http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/australian-national-university-scientists-moved-to-safe-location-after-threats/story-e6frg6nf-1226069184389

A CANBERRA university has increased security following death threats to its climate scientists, some of whom were moved to a safer location.

The Australian National University has received a large number of e-mails with threatening and abusive language directed at some of its scientists.

The Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, Professor Ian Young, said staff should not have to put up with such behaviour.

"Obviously, climate research is an emotive issue at the present time, but these are issues where we should have a logical public debate," Professor Young told ABC News 24.

"In fact, it's completely intolerable that people be subjected to this sort of abuse and to threats like this."

Professor Young said the threats had unsettled the scientists.

"Academics and scientists are actually really not equipped to be treated in this way," he said.


"The concept that you would be threatened for your scientific views and work is something that is completely foreign to them."

The Australian Federal Police said it had not been contacted by the university although it was aware that threats had been made.

While I do not and will not ever condone death threats to anybody - these scientists have had a rude awakening.

It shows they are in a position of influence and they should act responsibly.

Their so called "scientific views" are flawed and to insist it's 100% right will draw these sort of response from those who are not able to control themselves.

Be smart about it gentlemen!!

It wouldn't come as a surprise to anyone if these "death threats" were from the global warming scientists themselves to generate support for and/or sympathy towards themselves.

Whats the bet they never find anyone to take to court and put in gaol.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 8:06am:

"Obviously, climate research is an emotive issue at the present time, but these are issues where we should have a logical public debate," Professor Young told ABC News 24. "In fact, it's completely intolerable that people be subjected to this sort of abuse and to threats like this."

logical public debate consists of "If you don't support the theory of global warming you are denialists". That hardly strengthens the case being put forward about global warming. And if you're over 60 and attend a rally saying you don't support the theory of global warming you're called an extremist.

And don't the scientist issue warnings and threats about extinction if we don't support their theory of global warming. Are these the same "scientists" who warned of global cooling?

Have we seen any evidence or is this just a ploy.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 8:11am:

While I do not and will not ever condone death threats to anybody - these scientists have had a rude awakening. It shows they are in a position of influence and they should act responsibly. Their so called "scientific views" are flawed and to insist it's 100% right will draw these sort of response from those who are not able to control themselves. Be smart about it gentlemen!!

This is a response worth of Abu in his defence of Osama and 9/11 - I don't condone it but they deserve it anyway because I am right and they are wrong.

Maqqa please remove the image from your signature.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 8:11am:

While I do not and will not ever condone death threats to anybody - these scientists have had a rude awakening. It shows they are in a position of influence and they should act responsibly. Their so called "scientific views" are flawed and to insist it's 100% right will draw these sort of response from those who are not able to control themselves. Be smart about it gentlemen!!

You don';t condone death threats... But then you go on to do exactly that. Extremists indeed!  ::)

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 10:06am:

Have we seen any evidence or is this just a ploy.

Doubt that you will.


You're just meant to believe it, like the global warming scam.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 8:11am:

While I do not and will not ever condone death threats to anybody - these scientists have had a rude awakening. It shows they are in a position of influence and they should act responsibly. Their so called "scientific views" are flawed and to insist it's 100% right will draw these sort of response from those who are not able to control themselves. Be smart about it gentlemen!!

Death threats, at any time, against any person, are totally out of line!!!

That's what you should have said, you f@cking great dill!

What are these scientists meant to be smart about? They either hold an opinion or they don't!

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 12:33pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 8:11am: While I do not and will not ever condone death threats to anybody - these scientists have had a rude awakening. It shows they are in a position of influence and they should act responsibly. Their so called "scientific views" are flawed and to insist it's 100% right will draw these sort of response from those who are not able to control themselves. Be smart about it gentlemen!! Death threats, at any time, against any person, are totally out of line!!! That's what you should have said, you f@cking great dill! What are these scientists meant to be smart about? They either hold an opinion or they don't!

Well the death threats should really be directed at the shonky IPCC that is representative of scientists and are trying to influence governmental policy.

I would still like to see the evidence and see someone go to gaol. This tactic is well know in the left sphere. I would like to think this is not just a tactic.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 12:36pm:

Well the death threats should really be directed at the shonky IPCC

Climate extremism. People like you are a threat to democracy.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 1:16pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 12:36pm: Well the death threats should really be directed at the shonky IPCC Climate extremism. People like you are a threat to democracy.

Your an idiot. So let me guess. You took what I said and turned it into an affirmation for death threats. Your an idiot.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 8:11am:

While I do not and will not ever condone death threats to anybody - these scientists have had a rude awakening. It shows they are in a position of influence and they should act responsibly. Their so called "scientific views" are flawed and to insist it's 100% right will draw these sort of response from those who are not able to control themselves. Be smart about it gentlemen!!

No this actually demonstrates the gutter that the conservative lobby has draged this debate into with their lies and hateful position to everything. The develop this kind of hate with there own behaviour then deny it. Mind you denial is their strong suit.
When will the ignorant conservative lobby put forward anything that even looks like credible proof of their argument. I mean real pier reviewed scientific proof, not Alan Jones and Ray Haddley with some stand alone discredited prof that wants fame.

The conservative hate campagne has cost this country much and has help to develop this hate and anger in a community that is becoming more and more confused over what is right and what is easy.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 1:28pm:

astro_surf wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:16pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 12:36pm: Well the death threats should really be directed at the shonky IPCC Climate extremism. People like you are a threat to democracy. Your an idiot. So let me guess. You took what I said and turned it into an affirmation for death threats. Your an idiot.

You mean you've just realised? LOL
That's old news, everyone has known that even himself.
It has been well documented.
But he is proud of it.
:D :D :D

Just wait tll he brings in his aliases LOL
But try not to let on that you know - more fun. :)

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 1:28pm:

astro_surf wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:16pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 12:36pm: Well the death threats should really be directed at the shonky IPCC Climate extremism. People like you are a threat to democracy. Your an idiot. So let me guess. You took what I said and turned it into an affirmation for death threats. Your an idiot.

Death threats, at any time, against any person, are totally out of line!!!

And, whichever way you look at your statement, you have endorsed Death threats, you f@cking great dill (prog)!

