I knew and many others knew that the so called threats to the climate scientists was a load of BS and was a typical leftist act to gain the upper hand.

Climate scientists' claims of email death threats go up in smoke


CLAIMS that some of Australia's leading climate change scientists were subjected to death threats as part of a vicious and unrelenting email campaign have been debunked by the Privacy Commissioner.

Timothy Pilgrim was called in to adjudicate on a Freedom of Information application in relation to Fairfax and ABC reports last June alleging that Australian National University climate change researchers were facing the ongoing campaign and had been moved to "more secure buildings" following explicit threats.
In a six-page ruling made last week, Mr Pilgrim found that 10 of 11 documents, all emails, "do not contain threats to kill" and the other "could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat".
Chief Scientist Ian Chubb, who was the ANU's vice-chancellor at the time, last night admitted he did not have any recollection of reading the emails before relocating the university's researchers. "I don't believe I did," Professor Chubb told The Australian.

Instead, he said he had responded "as a responsible employer".

"I had a bunch of concerned staff and they thought they should be moved to a more secure place so I moved them," he said.

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

The FOI application was lodged by Sydney climate blogger Simon Turnill. It requested the release of "emails, transcript of telephone calls or messages that contained abuse, threats to kill and/or threats of harm to the recipient" sent to six staff members of the ANU's Climate Change Institute. His request resulted in the discovery of the 11 documents.

The university refused to release the documents, citing a clause in the Freedom of Information Act that exempts documents that "would, or could reasonably be expected to ... endanger the life or physical safety of any person" from disclosure.

Mr Turnill appealed against the decision.

In response to the appeal, Mr Pilgrim found 10 documents did not contain threats to kill or threats of harm.

Mr Pilgrim said of the 11th, a further email offering an account of an exchange that occurred at an off-campus event sponsored by members of the Climate Change Institute and other bodies: "I consider the danger to life or physical safety in this case to be only a possibility, not a real chance."

Instead, he found "the exchange as described in the email could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat".

The commissioner noted in his decision that Mr Turnill had confirmed he was not seeking "the release of personal information about the people who sent or received the emails or were referred to in calls or messages".

Mr Pilgrim has ordered edited version of the documents to be released. "There is no evidence to suggest disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, endanger the life or physical safety of any person," he said.

The commissioner noted that the emails "contain insulting and offensive language" and expressed fears "there is a risk that the release of the documents could lead to further insulting or offensive communication being directed at ANU personnel or expressed through social media".

But Mr Pilgrim also found: "Even if the threats were highly credible, the question would be how release of the documents would add to the expected threat."

ANU Climate Institute director Will Steffen, who is also one of the government's Climate Commissioners, is believed to have been a target of the emails. Professor Steffen was overseas yesterday and unavailable for comment.

The ANU has until later this month to appeal against the commissioner's decision.

A university spokesman said it stood by its decision to oppose the release of the documents.

"We are reviewing the Privacy Commissioner's decision and considering our response," he said.

Professor Chubb said he believed the tenor of the climate debate was improving.

"I don't get the sense that there's the same level of nastiness," he said.

But he insisted "we should keep the debate civil and not threaten or intimidate whether the threats are physical violence or death".


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/climate-scientists-claims-of-email-death-threats-go-up-in-smoke/story-e6frg8y6-1226345224816

How is this political ... more general isn't it?

____ wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 7:20am:

How is this political ... more general isn't it?

It is an extension to the political debate of past. It is very political.

Too bad it is thrown back in your face hey green loser. You were one of those idiots using the threats as some kind of argument against the anti-carbon tax movement.

loser.

It was a direct argument against the political argument of the anti-carbon tax movement. Political.

progressiveslol wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 7:23am:

____ wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 7:20am: How is this political ... more general isn't it? It is an extension to the political debate of past. It is very political. Too bad it is thrown back in your face hey green loser. You were one of those idiots using the threats as some kind of argument against the anti-carbon tax movement. loser. It was a direct argument against the political argument of the anti-carbon tax movement. Political.

Got a link to your baseless claim.

Looks like you are the one caught out making wild claims.

