OUR BLOOD, BLOOD, BLOOD."

A video also appears with the title "8 US soldiers killed in Iraq" and the message from Ibrahim: "Keep them Comming (sic)". Another video, since removed, said: "WATCH THE AMERICAN PIGS THE AUSSIE PIGS THE BRITISH PIGS SOLDIERS RAPING YOUR MUSLIM SISTER".

http://blogs.news.co...rdly_extremism/

Now what are you going to do about it? Nothing cause you know it is just some dick head ranting. So did she but she is looking for the sympathy card. Run away from debate is all she is doing. The invention of the Internet makes it easier for the drop kicks and dickheads to do what they do best. So what! Does that make your argument correct?

tripsis · June 25, 2011

Considering your attitude to this, it wouldn't surprise me if you were one of those sending abusive emails hutch.

Blood Trance Fusion · June 25, 2011

The invention of the Internet makes it easier for the drop kicks and dickheads to do what they do best.

Indeed, hutch! :wink:

synchromesh · June 25, 2011

Cost of living to rise by $3000 in next year

That's without the Carbon Tax mind you...

tripsis · June 25, 2011

Your point being? It costs money to live in this society, fact of life.

WoodDragon · June 25, 2011

Double standards are just typical from the alarmist crowd. How long have they been dishing out the term "denier". Is that not a link to nazi Germany and a denial of the holocaust?

The short answer Hutch is most definitely "NO".

The semantics of the word "denier" have been discussed ad nauseum for years now, but it seems that those who are themselves deniers just don't have the basic vocabulary capacity to understand it (or are perhaps subconsciously manifesting an underlying guilty conscience?). To quote the poster 'Ginckgo' discussing Moncton's lunacy on a Drum thread:

24 Jun 2011 8:46:16am
How many time [sic] must it be pointed out that 'denier' has a very specific definition: someone who refuses to accept something that is supported by evidence, because it would undermine his preconceived notions. It is a common encounter by scientists of all disciplines: evolution (creationists are deniers), geology (expanding earthers are deniers), medicine (HIV/AIDS denial and antivaxers) - Holocaust denier is just the most well known.

Anything can be denied Hutch - even the fact that "denier" pertains to people who deny things other than the Holocaust. The word has a history a bit older than the time of WWII:

Middle English denien, from Old French denier, from Latin dēnegāre : dē, de- + negāre, to say no; see ne in Indo-European roots.

You are a denier Hutch. You deny the veracity of climate science, and you deny its conclusions. You deny that humans should act to minimise their fossil carbon emissions if they are to leave a habitable world for as-yet unborn generations. None of this has to do with Holocaust denial, and no-one says that it does, unless they say specifically that so-and-so is a "Holocaust denier".

It's why we have adjectives Hutch. But then, perhaps adjectives are one of those fancy-schmancy rubbishy inventions that intellectuals and scientists use to suppress the masses, and so are not worthy of use by guys like you, who have bucketloads of street cred...

[Edit: link]

Edited June 25, 2011 by WoodDragon

Halcyon Daze · June 25, 2011

Yeah! lol

hutch · June 25, 2011

Yeah! lol

That answered my question....you are a kid....childish little fuck...

Halcyon Daze · June 25, 2011

lol, too hot in the kitchen for ya?

tripsis · June 25, 2011

That answered my question....you are a kid....childish little fuck...

No need to flame hutch. If you're such a mature person, then act like one. Either don't enter discussions such as these, if you can't stand your ground and argue, or craft yourself a decent reply, rather than than calling someone a 'childish little fuck'.

Scientician · June 25, 2011

I for one am having trouble accepting that so few people seem to have identified that we live on a carbon based planet & all life that dwells upon it is also carbon based. Therefore a tax on carbon is essentially a tax on existence. Carbon is not carbon Dioxide or carbon monoxide. Carbon is carbon.

People keep making the arguments that taxes are bad & pollution is bad, but a sneaky backdoor tax on people just for being alive is ideally the sort of event that could very well usher in "1984" or a situation very similar & should not have any support whatsoever.

Just think of the term opening the flood gate & meditate on it for a while.

Find another solution & support that!

Please

synchromesh · June 25, 2011

Civil war and homelessness for the win!

I for one am having trouble accepting that so few people seem to have identified that we live on a carbon based planet & all life that dwells upon it is also carbon based. Therefore a tax on carbon is essentially a tax on existence. Carbon is not carbon Dioxide or carbon monoxide. Carbon is carbon.

People keep making the arguments that taxes are bad & pollution is bad, but a sneaky backdoor tax on people just for being alive is ideally the sort of event that could very well usher in "1984" or a situation very similar & should not have any support whatsoever.

Just think of the term opening the flood gate & meditate on it for a while.

Find another solution & support that!

Please

I will never support the taxation of dog farts. It just doesn't sit right with me. :wink:

Edited June 25, 2011 by synchromesh

Slybacon · June 25, 2011

^^^^ Even tho my industry and the income I receive will directly benefit from such a tax I am strongly apposed to it. Sorry to the OP as I know this wasn't the purpose of the thread I just wanted to add to the above sentiments.

EDIT> it does seem like good timing to release such an article in relation to the current media support of a carbon tax. To the supporters of climate change who I have so stubbornly apposed, I am starting to accept your science, but, I'm yet to support the solutions thus offered. There is still a lot at stake which sits hidden in the shadows of sudden climate death..

Edited June 25, 2011 by Slybacon

Mycot · June 25, 2011

Many want even urgently for something real to be done about the climate problem.

But this tax is being sold to us has not shown how it will in anyway help.

There has been no mention or assurance that it is being earmarked for alternative energy development.

It appears to be just another tax grab on the part of the gov when many Australians may be already struggling and can see few benefits from it.