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 7:59pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:28pm: astro_surf wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:16pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 12:36pm: Well the death threats should really be directed at the shonky IPCC Climate extremism. People like you are a threat to democracy. Your an idiot. So let me guess. You took what I said and turned it into an affirmation for death threats. Your an idiot. Death threats, at any time, against any person, are totally out of line!!! And, whichever way you look at your statement, you have endorsed Death threats, you f@cking great dill (prog)!

you f@cking great dill, I have stated if anyone should hold the wrath (of a loony), it should be the IPCC you f@cking great dill

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 8:10pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 7:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:28pm: astro_surf wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:16pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 12:36pm: Well the death threats should really be directed at the shonky IPCC Climate extremism. People like you are a threat to democracy. Your an idiot. So let me guess. You took what I said and turned it into an affirmation for death threats. Your an idiot. Death threats, at any time, against any person, are totally out of line!!! And, whichever way you look at your statement, you have endorsed Death threats, you f@cking great dill (prog)! you f@cking great dill, I have stated if anyone should hold the wrath (of a loony), it should be the IPCC you f@cking great dill

What you actually wrote is right above and it says -
"the death threats should really be directed at the shonky IPCC"  

There is only one possible way to view that and you should retract it!

Arguing the for & against, is fine, but it steps over the boundary, when anyone starts inciting violence, of that nature!!!

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 8:35pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 8:10pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 7:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:28pm: astro_surf wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:16pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 12:36pm: Well the death threats should really be directed at the shonky IPCC Climate extremism. People like you are a threat to democracy. Your an idiot. So let me guess. You took what I said and turned it into an affirmation for death threats. Your an idiot. Death threats, at any time, against any person, are totally out of line!!! And, whichever way you look at your statement, you have endorsed Death threats, you f@cking great dill (prog)! you f@cking great dill, I have stated if anyone should hold the wrath (of a loony), it should be the IPCC you f@cking great dill What you actually wrote is right above and it says - "the death threats should really be directed at the shonky IPCC"   There is only one possible way to view that and you should retract it! Arguing the for & against, is fine, but it steps over the boundary, when anyone starts inciting violence, of that nature!!!

Whatever lefty.

.




"The Australian Federal Police says it is aware of the issue, but there is no investigation underway"


Hmmm... seems many people are thinking the same thing - looks like a false claim.


Via ACM..."

...Last time I checked, which was about thirty seconds ago, making threats to kill in the ACT was a criminal offence, thanks to section 30 of the Crimes Act (ACT) 1900, and punishable by a maximum of ten years imprisonment. A similar provision for threats to kill via a postal service or carriage service appears in the Schedule to the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995, with a similar punishment.

TEN YEARS in the clink? That's a serious offence. So if such threats have been made, why isn't it being fully investigated ? ..."


http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/06/death-threats-to-anu-scientists/


Why indeed..  :-?






.

Flying Binghi wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 8:51pm:

. "The Australian Federal Police says it is aware of the issue, but there is no investigation underway" Hmmm... seems many people are thinking the same thing - looks like a false claim. Via ACM..." ...Last time I checked, which was about thirty seconds ago, making threats to kill in the ACT was a criminal offence, thanks to section 30 of the Crimes Act (ACT) 1900, and punishable by a maximum of ten years imprisonment. A similar provision for threats to kill via a postal service or carriage service appears in the Schedule to the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995, with a similar punishment. TEN YEARS in the clink? That's a serious offence. So if such threats have been made, why isn't it being fully investigated ? ..." http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/06/death-threats-to-anu-scientists/ Why indeed..  :-? .

Figured as much.

The scientists are just doing their job and producing scientific opinion backed by tested facts.

The vast majority of current and recent past scientific study shows that global warming is a real problem.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 8:41pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 8:35pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 8:10pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 7:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:28pm: astro_surf wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:16pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 12:36pm: Well the death threats should really be directed at the shonky IPCC Climate extremism. People like you are a threat to democracy. Your an idiot. So let me guess. You took what I said and turned it into an affirmation for death threats. Your an idiot. Death threats, at any time, against any person, are totally out of line!!! And, whichever way you look at your statement, you have endorsed Death threats, you f@cking great dill (prog)! you f@cking great dill, I have stated if anyone should hold the wrath (of a loony), it should be the IPCC you f@cking great dill What you actually wrote is right above and it says - "the death threats should really be directed at the shonky IPCC"   There is only one possible way to view that and you should retract it! Arguing the for & against, is fine, but it steps over the boundary, when anyone starts inciting violence, of that nature!!! Whatever lefty.

You really aren't having a good day!

I am not a "lefty", nor am I a "righty"!

In fact, most Politicians are simply not worth what we pay them.

If you want to label me, perhaps you can put me in the centre, but I really just look at facts, weigh them up and come to a conclusion.

That's what I did for 40 years, in the insurance industry and it seems to work ok, although it does lead into some unexpected results, from time to time.

Like it did back in 2006, when I started a review to look at investment strategies, for our DIY fund, for retirement and before I finished, I concluded that the period ahead was going to be completely different to the past, in a number of areas, including -
1) Demographics (Baby Boomer Bust)
2) Peak Energy
3) Climate Change

All of these separately, had the capacity to significantly change the future, together they are a paradigm changer.

So, the next 20 years will certainly be nothing like the last 20 years and in all likelihood, the next 60-100 years, will see change not imagined by 99% of the Global Population!

So, good luck & watck the Debt!    

 

perceptions_now wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 9:09pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 8:41pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 8:35pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 8:10pm: perceptions_now wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 7:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:28pm: astro_surf wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 1:16pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 12:36pm: Well the death threats should really be directed at the shonky IPCC Climate extremism. People like you are a threat to democracy. Your an idiot. So let me guess. You took what I said and turned it into an affirmation for death threats. Your an idiot. Death threats, at any time, against any person, are totally out of line!!! And, whichever way you look at your statement, you have endorsed Death threats, you f@cking great dill (prog)! you f@cking great dill, I have stated if anyone should hold the wrath (of a loony), it should be the IPCC you f@cking great dill What you actually wrote is right above and it says - "the death threats should really be directed at the shonky IPCC"   There is only one possible way to view that and you should retract it! Arguing the for & against, is fine, but it steps over the boundary, when anyone starts inciting violence, of that nature!!! Whatever lefty. You really aren't having a good day! I am not a "lefty", nor am I a "righty"! In fact, most Politicians are simply not worth what we pay them. If you want to label me, perhaps you can put me in the centre, but I really just look at facts, weigh them up and come to a conclusion. That's what I did for 40 years, in the insurance industry and it seems to work ok, although it does lead into some unexpected results, from time to time. Like it did back in 2006, when I started a review to look at investment strategies, for our DIY fund, for retirement and before I finished, I concluded that the period ahead was going to be completely different to the past, in a number of areas, including - 1) Demographics (Baby Boomer Bust) 2) Peak Energy 3) Climate Change All of these separately, had the capacity to significantly change the future, together they are a paradigm changer. So, the next 20 years will certainly be nothing like the last 20 years and in all likelihood, the next 60-100 years, will see change not imagined by 99% of the Global Population! So, good luck & watck the Debt!