This political thread from the ever gullible Astro


Scientists fight back!
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1308565228/0

That is not in response to you green loser.

This is a better one

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

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1307225204/0

progressiveslol wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 7:46am:

This political thread from the ever gullible Astro Scientists fight back! http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1308565228/0 That is not in response to you green loser.

woody is convinced he is the only one that knows the truth... he talks to the aliens remember..

even you would know prog... we are not alone!!!

cods wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 7:51am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 7:46am: This political thread from the ever gullible Astro Scientists fight back! http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1308565228/0 That is not in response to you green loser. woody is convinced he is the only one that knows the truth... he talks to the aliens remember.. even you would know prog... we are not alone!!!

What's the matter fishes. No Bob

and tooooo lazy to think up new material

Poor old thing, you are.

So everything Climate Scientist say is undeniable...???

Except when they are clearly untrue? What's the bet that in the true tradition of climate science 'reviews' that there is an offical enquiry into the death threats which wil then magically conclude that there WERE real death threats (undocumented of course). Doesnt anyone else get deeply suspicious of how every single climate review says that no one has ever dont anything wrong or even been wrong in their results? NO discipline is ever that accurate or squeaky clean.

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:37am:

So everything Climate Scientist say is undeniable...??? Except when they are clearly untrue? What's the bet that in the true tradition of climate science 'reviews' that there is an offical enquiry into the death threats which wil then magically conclude that there WERE real death threats (undocumented of course). Doesnt anyone else get deeply suspicious of how every single climate review says that no one has ever dont anything wrong or even been wrong in their results? NO discipline is ever that accurate or squeaky clean.

I take it now that Gillard and labor will have to change their list of credible scientists.

I wonder if these scientists should be sacked now for politicizing climate science on the back of a lie.

There is a nice little writeup about this on What Up With That (the site the lefties love to hate)

BREAKING: “Death threats” against Australian climate scientists turn out to be nothing but hype and hot air

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/breaking-death-threats-against-australian-climate-scientists-turn-out-to-be-nothing-but-hype-and-hot-air/

If you believe these so called Gillard reputable climate scientists, your an idiot.

Police not told of 'threats' to ANU climate scientists

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/police-not-told-of-threats-to-anu-climate-scientists/story-e6frg6nf-1226346268884?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheAustralianTheNationNews+%28The+Australian+%7C+The+Nation%29

progressiveslol wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:55am:

[quote author=262B362A302B36312821440 link=1335993554/8#8 date=1336005452] I wonder if these scientists should be sacked now for politicizing climate science on the back of a lie.

You and bornwithoutabrain really love to toss off over nothing don't you. Would that be like how Abbott made climate science political when he ignored the weight of evidence by the majority of the worlds scientists and the bi-partisan approach in this country to use it as a political wedge and drive the nation into what is now a very dark and deeply ignorant place that will be very difficult to emerge from.

Your butt ignorance is not an excuse for your negligence to the national interest.

nairbe wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 6:52am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:55am: [quote author=262B362A302B36312821440 link=1335993554/8#8 date=1336005452] I wonder if these scientists should be sacked now for politicizing climate science on the back of a lie. You and bornwithoutabrain really love to toss off over nothing don't you. Would that be like how Abbott made climate science political when he ignored the weight of evidence by the majority of the worlds scientists and the bi-partisan approach in this country to use it as a political wedge and drive the nation into what is now a very dark and deeply ignorant place that will be very difficult to emerge from. Your butt ignorance is not an excuse for your negligence to the national interest.

Yeh yeh thanks for your loopy opinion.

National interest lol.

nairbe wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 6:52am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:55am: [quote author=262B362A302B36312821440 link=1335993554/8#8 date=1336005452] I wonder if these scientists should be sacked now for politicizing climate science on the back of a lie. You and bornwithoutabrain really love to toss off over nothing don't you. Would that be like how Abbott made climate science political when he ignored the weight of evidence by the majority of the worlds scientists and the bi-partisan approach in this country to use it as a political wedge and drive the nation into what is now a very dark and deeply ignorant place that will be very difficult to emerge from. Your butt ignorance is not an excuse for your negligence to the national interest.