If it is beleived that there are climatic benefits to a tax of this sort then perhaps they should cancel the GST and have the carbon tax instead. Such a move would gain a lot more support.

WoodDragon · June 25, 2011

Muskrat.

The carbon tax is only applied to fossil carbon - oil, coal, natural gas. The carbon of the biosphere is not included, although it's possible that in the future non-replaced burning of forests might be incorporated, but that would not be a bad thing at all.

Mycot.

A tax will do more than anything else to reduce our share of emissions. It also sends a serious signal to other countries, as Garnaut explains. Personally, I am looking forward to the tax, as I have very much reduced my fossil carbon footpint already, and the compensation for lower income earners will be a nice little windfall for me, even though I have three jobs at the moment.

Bring it on, I say.

Edited June 25, 2011 by WoodDragon

Scientician · June 25, 2011

Muskrat.

The carbon tax is only applied to fossil carbon - oil, coal, natural gas. The carbon of the biosphere is not included, although it's possible that in the future non-replaced burning of forests might be incorporated, but that would not be a bad thing at all.

Mycot.

A tax will do more than anything else to reduce our share of emissions. It also sends a serious signal to other countries, as Garnaut explains. Personally, I am looking forward to the tax, as I have very much reduced my fossil carbon footpint already, and the compensation for lower income earners will be a nice little windfall for me, even though I have three jobs at the moment.

Bring it on, I say.

Just think of the term opening the flood gate & meditate on it for a while.

Political leaders are masters of manipulation. Hell even Jim Jones was able to convince nearly 1000 people he was on to a good idea. If people truly want to reduce emissions then people need to take it upon themselves to curb over breeding. It's overpopulation that fuels big industry & keeps our roads bumper to bumper with motor vehicles.

All scientific evidence points to overpopulation as the main cause of climate change but I don't see anyone putting up their hand to pay a fucking tax. Because people only want what serves themselves not what truly serves the masses.

OR

Here's George with the weather.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtrT5oG_IVc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mz7Ob4fNwE

Edited June 25, 2011 by muskrat

The Dude · June 25, 2011

24 Jun 2011 8:46:16am
How many time [sic] must it be pointed out that 'denier' has a very specific definition: someone who refuses to accept something that is supported by evidence, because it would undermine his preconceived notions.

So all the evidence is in? Is being skeptical of the evidence (or an interpretation of it) the same as out-right denial of it? Seeing as these topics are only understood by learned scientists, whether or not something is "supported by evidence" to us laymen is dependent on how well these authorities on these issue present their claims to the general public (no attempt to educate so far, only pump fear). The science of climate change may be pretty straight forward and logical, too bad it had to get involved with the science of politics and economics which is purposefully obscure and convoluted, how can you trust another tax grab?

I would say that given the history of our owners manipulating and exploiting their livestock, an author proposing this is just another scam, coupled with the total support from the establishment that knows only how to lie, cheat and steal, would connect enough dots together for the image of a conspiracy to be readily seen before any semblance of an altruistic desire of governments to save the world.

It is a common encounter by scientists of all disciplines: evolution (creationists are deniers), geology (expanding earthers are deniers), medicine (HIV/AIDS denial and antivaxers) - Holocaust denier is just the most well known.

So any contentious issue is squashed by a simple labeling of "denier" (idiot) onto anyone who not necessarily disagrees, but isn't totally convinced in the proposed idea. By using the word it is suggesting that the proposition is 100% verified and that any counter-claim is born of willful ignorance "because it would undermine his preconceived notions" - rather than genuine skepticism, it is an unfair projection that is a safety mechanism for the sanctity of a given idea, lest it be questioned. Truth does not fear questioning, it just labels it denial.

If a person is unable or unwilling to understand the science, be more convincing instead of insulting, ad-hominems are not convincing arguments for those of us watching the debate on the side-lines. -Having said that, I know we have a pretty delicate balance going on here and far be it from me to say our actions are environmentally insignificant, I just hope that politics and economics can fuck off for a while so we actually can save the day. There can be no economic solution - the solution is to stop thinking economically.

On a side note, a simple animation of the expanding earth theory seems to be more logical than the current model. Notice the word 'model'. Is my entertainment of the expanding earth theory a denial of the entire study of geology? What a crock!

Halcyon Daze · June 25, 2011

Species go extinct naturally at the rate of approx 1 species per century. 25 extinctions per day is simply not natural and is caused by man. This George Carlin guy simply lacks understanding of the sheer scale of the problem.

6.7 billion humans on the planet is also not natural and neither is the destruction of most of the worlds forests. To simply ignore the problem and hope it will go away is ludicrous. I'd strongly advise against listening to ludicrous advice like this.

As for the Carbon Tax, I don't particularly support labor or their goals but I do support (on principle) the idea that doing 'something' is far better than doing 'nothing'. The problem is that people are bagging it out before they've even announced the details of the tax. They're still negotiating it so how can one be so strongly for it or against the details. We're still dealing with the 'principle' of it at this stage.

Besides, The idea of a carbon tax follows the mainstream economic literature and many countries around the world have already implemented similar taxes. Even the poorer countries are putting us to shame.

As far as I can see, if it was to stifle business, they'd simply adjust the rate with the stroke of a pen. Problem solved.

Anyway, I'm awaiting the outcomes of the negotiations just as much as any one else at the moment. We'll have to wait and see.

Scientician · June 25, 2011

George Carlin didn't need understanding of the scale of the problem he had true insight & a wisdom that is far beyond the reach of most human beings.

Now here's some more insight & wisdom from my boy Doug Stanhope. I'm out.

synchromesh · June 25, 2011

2010-06-30_Julia_gillard_atheist_global_warming_600.jpg

Climate Scientists Recieve Death Threats

Recommended Posts

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in