What ever. You must have a long lost mother who is a lefty because you have the same dumb logic.

I see enough left logic to realise it.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 8:11am:

While I do not and will not ever condone death threats to anybody - these scientists have had a rude awakening. It shows they are in a position of influence and they should act responsibly. Their so called "scientific views" are flawed and to insist it's 100% right will draw these sort of response from those who are not able to control themselves. Be smart about it gentlemen!!

Its called a professional opinion based on the evidence before them.

Pull your head in Macca.

I'll take the guy thats been in the business for years and is a professional in their field, before I ever listen to what Alan Jones thinks.

There is plenty of us that believe the science, we just dont think a tax is the way to go about it.

Its a shame that us people are put in the same category as nutcases like yourself as "denialists" because we oppose the tax.

Verge wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 10:19pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 8:11am: While I do not and will not ever condone death threats to anybody - these scientists have had a rude awakening. It shows they are in a position of influence and they should act responsibly. Their so called "scientific views" are flawed and to insist it's 100% right will draw these sort of response from those who are not able to control themselves. Be smart about it gentlemen!! Its called a professional opinion based on the evidence before them. Pull your head in Macca. I'll take the guy thats been in the business for years and is a professional in their field, before I ever listen to what Alan Jones thinks. There is plenty of us that believe the science, we just dont think a tax is the way to go about it. Its a shame that us people are put in the same category as nutcases like yourself as "denialists" because we oppose the tax.

Well said, and 100% correct.

creep wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 8:15am:

It wouldn't come as a surprise to anyone if these "death threats" were from the global warming scientists themselves to generate support for and/or sympathy towards themselves.

It doesn't come as a surprise to see how your mind works. Black ops are such a right wing ploy.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/05/3235810.htm

yeah they are afraid .. after the carbon tax is implemented .. but the hopeless government just won't make any moves and the air have not changed .. However all cost are rising and more people are struggling .. So they are afraid these people will after them where ever they go ..

.



"The Australian Federal Police says it is aware of the issue, but there is no investigation underway"


So, do we have an investigation started yet ? ...or is just another climate hysteria related scam.. :-?






.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 8:06am:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/australian-national-university-scientists-moved-to-safe-location-after-threats/story-e6frg6nf-1226069184389 A CANBERRA university has increased security following death threats to its climate scientists, some of whom were moved to a safer location. The Australian National University has received a large number of e-mails with threatening and abusive language directed at some of its scientists. The Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, Professor Ian Young, said staff should not have to put up with such behaviour. "Obviously, climate research is an emotive issue at the present time, but these are issues where we should have a logical public debate," Professor Young told ABC News 24. "In fact, it's completely intolerable that people be subjected to this sort of abuse and to threats like this." Professor Young said the threats had unsettled the scientists. "Academics and scientists are actually really not equipped to be treated in this way," he said. "The concept that you would be threatened for your scientific views and work is something that is completely foreign to them." The Australian Federal Police said it had not been contacted by the university although it was aware that threats had been made.

RE: "The concept that you would be threatened for your scientific views and work is something that is completely foreign to them".

How conditioned are they?

.



JoNova has a look-see.. 8-)


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

...The bottom line is that the people who have the most to gain from issuing death threats like these are not skeptics, but the pro-carbon-tax team. It’s a great way to win sympathy..."


http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/death-threats-are-never-ok-but-for-those-without-morals-they-can-be-a-useful-pr-tool/





.

Flying Binghi wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 9:39pm:

. [color=#ff0000]"The Australian Federal Police says it is aware of the issue, but there is no investigation underway" [color=#0000ff]So, do we have an investigation started yet ? ...or is just another climate hysteria related scam.. r]:-? .

http://skepticalteacher.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/its_a_conspiracy1.jpg

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/32912.html


Quote:

Part 1: Climate cyber-bullying Australia's most distinguished climate scientists have become the target of a new form of cyber-bullying aimed at driving them out of the public debate. In recent months, each time they enter the public debate through a newspaper article or radio interview these scientists are immediately subjected to a torrent of aggressive, abusive and, at times, threatening emails. Apart from the volume and viciousness of the emails, the campaign has two features - it is mostly anonymous and it appears to be orchestrated. The messages are typically peppered with insults. One scientist was called a "Loudmouth, arrogant, conceited, ignorant wanker". The emails frequently accuse the scientists of being frauds who manipulate their research in order to receive funding, such as this one to Ben McNeil at the UNSW: "It's so obvious you are an activist going along with the climate change lie to protect your very lucrative employment contract." They often blame the recipients of being guilty of crimes, as in this one received by Professor David Karoly at the University of Melbourne: "It is probably not to (sic) extreme to suggest that your actions (deceitful) were so criminal to be compared with Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. It is called treason and genocide. "Oh, as a scientist, you have destroyed peoples trust in my profession. You are a criminal . Lest we forget." Receiving emails like these is unsettling and at times disturbing, which of course is the point. They become worrying when they cross the line to personal threats, such as these sent to Professor Andy Pitman at the UNSW: "There will be a day of facing the music for the Pitman type frauds... Pitman you are a f**king fool!" And this one: "If we see you continue, we will get extremely organised and precise against you." When Pitman politely replied to the last, the response was more aggressive: "F**k off mate, stop the personal attacks. Just do your science or you will end up collateral damage in the war, GET IT." All threats have to be taken seriously, and at times warrant calling in the police. The police are able to trace anonymous emails to their sources and take action against those who send them. The police are now advising those who received abusive and threatening emails to resist the immediate urge to delete them and keep them in a separate folder for future reference. Climate campaigners have also noticed a surge in the frequency and virulence of this new form of cyber-bullying. The following was received by a young woman (who asked that her name not be used): "Did you want to offer your children to be brutally gang-raped and then horribly tortured before being reminded of their parents socialist beliefs and actions? "Burn in hell. Or in the main street, when the Australian public finally lynchs you." Another campaigner opened her inbox to read this: "F**k off!!! "Or you will be chased down the street with burning stakes and hung from your f**king neck, until you are dead, dead, dead! "F**k you little pieces of sh*t, show youselves in public!!!" Greens Senator Christine Milne told me that senators' inboxes are bombarded every day by climate deniers and extremists, so that now they are running at least 10 to one against those who call for action on climate change. She describes it as a "well-organised campaign of strident, offensive and insulting emails that go well beyond the bounds of the normal cut and thrust of politics".