The sad thing is that in Prog's world his ignorance has just been franked.

MOTR wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 7:45am:

nairbe wrote on May 4th, 2012 at 6:52am: progressiveslol wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:55am: [quote author=262B362A302B36312821440 link=1335993554/8#8 date=1336005452] I wonder if these scientists should be sacked now for politicizing climate science on the back of a lie. You and bornwithoutabrain really love to toss off over nothing don't you. Would that be like how Abbott made climate science political when he ignored the weight of evidence by the majority of the worlds scientists and the bi-partisan approach in this country to use it as a political wedge and drive the nation into what is now a very dark and deeply ignorant place that will be very difficult to emerge from. Your butt ignorance is not an excuse for your negligence to the national interest. The sad thing is that in Prog's world his ignorance has just been franked.

The sad thing is, is labor's reptuable scientist list just got a whole lot smaller.

There you go. Much easier to attack the credibility of the scientists than the actual science. Can you tell me which scientists are no longer credible?

MOTR wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 8:08am:

There you go. Much easier to attack the credibility of the scientists than the actual science. Can you tell me which scientists are no longer credible?

der

More from the website the lefties love to hate

Paging David Appell – ‘death threats against climate scientists’ story even deader than yesterday

Paging David Appell and Nick Stokes – your crow pie is ready now.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/03/paging-david-appell-death-threats-against-climate-scientists-story-even-deader-than-yesterday/

The dog ate my death threats II

John Coochey says:

May 11, 2012 at 10:58 pm


I feel I can now throw some light on the matter. The document viewed as most “threatening” referred to an alleged Deliberation at the ANU about climate change in the Canberra region at which one person “made a death threat” (sic) by showing his gun licence and boasting about his skill as a sniper.. Only two people dropped out of the conference only one of those who did so attended the even meal. Me. I am certainly the one who is alleged to show someone their gun licence. That is not true while at the evening meal (of poor quality) comments moved to eating game meat and I was approached by the Commissioner for the Environment ACT, Dr Maxine Cooper who recognized me as someone involved in the kangaroo culling program in the ACT. She politely asked if she could sit at the vacant seat next to me and asked if I had past the recent licence test – not easy. I replied yes and showed her my current licence. I also impressed on any one interested the high standard of marksmanship necessary to allay any cruelty concerns. I might add that earlier in the day I had challenged two speakers to comment on a letter in the Canberra Times that claimed that temperatures had not increased in the Canberra area for decades. They were unable to do so, having not apparently checked the record despite the the “Deliberation” (conference) supposed to be about rising temperatures in the Canberra region. As all daytime conversations were recorded (we all signed waivers to allow this) this can easily be checked.

I note Readfearn has commented on the “death threat at the conference” in Crikey ,com. He got one thing right I did leave of my own accord. When meal had finished and a piss poor meal it was.

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/05/10/the-dog-ate-my-death-threats-ii/

Perhaps he was just being too full of himself. Sounds like one of those self opinionated aggressives bores who are totally oblivious to the impact they are having on other people. Add that to our natural suspicion of people who like to define themselves through their love of guns and quite probably too much was read into his comments. Or maybe he is being selective in the data he is prepared to highlight, a habit that has brought him some fame in the past.

MOTR wrote on May 13^th, 2012 at 7:13am:

Perhaps he was just being too full of himself. Sounds like one of those self opinionated aggressives bores who are totally oblivious to the impact they are having on other people. Add that to our natural suspicion of people who like to define themselves through their love of guns and quite probably too much was read into his comments. Or maybe he is being selective in the data he is prepared to highlight, a habit that has brought him some fame in the past.

Yes perhaps you can help the non-credible scientists with more made up BS and innuendo. Hardly surprising.

You've obviously decided the man's actions were not threatening based on his own account. There are clearly other possibilities.

MOTR wrote on May 13^th, 2012 at 7:42am:

You've obviously decided the man's actions were not threatening based on his own account. There are clearly other possibilities.