I see nothing wrong with ripping it up'em and letting
them know that you disagree with them.

BUT......

Death-threats, rape threats and threatening
their kids IS beyond the pale.

On this forum I see a lot of people constructing elaborate conspiracies about scientists jumping on the bandwagon for money. If so many people keep putting their common sense aside in promotion of their political agenda it is inevitable that things will get out of hand.

What shameless drivel.
I have nothing but contempt for these denialists who try and falsely claim the title of sceptic.

Some of these delusional fools believe fervently that all the world's scientists are perpetrating an evil scam, and so the more mentally fragile amongst them sink to uncivilised, threatening behaviour in response, and their fellow travellers accuse the victims of this foul abuse, of inventing these accusations to garner "rock star status", how truly contemptible the denialist cause has become.

Kat wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 10:31pm:

I see nothing wrong with ripping it up'em and letting them know that you disagree with them.

So do you think there's "nothing wrong" with creationists "ripping it up" and letting evolutionary biologists know that they disagree with evolution. Or for right-to-life'ers letting doctors know what they think about abortion? Or AIDS deniers letting AIDS researchers know what they think about AIDS?

Do you REALLY think it's OK to harass researchers of any ilk for producing results that some fringe elements happen to dislike?

Another thing that I have noticed, is how suggestible, unquestioning and unoriginal most Conservative types are - especially when the source of the propaganda they parrot is of a particular political and/or religious persuasion...

.



Heh, diverter posts a-plenty.. :)

Anyway, the question remains...


"...Last time I checked... making threats to kill in the ACT was a criminal offence, thanks to section 30 of the Crimes Act (ACT) 1900, and punishable by a maximum of ten years imprisonment. A similar provision for threats to kill via a postal service or carriage service appears in the Schedule to the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995, with a similar punishment.

TEN YEARS in clink? That's a serious offence. So if such threats have been made, why isn't it being fully investigated?..."


http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/06/death-threats-to-anu-scientists/





.

Flying Binghi wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 10:55pm:

. Heh, diverter posts a-plenty.. :) Anyway, the question remains... "...Last time I checked... making threats to kill in the ACT was a criminal offence, thanks to section 30 of the Crimes Act (ACT) 1900, and punishable by a maximum of ten years imprisonment. A similar provision for threats to kill via a postal service or carriage service appears in the Schedule to the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995, with a similar punishment. TEN YEARS in clink? That's a serious offence. So if such threats have been made, why isn't it being fully investigated?..." http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/06/death-threats-to-anu-scientists/ .

It is all much ado about nothing until the police get involved and people go to gaol.

It is a given that threat of death and rape ect is abhorent. It isnt just the left who think that way, and I can assure you it isnt just the right that make threats.

Flying Binghi wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 10:55pm:

. Heh, diverter posts a-plenty.. :) Anyway, the question remains... "...Last time I checked... making threats to kill in the ACT was a criminal offence, thanks to section 30 of the Crimes Act (ACT) 1900, and punishable by a maximum of ten years imprisonment. A similar provision for threats to kill via a postal service or carriage service appears in the Schedule to the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995, with a similar punishment. TEN YEARS in clink? That's a serious offence. So if such threats have been made, why isn't it being fully investigated?..." .

Ever heard of Hotmail, Einstein? ::) I'm sure the police WOULD pursue such threats if people were sending them from their Bigpond accounts but (one would hope, at least) even deniers aren;t quite THAT stupid.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 11:07pm:

Flying Binghi wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 10:55pm: . Heh, diverter posts a-plenty.. :) Anyway, the question remains... "...Last time I checked... making threats to kill in the ACT was a criminal offence, thanks to section 30 of the Crimes Act (ACT) 1900, and punishable by a maximum of ten years imprisonment. A similar provision for threats to kill via a postal service or carriage service appears in the Schedule to the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995, with a similar punishment. TEN YEARS in clink? That's a serious offence. So if such threats have been made, why isn't it being fully investigated?..." . Ever heard of Hotmail, Einstein? ::) I'm sure the police WOULD pursue such threats if people were sending them from their Bigpond accounts but (one would hope, at least) even deniers aren;t quite THAT stupid.

So the police are stupid then. They dont know how to deal with this new internet thingy.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 11:04pm:

Flying Binghi wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 10:55pm: . Heh, diverter posts a-plenty.. :) Anyway, the question remains... "...Last time I checked... making threats to kill in the ACT was a criminal offence, thanks to section 30 of the Crimes Act (ACT) 1900, and punishable by a maximum of ten years imprisonment. A similar provision for threats to kill via a postal service or carriage service appears in the Schedule to the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995, with a similar punishment. TEN YEARS in clink? That's a serious offence. So if such threats have been made, why isn't it being fully investigated?..." http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/06/death-threats-to-anu-scientists/ . It is all much ado about nothing until the police get involved and people go to gaol. It is a given that threat of death and rape ect is abhorent. It isnt just the left who think that way, and I can assure you it isnt just the right that make threats.

Absolutely true progessive, we have seen the lunatic hippie fringe who want to kill people for being unkind to bunnies, all peace love and mung beans, unless I declare you a murderer of the environment, then I become a warrior for mother earth.
There are unfortunately quite a few of these loonies too, and they deserve to be absolutely condemned for their behaviour, as do the loony denialists who also cross the line of civilised behaviour, the worth of your cause does not justify criminal action, no matter how fervently you may believe in it.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 11:10pm:

So the police are stupid then. They dont know how to deal with this new internet thingy.

No but there's not much they can do about a flood anonymous emails, many coming from overseas, even the AFP doesn't have limitless resources. As they would with anyone, they have been advising victims to archive the threats in case one of these crazies goes past mere words.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 10:49pm:

Kat wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 10:31pm: I see nothing wrong with ripping it up'em and letting them know that you disagree with them. So do you think there's "nothing wrong" with creationists "ripping it up" and letting evolutionary biologists know that they disagree with evolution. Or for right-to-life'ers letting doctors know what they think about abortion? Or AIDS deniers letting AIDS researchers know what they think about AIDS? Do you REALLY think it's OK to harass researchers of any ilk for producing results that some fringe elements happen to dislike?

That's got to be one of the best misinterpretations of a
comment that I've seen for quite a while.

Kat wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 11:18pm:

That's got to be one of the best misinterpretations of a comment that I've seen for quite a while.

How so? Are you or are you not saying it's OK to harass climate scientists and "let them know" that you dislike their findings?

astro_surf wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 11:21pm:

Kat wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 11:18pm: That's got to be one of the best misinterpretations of a comment that I've seen for quite a while. How so? Are you or are you not saying it's OK to harass climate scientists and "let them know" that you dislike their findings?

Harrass? No. That was YOUR interpretation.

Disagree/dislike? Of course. Why not?

BTW, did you even NOTICE the second half of my comment?

Kat wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 11:25pm:

Harrass? No. That was YOUR interpretation. Disagree/dislike? Of course. Why not? BTW, did you even NOTICE the second half of my comment?

How is telling a scientist that you 'disagree' with them because you happen not to believe in the principles of scientific methodology NOT harassment? How would it be any different to a creationist harassing biologists simply because their finding conflict with someone's world view? Or would you condone that too?

Equitist wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 10:50pm:

Another thing that I have noticed, is how suggestible, unquestioning and unoriginal most Conservative types are - especially when the source of the propaganda they parrot is of a particular political and/or religious persuasion...

I`ve noticed that from both sides of the political spectrum.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 11:30pm:

Kat wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 11:25pm: Harrass? No. That was YOUR interpretation. Disagree/dislike? Of course. Why not? BTW, did you even NOTICE the second half of my comment? How is telling a scientist that you 'disagree' with them because you happen not to believe in the principles of scientific methodology NOT harassment? How would it be any different to a creationist harassing biologists simply because their finding conflict with someone's world view? Or would you condone that too?

Do you even know what harrassment is?

Generating dicussion with opposing views is very different to offensive behaviour.

I guess anyone who disagrees with you here is engaging in harrassment are they?

Verge wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 8:51am:

astro_surf wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 11:30pm: Kat wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 11:25pm: Harrass? No. That was YOUR interpretation. Disagree/dislike? Of course. Why not? BTW, did you even NOTICE the second half of my comment? How is telling a scientist that you 'disagree' with them because you happen not to believe in the principles of scientific methodology NOT harassment? How would it be any different to a creationist harassing biologists simply because their finding conflict with someone's world view? Or would you condone that too? Do you even know what harrassment is? Generating dicussion with opposing views is very different to offensive behaviour. I guess anyone who disagrees with you here is engaging in harrassment are they?

It would seem so.

.


And still, the question remains.. :-?


"...Last time I checked... making threats to kill in the ACT was a criminal offence, thanks to section 30 of the Crimes Act (ACT) 1900, and punishable by a maximum of ten years imprisonment. A similar provision for threats to kill via a postal service or carriage service appears in the Schedule to the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995, with a similar punishment.

TEN YEARS in clink? That's a serious offence. So if such threats have been made, why isn't it being fully investigated?..."


http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/06/death-threats-to-anu-scientists/

Where is the news report stating that these claims are being investigated ?.. :-?





.

.


Hmmm... this is interesting...

"... from fraudulent hate crimes to rape fabrications, the college campus has itself become a victim of a growing parade of "wannabe" victims. Duke, Eastern New Mexico University, Northwestern University, San Francisco State, Guilford College, Miami University of Ohio, Iowa State and the University of Georgia are just the most recent campuses dealing with serious crime fabrications.

And, while most campus hoaxes involve "student-victims," the elite Claremont McKenna College recently found itself a victim of what appears to have been a faculty-perpetrated fraud when..."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040407/news_lz1e7hender.html


....... :-?



h/t -  http://bunyipitude.blogspot.com/2011/06/crime-unsolved.html





.

Flying Binghi wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 4:48pm:

. Hmmm... this is interesting... "... from fraudulent hate crimes to rape fabrications, the college campus has itself become a victim of a growing parade of "wannabe" victims. Duke, Eastern New Mexico University, Northwestern University, San Francisco State, Guilford College, Miami University of Ohio, Iowa State and the University of Georgia are just the most recent campuses dealing with serious crime fabrications. And, while most campus hoaxes involve "student-victims," the elite Claremont McKenna College recently found itself a victim of what appears to have been a faculty-perpetrated fraud when..." http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040407/news_lz1e7hender.html ....... :-? h/t -  http://bunyipitude.blogspot.com/2011/06/crime-unsolved.html .

So rather than just accepting the likelihood that the ANU is the subject of death threats and other abuse and dismissing it as the act of an extreme fringe that you completely disown and condemn in it's entirety, or something like that, you instead choose to accuse the ANU of lying and fraudulent behaviour (to what end you have decided in that fevered little mind of yours is ANYBODY'S guess)?  :o

Certainly an insight into the pathological mindset of denialism.

I suppose, once you believe that the worlds scientific community is involved in an elaborately constructed conspiracy to impose a Socialist One World Government on the masses then I guss you'd have to believe scientists are capable of anything.

I'm just surprised we haven't heard about them sacrificing women and raping small children yet!

Some people just can't accept reality.

Quote:

Australia's universities condemn attacks on intellectual inquiry 6 June, 2011 The peak body representing Australia's 39 universities has called on political and community leaders to speak out in support of academic freedom. The call follows reports from a number of institutions of threats against academics researching climate change. According to Universities Australia Chair, Professor Glyn Davis AC, "Recent revelations of systematic and sustained threats to many climate change scientists in Australian universities are a fundamental attack upon intellectual inquiry". "To disagree with evidence or conclusions from academic research is part of any robust debate. To seek to intimidate scientists who reach unwelcome findings is an assault on the ideal of a free exchange of ideas. It undermines our democratic society. "University leaders state clearly and publicly their commitment to open debate. Academics should be able to contribute to public discussion without the risk of vendettas or email abuse campaigns. "Serious public policy debate needs civil and informed discussion. Aggressive abuse and hate campaigns make no helpful contribution to a crucial policy debate. They simply seek to silence unwelcome voices. "Fortunately, academics at Australian universities continue to refuse to be intimidated by the few who grasp neither the principles of academic freedom nor the urgent imperative of independent research", Professor Davis concluded. - ends - Brief: Academic freedom within universities Universities differentiate themselves from other institutions and education providers through the discovery of new knowledge and insights, supported by evidence. These findings can often challenge existing views, but to gain the benefit that comes from new knowledge and deeper understanding, universities are committed to free, open and critical expression across all aspects of human endeavour. Universities focus on teaching students how to think rather than what to think, allowing them to reach their own conclusions on matters of ideological debate. Central to this role is the freedom of staff and students to teach, research, learn, and engage in public debate independently of any external interference or pressure. In recent years there has been an increase in the number of individuals seeking to threaten the personal safety of members of the university community, rather than engage with the substance of their ideas. This behaviour not only threatens the safety of those targeted, it undermines the foundations of a free and democratic society. Australia's universities are not-for-profit institutions working for the betterment of Australia's economy and society. Staff should not have to resort to requesting on-campus security escorts and upgrading their home security in order to undertake their work. Given the increase in the number and severity of personal threats, it is important that a systematic effort is made is investigate and combat them. Australia's universities are a signatory to the International Association of Universities' policy document on academic freedom, Academic Freedom, University Autonomy and Social Responsibility (1998), which is based on the declarations made by UNESCO in 1950. The Australian Government has itself further affirmed the importance of free intellectual inquiry in the provisions of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011. It is imperative that these provisions be endorsed by the Parliament.