Well going by the non-credibile scientists, it can be assumed they have zero credibility and regardless of what this guy may have seemed on the day/night, there still is no call for what the non-credible scientists did.

progressiveslol wrote on May 13^th, 2012 at 7:49am:

MOTR wrote on May 13th, 2012 at 7:42am: You've obviously decided the man's actions were not threatening based on his own account. There are clearly other possibilities. Well going by the non-credibile scientists, it can be assumed they have zero credibility and regardless of what this guy may have seemed on the day/night, there still is no call for what the non-credible scientists did.

They. Who is they. Just because an individual within an organisation feels they have been threatened, and the matter is dealt with more aggressively than it perhaps needs to be, doesn't reduce the credibility of any of the work done by that organization. What you are engaging in is a massive ad hominem attack. If there is a problem with the research coming out of the ANU it will stand or fall on its scientific merits.   

MOTR wrote on May 13^th, 2012 at 8:00am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 13th, 2012 at 7:49am: MOTR wrote on May 13th, 2012 at 7:42am: You've obviously decided the man's actions were not threatening based on his own account. There are clearly other possibilities. Well going by the non-credibile scientists, it can be assumed they have zero credibility and regardless of what this guy may have seemed on the day/night, there still is no call for what the non-credible scientists did. They. Who is they. Just because an individual within an organisation feels they have been threatened, and the matter is dealt with more aggressively than it perhaps needs to be, doesn't reduce the credibility of any of the work done by that organization. What you are engaging in is a massive ad hominem attack. If there is a problem with the research coming out of the ANU it will stand or fall on its scientific merits.

Yes it does reduce all their credibility and even ABC credibility will take a hit when media matters rips it apart.

You are just desperate for an excuse to deny the science.

MOTR wrote on May 13^th, 2012 at 8:13am:

You are just desperate for an excuse to deny the science.

No need to be desperate.

progressiveslol wrote on May 13^th, 2012 at 8:15am:

MOTR wrote on May 13th, 2012 at 8:13am: You are just desperate for an excuse to deny the science. No need to be desperate.

Resorting to an ad hominem attacks such as this is desperation. The science is clear, the world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire.

You're anti science campaign is a desperate plea for inaction.

MOTR wrote on May 13^th, 2012 at 8:25am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 13th, 2012 at 8:15am: MOTR wrote on May 13th, 2012 at 8:13am: You are just desperate for an excuse to deny the science. No need to be desperate. Resorting to an ad hominem attacks such as this is desperation. The science is clear, the world is warming, we are responsible and the consequences of inaction are dire. You're anti science campaign is a desperate plea for inaction.

So now its my fault for what these non-credible scientist did. lol good on ya. You and these non-credible scientists are desperate to keep the BS alive.

The science is not in. Not credible either.

You obviously believe what happens in the ANU is more important than the science itself. You can't debate the science so you are going to resort to ad hominem attacks and childish name calling. Knock yourself out, progs.

MOTR wrote on May 13^th, 2012 at 8:37am:

You obviously believe what happens in the ANU is more important than the science itself. You can't debate the science so you are going to resort to ad hominem attacks and childish name calling. Knock yourself out, progs.

Thank you so much for your permission. We all know it is needed.

This is about the non-credible scientists. Not the non-credible science.

well the scientists said they were threatened and in fact, they werent. You dont think that is relevant?

ABC issues correction on ANU scientists email threats claim


THE ABC has issued a correction acknowledging that 11 emails sent to climate scientists at the Australian National University contained abuse, but no death threats.

The correction, posted on the ABC's website late on Thursday, follows criticism from The Australian and ABC TV's Media Watch.

It comes three weeks after The Australian reported that Privacy Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim had examined the emails and found no death threats, while adjudicating on an attempt to obtain their release from the ANU under the Freedom of Information Act.

That FOI request had been submitted by lawyer and blogger Simon Turnill, who was seeking to check the veracity of the ABC's report of June 4 last year that in the previous six months "several of Australia's top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security".

The correction indicates that the ABC now accepts its report about Mr Pilgrim's decision on May 11 should have said the emails contained no death threats, rather than just saying they contained abuse.

But the ABC has not disavowed last year's reports about death threats. It says the ANU believes its staff did receive death threats, but they did not come to light in the FOI exercise.