.


Quote:

So rather than just accepting the likelihood that the ANU is the subject of death threats and other abuse and dismissing it as the act of an extreme fringe that you completely disown and condemn in it's entirety, or something like that, you instead choose to accuse the ANU of lying and fraudulent behaviour (to what end you have decided in that fevered little mind of yours is ANYBODY'S guess)?   Certainly an insight into the pathological mindset of denialism. I suppose, once you believe that the worlds scientific community is involved in an elaborately constructed conspiracy to impose a Socialist One World Government on the masses then I guss you'd have to believe scientists are capable of anything. I'm just surprised we haven't heard about them sacrificing women and raping small children yet!

Hmmm... then there is a police report about all these death threats that we can peruse.. :-?

In the meantime.... and still, the question remains...

"...Last time I checked... making threats to kill in the ACT was a criminal offence, thanks to section 30 of the Crimes Act (ACT) 1900, and punishable by a maximum of ten years imprisonment. A similar provision for threats to kill via a postal service or carriage service appears in the Schedule to the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995, with a similar punishment.

TEN YEARS in clink? That's a serious offence. So if such threats have been made, why isn't it being fully investigated?..."


http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/06/death-threats-to-anu-scientists/






.

Yes, you've said that already, and it isn't any more convincing on the fourth time than it was on the first time.

.




Quote:

you've said that already, and it isn't any more convincing on the fourth time than it was on the first time.

Oh dear. The hysteria runs deep.. :)



Quote:

...it as the act of an extreme fringe that you completely disown and condemn in it's entirety, or something like that, you instead choose to...

...instead of filling the thread with blather ah "choose to" ask the question - "if such threats have been made, why isn't it being fully investigated?"

As a concerned citizin i, like other climate realists, am asking why the police have not been involved in investigating what we consider to be serious claims of death threats.. :-?


...or is it really just like them yank uny's eh.. :-?    "... from fraudulent hate crimes to rape fabrications, the college campus has itself become a victim of a growing parade of "wannabe" victims. Duke, Eastern New Mexico University, Northwestern University, San Francisco State, Guilford College, Miami University of Ohio, Iowa State and the University of Georgia are just the most recent campuses dealing with serious crime fabrications.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040407/news_lz1e7hender.html






.

.


JoNova continues her look-see...

"...This is sheer beef-it-up spin, making a mountain out of  a molehill, clutching at straws in desperation to eek out a PR victory from the dregs of a fading scam..."

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/to-a-climate-scientist-swearing-equals-a-death-threat-no-wonder-these-guys-cant-predict-the-weather/#more-15234






.

http://www.readfearn.com/2011/06/emails-reveal-nature-of-attacks-on-climate-scientists/


Quote:

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 poo! 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..    bugger YOU SCUMBAG! A fourth example:    YOU ARE A smacking LYING PIECE OF poo COMMUNIST !!!!!!!!!    GO bugger YOURSELF AND DIE YOU front bottom !!!!!!!!!! A fifth example:    You [clipped] are nothing but a Traitorous Lying Asshole !!    The quicker that front bottoms like you and your kind Die the better !!!!!!! A sixth example:    bugger 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 smacking idiot, the last decade has been the hottest in recorded history….. [clipped] you are a smacking 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.

Quote:

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 poo! 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..   bugger YOU SCUMBAG! A fourth example:   YOU ARE A smacking LYING PIECE OF poo COMMUNIST !!!!!!!!!   GO bugger YOURSELF AND DIE YOU nasty person !!!!!!!!!! A fifth example:   You [clipped] are nothing but a Traitorous Lying Asshole !!   The quicker that nasty people like you and your kind Die the better !!!!!!! A sixth example:   bugger 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 smacking idiot, the last decade has been the hottest in recorded history….. [clipped] you are a smacking 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.

Oh, dear. A beat-up all along.. ;D


Interesting that the word "lying" is used several times.. :-?

Reminds me of the simularly abusive posts i received over at Deltiod. The main term used against me and other climate realists were "lying"...Hmmm.. :-?





.

You're not smart enough to be lying. i genuinely think you have a fervent belief in a grand conspiracy. You're probably more mentally ill than anything.

These foul-mouthed threats don't surprise me really. In all my observations from these online forums the Conservative side of politics is, in most cases, the most violent. While the left is no stranger to vindictiveness, the Conservatives seem to out-spite them in that department.
Anonymity from the net is ripe ground for cowards to strut their stuff.  

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 8^th, 2011 at 7:56pm:

These foul-mouthed threats don't surprise me really. In all my observations from these online forums the Conservative side of politics is, in most cases, the most violent. While the left is no stranger to vindictiveness, the Conservatives seem to out-spite them in that department. Anonymity from the net is ripe ground for cowards to strut their stuff.

Exactly. And even if it is weighted evenly the fact is idiots will mouth off on the internet, left or right. And what I find most telling is the refusal to accept even that basic fact and start inventing wild-eyed conspiracy theories instead (a familiar pattern!). Seems to be a common psychological tic among deniers, it's probably evidence of a real underlying pathological disorder that these people are suffering from.

astro_surf wrote on Jun 8^th, 2011 at 8:08pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 8th, 2011 at 7:56pm: These foul-mouthed threats don't surprise me really. In all my observations from these online forums the Conservative side of politics is, in most cases, the most violent. While the left is no stranger to vindictiveness, the Conservatives seem to out-spite them in that department. Anonymity from the net is ripe ground for cowards to strut their stuff.   Exactly. And even if it is weighted evenly the fact is idiots will mouth off on the internet, left or right. And what I find most telling is the refusal to accept even that basic fact and start inventing wild-eyed conspiracy theories instead (a familiar pattern!). Seems to be a common psychological tic among deniers, it's probably evidence of a real underlying pathological disorder that these people are suffering from.

Of course you would both say that, I just hope you are not that dumb and actually believe it, but perhaps you are.

...

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!
Sir Walter Scott,




CLAIMS prominent climate change scientists had recently received death threats have been revealed as an opportunistic ploy, with the Australian National University admitting that they occurred up to five years ago.


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

Neither was officially reported to ACT Police or Australian Federal Police, despite such crimes carrying a 10-year prison sentence.

The outdated threats raised question marks over the timing of their release to the public, with claims they were aired last week to draw sympathy to scientists and their climate change cause.

The university denied it was creating a ruse, maintaining the initial report, in the Fairfax-owned Canberra Times last week, failed to indicate when the threats were made.

Reports also suggested the threats had forced the ANU to lock away its climate change scientists and policy advisers in a high-security complex. The Daily Telegraph has discovered the nine scientists and staff in question were merely given keyless swipe cards - routine security measures taken last year.

The Daily Telegraph June 09, 2011 12:00AM

Maeve wrote on Jun 9^th, 2011 at 9:00am:

Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive! Sir Walter Scott, CLAIMS prominent climate change scientists had recently received death threats have been revealed as an opportunistic ploy, with the Australian National University admitting that they occurred up to five years ago. Only two of ANU's climate change scientists allegedly received death threats, the first in a letter posted in 2006-2007 and the other an offhand remark made in person 12 months ago. Neither was officially reported to ACT Police or Australian Federal Police, despite such crimes carrying a 10-year prison sentence. The outdated threats raised question marks over the timing of their release to the public, with claims they were aired last week to draw sympathy to scientists and their climate change cause. The university denied it was creating a ruse, maintaining the initial report, in the Fairfax-owned Canberra Times last week, failed to indicate when the threats were made. Reports also suggested the threats had forced the ANU to lock away its climate change scientists and policy advisers in a high-security complex. The Daily Telegraph has discovered the nine scientists and staff in question were merely given keyless swipe cards - routine security measures taken last year. The Daily Telegraph June 09, 2011 12:00AM

Wow, as if we didnt know that. Maybe the lefties need new tactics as the people are not that stupid any more. That would explain why the police were not involved. lol tooooooooooooo funny

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 8^th, 2011 at 8:28pm:

astro_surf wrote on Jun 8th, 2011 at 8:08pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 8th, 2011 at 7:56pm: These foul-mouthed threats don't surprise me really. In all my observations from these online forums the Conservative side of politics is, in most cases, the most violent. While the left is no stranger to vindictiveness, the Conservatives seem to out-spite them in that department. Anonymity from the net is ripe ground for cowards to strut their stuff.   Exactly. And even if it is weighted evenly the fact is idiots will mouth off on the internet, left or right. And what I find most telling is the refusal to accept even that basic fact and start inventing wild-eyed conspiracy theories instead (a familiar pattern!). Seems to be a common psychological tic among deniers, it's probably evidence of a real underlying pathological disorder that these people are suffering from. Of course you would both say that, I just hope you are not that dumb and actually believe it, but perhaps you are.

Believe what?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 9^th, 2011 at 9:16am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 8th, 2011 at 8:28pm: astro_surf wrote on Jun 8th, 2011 at 8:08pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 8th, 2011 at 7:56pm: These foul-mouthed threats don't surprise me really. In all my observations from these online forums the Conservative side of politics is, in most cases, the most violent. While the left is no stranger to vindictiveness, the Conservatives seem to out-spite them in that department. Anonymity from the net is ripe ground for cowards to strut their stuff.   Exactly. And even if it is weighted evenly the fact is idiots will mouth off on the internet, left or right. And what I find most telling is the refusal to accept even that basic fact and start inventing wild-eyed conspiracy theories instead (a familiar pattern!). Seems to be a common psychological tic among deniers, it's probably evidence of a real underlying pathological disorder that these people are suffering from. Of course you would both say that, I just hope you are not that dumb and actually believe it, but perhaps you are. Believe what?

Thats better Time. Forgetting it all is better than believing in the crap you spewed.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 9^th, 2011 at 9:24am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 9th, 2011 at 9:16am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 8th, 2011 at 8:28pm: astro_surf wrote on Jun 8th, 2011 at 8:08pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 8th, 2011 at 7:56pm: These foul-mouthed threats don't surprise me really. In all my observations from these online forums the Conservative side of politics is, in most cases, the most violent. While the left is no stranger to vindictiveness, the Conservatives seem to out-spite them in that department. Anonymity from the net is ripe ground for cowards to strut their stuff.   Exactly. And even if it is weighted evenly the fact is idiots will mouth off on the internet, left or right. And what I find most telling is the refusal to accept even that basic fact and start inventing wild-eyed conspiracy theories instead (a familiar pattern!). Seems to be a common psychological tic among deniers, it's probably evidence of a real underlying pathological disorder that these people are suffering from. Of course you would both say that, I just hope you are not that dumb and actually believe it, but perhaps you are. Believe what? Thats better Time. Forgetting it all is better than believing in the crap you spewed.

Are you going to answer the question?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 9^th, 2011 at 9:28am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 9th, 2011 at 9:24am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 9th, 2011 at 9:16am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 8th, 2011 at 8:28pm: astro_surf wrote on Jun 8th, 2011 at 8:08pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 8th, 2011 at 7:56pm: These foul-mouthed threats don't surprise me really. In all my observations from these online forums the Conservative side of politics is, in most cases, the most violent. While the left is no stranger to vindictiveness, the Conservatives seem to out-spite them in that department. Anonymity from the net is ripe ground for cowards to strut their stuff.   Exactly. And even if it is weighted evenly the fact is idiots will mouth off on the internet, left or right. And what I find most telling is the refusal to accept even that basic fact and start inventing wild-eyed conspiracy theories instead (a familiar pattern!). Seems to be a common psychological tic among deniers, it's probably evidence of a real underlying pathological disorder that these people are suffering from. Of course you would both say that, I just hope you are not that dumb and actually believe it, but perhaps you are. Believe what? Thats better Time. Forgetting it all is better than believing in the crap you spewed. Are you going to answer the question?