In response, Mr Turnill wrote to ANU asking it to make public whatever evidence it has about death threats.

He drew its attention to the ABC's statement in the correction that "the ANU maintains that staff have received death threats in other communications not released under the FOI action".

He asked the university when such death threats were received, who received them, what form they took, whether the university referred them to police and what evidence it held about the existence of death threats. He wrote this information was covered by the terms of a second FOI request he served on the university.

"However, I would respectfully suggest that given the significant media interest in this story the university consider releasing the evidence of those death threats which it holds without the need for another protracted FOI procedure," Mr Turnill wrote.

The full text of the ABC's correction says: "On May 11, the ABC reported on the release under FOI of a number of emails relating to climate change received by staff at the ANU.

"The story should have made clear that the emails were found to be abusive, but NOT to constitute death threats or clear threats of violence.

"However, the ANU maintains that staff have received death threats in other communications not released under the FOI action. The story has been clarified and updated." The correction comes after a series of articles about the affair in The Australian and criticism from Media Watch about the way the ABC had handled the incident. On Monday, Media Watch called for a clarification.
-----------------------

Still more BS BS BS to come


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/abc-issues-correction-on-anu-scientists-email-threats-claim/story-e6frg996-1226367412061?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheAustralianTheNationNews+%28The+Australian+%7C+The+Nation%29

Nice of the ABC to issue a correction.

Now, will that oversized tabloid The Australian issue a correction for their errors as well?

Pigs might fly.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3507732.htm

The glaringly obvious fact of the AGW debate, being occupied on the positive side by predominantly sensible, intelligent, concerned global citizens, and on the negative side by reactionary extremists, and the politically extreme, as well as a substantial proportion of certifiably crazy, unstable, conspiracy theorists, should tell anyone all they need to know.

LOONIES ARE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS.

Now anyone who cannot concede that point is not worth talking to, because they are denying a basic truth that all humanity has experienced to some degree or other, and I know from personal experience, I would rather fight tough, than CRAZY, anyday.

That loony denialists who accept unquestioned, the moronic fallacy that climate scientists promote false information about Global Warming, so that they may profit financially from doing so, are most certainly deficient in either mental ability, or even more likely, and certainly more dangerously, MENTAL STABILITY.

The pattern of this crazy denialist culture is unfortunately exacerbated by, and in some ways, validated by, a National Newspaper, in that they would seek to try and create an unfairly false impression of the facts, by cherry picking details they believe support a contrary view, and then extrapolate that they have somehow debunked the whole thrust and validity of the original premise, in this case, that real scientists are under physical and psychological threat, from denialist loonies.

The Australian, if I was a dead fish, dipped in batter and deep fried, I would still recoil from ever coming in contact, with that rag.

mozzaok wrote on May 27^th, 2012 at 5:08am:

The glaringly obvious fact of the AGW debate, being occupied on the positive side by predominantly sensible, intelligent, concerned global citizens, and on the negative side by reactionary extremists, and the politically extreme, as well as a substantial proportion of certifiably crazy, unstable, conspiracy theorists, should tell anyone all they need to know. LOONIES ARE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS. Now anyone who cannot concede that point is not worth talking to, because they are denying a basic truth that all humanity has experienced to some degree or other, and I know from personal experience, I would rather fight tough, than CRAZY, anyday. That loony denialists who accept unquestioned, the moronic fallacy that climate scientists promote false information about Global Warming, so that they may profit financially from doing so, are most certainly deficient in either mental ability, or even more likely, and certainly more dangerously, MENTAL STABILITY. The pattern of this crazy denialist culture is unfortunately exacerbated by, and in some ways, validated by, a National Newspaper, in that they would seek to try and create an unfairly false impression of the facts, by cherry picking details they believe support a contrary view, and then extrapolate that they have somehow debunked the whole thrust and validity of the original premise, in this case, that real scientists are under physical and psychological threat, from denialist loonies. The Australian, if I was a dead fish, dipped in batter and deep fried, I would still recoil from ever coming in contact, with that rag.