No need. It is in the thread and you choose to believe it doesnt exist. That is good, you dont believe it any more.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 9^th, 2011 at 9:30am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 9th, 2011 at 9:28am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 9th, 2011 at 9:24am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 9th, 2011 at 9:16am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 8th, 2011 at 8:28pm: astro_surf wrote on Jun 8th, 2011 at 8:08pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 8th, 2011 at 7:56pm: These foul-mouthed threats don't surprise me really. In all my observations from these online forums the Conservative side of politics is, in most cases, the most violent. While the left is no stranger to vindictiveness, the Conservatives seem to out-spite them in that department. Anonymity from the net is ripe ground for cowards to strut their stuff.   Exactly. And even if it is weighted evenly the fact is idiots will mouth off on the internet, left or right. And what I find most telling is the refusal to accept even that basic fact and start inventing wild-eyed conspiracy theories instead (a familiar pattern!). Seems to be a common psychological tic among deniers, it's probably evidence of a real underlying pathological disorder that these people are suffering from. Of course you would both say that, I just hope you are not that dumb and actually believe it, but perhaps you are. Believe what? Thats better Time. Forgetting it all is better than believing in the crap you spewed. Are you going to answer the question? No need. It is in the thread and you choose to believe it doesnt exist. That is good, you dont believe it any more.

Unlike yourself, it seems, I aim for accuracy. I made a number of points in my post; I merely ask what one are you referring to.

See, this is how a real debate operates, you first try and understand your opponents position in order to then either agree or critique.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 9^th, 2011 at 9:35am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 9th, 2011 at 9:30am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 9th, 2011 at 9:28am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 9th, 2011 at 9:24am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 9th, 2011 at 9:16am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 8th, 2011 at 8:28pm: astro_surf wrote on Jun 8th, 2011 at 8:08pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 8th, 2011 at 7:56pm: These foul-mouthed threats don't surprise me really. In all my observations from these online forums the Conservative side of politics is, in most cases, the most violent. While the left is no stranger to vindictiveness, the Conservatives seem to out-spite them in that department. Anonymity from the net is ripe ground for cowards to strut their stuff.   Exactly. And even if it is weighted evenly the fact is idiots will mouth off on the internet, left or right. And what I find most telling is the refusal to accept even that basic fact and start inventing wild-eyed conspiracy theories instead (a familiar pattern!). Seems to be a common psychological tic among deniers, it's probably evidence of a real underlying pathological disorder that these people are suffering from. Of course you would both say that, I just hope you are not that dumb and actually believe it, but perhaps you are. Believe what? Thats better Time. Forgetting it all is better than believing in the crap you spewed. Are you going to answer the question? No need. It is in the thread and you choose to believe it doesnt exist. That is good, you dont believe it any more. Unlike yourself, it seems, I aim for accuracy. I made a number of points in my post; I merely ask what one are you referring to. See, this is how a real debate operates, you first try and understand your opponents position in order to then either agree or critique.

Look, you didnt say much, but what you said, im sure you could figure your position. My position on the little you did say was 'I hope you dont believe it' because of course you would say that, because of your own bias. Look at that, now you have made me repeat myself. I doubt accuracy helps you as you cant seem to follow your own words.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 9^th, 2011 at 9:38am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 9th, 2011 at 9:35am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 9th, 2011 at 9:30am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 9th, 2011 at 9:28am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 9th, 2011 at 9:24am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 9th, 2011 at 9:16am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 8th, 2011 at 8:28pm: astro_surf wrote on Jun 8th, 2011 at 8:08pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jun 8th, 2011 at 7:56pm: These foul-mouthed threats don't surprise me really. In all my observations from these online forums the Conservative side of politics is, in most cases, the most violent. While the left is no stranger to vindictiveness, the Conservatives seem to out-spite them in that department. Anonymity from the net is ripe ground for cowards to strut their stuff.   Exactly. And even if it is weighted evenly the fact is idiots will mouth off on the internet, left or right. And what I find most telling is the refusal to accept even that basic fact and start inventing wild-eyed conspiracy theories instead (a familiar pattern!). Seems to be a common psychological tic among deniers, it's probably evidence of a real underlying pathological disorder that these people are suffering from. Of course you would both say that, I just hope you are not that dumb and actually believe it, but perhaps you are. Believe what? Thats better Time. Forgetting it all is better than believing in the crap you spewed. Are you going to answer the question? No need. It is in the thread and you choose to believe it doesnt exist. That is good, you dont believe it any more. Unlike yourself, it seems, I aim for accuracy. I made a number of points in my post; I merely ask what one are you referring to. See, this is how a real debate operates, you first try and understand your opponents position in order to then either agree or critique. Look, you didnt say much, but what you said, im sure you could figure your position. My position on the little you did say was 'I hope you dont believe it' because of course you would say that, because of your own bias. Look at that, now you have made me repeat myself. I doubt accuracy helps you as you cant seem to follow your own words.

Okay. The first baby steps: I don't believe it because "I am biased". Now for the next step, how is it biased?

.

Heh, this will be interesting. I expect we will have a police report about this "death threat" very shortly.. :-?


Ms Arabia, ( Australian carbon muppet scientist..  :) ) ... told ABC News Breakfast she had received a fresh death threat only this morning.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/20/3248032.htm






.

Quote:

Academics and scientists are actually really not equipped to be treated in this way," he said. "The concept that you would be threatened for your scientific views and work is something that is completely foreign to them.

Awe precious...they forget that we lined some Nazi scientists and doctors up against a wall and shot them for their beliefs just 70 short years ago and the world applauded the execution of such evil men.  No scientist can advocate similar policies as the Nazi scientists and Doctors and feel safe.  The world will not stand by and allow them to do it again, potential targets wont stand by.   Never again is a complete sentence.::) ::)

I will bet you 10 to 1 its a fabricated death threat as well. ;D ;D ;D

.


Perhaps Bob Carr will attend the next meeting Ms Arabia holds.. :-?

JUST as well Australia has tough gun laws. Without them I would have been in The Australian Financial Review office to take my revenge. (via Bob Carr, The Australian Financial Review on July 23, 2010)


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/why-carpet-bomb-the-hate-media-when-you-can-simply-go-the-personal-touch-instead/story-e6frg6n6-1226072617312





.