Your almost there. All you need to do is reverse the logic denialist/AGW believer and you are on a winner. Cant have it one way without the other im afraid.

So then you are back to square one. lol try again.

This thread has nothing to do with politicians, so I have moved it to the General Board.

muso wrote on May 27^th, 2012 at 6:43am:

This thread has nothing to do with politicians, so I have moved it to the General Board.

This type of thread was good enough to be in the political area when the loons came out to tell us the scientists got death threats, well lied about the death threats, but whatever floats this boards boat.

progressiveslol wrote on May 27^th, 2012 at 6:24am:

mozzaok wrote on May 27th, 2012 at 5:08am: The glaringly obvious fact of the AGW debate, being occupied on the positive side by predominantly sensible, intelligent, concerned global citizens, and on the negative side by reactionary extremists, and the politically extreme, as well as a substantial proportion of certifiably crazy, unstable, conspiracy theorists, should tell anyone all they need to know. LOONIES ARE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS. Now anyone who cannot concede that point is not worth talking to, because they are denying a basic truth that all humanity has experienced to some degree or other, and I know from personal experience, I would rather fight tough, than CRAZY, anyday. That loony denialists who accept unquestioned, the moronic fallacy that climate scientists promote false information about Global Warming, so that they may profit financially from doing so, are most certainly deficient in either mental ability, or even more likely, and certainly more dangerously, MENTAL STABILITY. The pattern of this crazy denialist culture is unfortunately exacerbated by, and in some ways, validated by, a National Newspaper, in that they would seek to try and create an unfairly false impression of the facts, by cherry picking details they believe support a contrary view, and then extrapolate that they have somehow debunked the whole thrust and validity of the original premise, in this case, that real scientists are under physical and psychological threat, from denialist loonies. The Australian, if I was a dead fish, dipped in batter and deep fried, I would still recoil from ever coming in contact, with that rag. Your almost there. All you need to do is reverse the logic denialist/AGW believer and you are on a winner. Cant have it one way without the other im afraid. So then you are back to square one. lol try again.

You pathetic answer proves Mozza's point. The denialists are being plain fruity. Your position has nothing to do with GW or AGW it is pure partisan politics and only further demonstrates the dangers of unthinking people who blindly follow.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3507732.htm

This would be a reasonable start point for you to begin to actually understand the issue. From here you can search a bit more but do watch the whole thing not just the bit's you want to hear.

mozzaok wrote on May 27^th, 2012 at 5:08am:

The glaringly obvious fact of the AGW debate, being occupied on the positive side by predominantly sensible, intelligent, concerned global citizens, and on the negative side by reactionary extremists, and the politically extreme, as well as a substantial proportion of certifiably crazy, unstable, conspiracy theorists, should tell anyone all they need to know. LOONIES ARE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS. Now anyone who cannot concede that point is not worth talking to, because they are denying a basic truth that all humanity has experienced to some degree or other, and I know from personal experience, I would rather fight tough, than CRAZY, anyday. That loony denialists who accept unquestioned, the moronic fallacy that climate scientists promote false information about Global Warming, so that they may profit financially from doing so, are most certainly deficient in either mental ability, or even more likely, and certainly more dangerously, MENTAL STABILITY. The pattern of this crazy denialist culture is unfortunately exacerbated by, and in some ways, validated by, a National Newspaper, in that they would seek to try and create an unfairly false impression of the facts, by cherry picking details they believe support a contrary view, and then extrapolate that they have somehow debunked the whole thrust and validity of the original premise, in this case, that real scientists are under physical and psychological threat, from denialist loonies. The Australian, if I was a dead fish, dipped in batter and deep fried, I would still recoil from ever coming in contact, with that rag.

In 2010 the environment editor of the Australian, Graham Lloyd, defended his paper's editorial position on climate change. Under the stewardship of Chris Mitchell the paper had been accused of "running a virulently anti-greenhouse line, allowing the news pages to become a parody of dispassionate journalism, verballing scientists and attacking science in pursuit of a larger ideological battle".

Those of us who read the Australian Know what Clive Hamilton was on about. Mitchell, however, felt slighted and regretted not suing Hamilton. 

"I now regret not suing Clive Hamilton over Scorcher and various other writers who have completely misrepresented my position and, much more importantly, that of the paper," Mitchell says.

"In essence we have allowed misleading polemics to frame the debate about our views and assumed smart people will see our real position simply by reading our paper. That apparently has not been enough for some on the extreme Left of the debate."

So what is the real position of The Australian on the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Here are extracts from Lloyd's defence.


Quote:

But the position taken by the newspaper in its daily editorial column, or leader, has been clear for well more than a decade. In the editorial of April 6, 1995, the paper said: "The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring unnaturally, primarily as a result of industrial development and deforestation, is no longer seriously disputed in the world." On November 2, 2006, the paper said: "You can accept the significant risk that the climate is warming while wishing to employ scepticism and scientific rigour when working out what to do about it. Eventually an international carbon pricing system that sets proper price signals for pollution will further drive this process." It has accepted the findings of the UN panel on climate change. On February 5, 2007, it said: "The real news from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest report, issued last Friday in Paris, is the higher level of implied scientific certainty - first that global warming is unequivocally happening, and second that humans are, in the panel's view, highly likely to be causing most of it. And on June 4, 2007: "It is now well accepted that while taking action on climate change will cost money, not acting may cost much more. The longer the wait the higher the additional cost. This does not, however, suggest that any action will deliver the hoped-for economic savings." On February 22, 2008, it said: "Australia has much at stake in this debate. If climate change is not mitigated, Australia could be one of the biggest losers because of our hot, dry variable climate. If Canada gets a little warmer, it opens up the North-West Passage. "If Australia gets a little warmer, the Murray-Darling food bowl is desiccated. We have much to gain from the development of a rational approach to climate change, and Professor Garnaut has given us a solid place to start." On December 5 last year: "This paper has held to three key points - that the planet may be at risk and action is needed; a preference for a market-driven solution; and an awareness that an early entry into a low-carbon economy would give Australia a first-mover advantage. And on December 21 last year: "Despite Copenhagen's failure, the meeting did demonstrate that there is no longer mainstream political opposition to reducing greenhouse emissions. While the specific impacts of climate change are not agreed, there is a global political consensus that all governments must act."

To summarise.

Global warming is unequivocally happening, and humans are highly likely to be causing most of it. 

The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring unnaturally, is no longer seriously disputed in the world.

Australia has much at stake in this debate. If climate change is not mitigated, Australia could be one of the biggest losers because of our hot, dry variable climate.

Eventually an international carbon pricing system that sets proper price signals for pollution will drive the solution.  

Taking action on climate change will cost money, not acting may cost much more. The longer the wait the higher the additional cost.

An early entry into a low-carbon economy would give Australia a first-mover advantage.

There is a global political consensus that all governments must act.

The surprising thing is that The Australian's editorial position is not unlike mine. In fact, it is my position. Yet every time I debate the issue with a mate of mine he always seems to be able to drag out the Australian, which he reads everyday, and point to an article or opinion piece that either questions or denies global warming, the scientific consensus of AGW, the efficacy of a market based solution or the extent of the global political consensus. Articles and opinion pieces which include the evidence that has informed the editor's AGW position are very few are far between. 

A reader who relies on the Australian as their primary source of information would quite likely be unable to accept there was a scientific consensus, and would no doubt be surprised to learn that those who select his news have come to a very different conclusion.

nairbe wrote on May 27^th, 2012 at 8:31am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 27th, 2012 at 6:24am: mozzaok wrote on May 27th, 2012 at 5:08am: The glaringly obvious fact of the AGW debate, being occupied on the positive side by predominantly sensible, intelligent, concerned global citizens, and on the negative side by reactionary extremists, and the politically extreme, as well as a substantial proportion of certifiably crazy, unstable, conspiracy theorists, should tell anyone all they need to know. LOONIES ARE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS. Now anyone who cannot concede that point is not worth talking to, because they are denying a basic truth that all humanity has experienced to some degree or other, and I know from personal experience, I would rather fight tough, than CRAZY, anyday. That loony denialists who accept unquestioned, the moronic fallacy that climate scientists promote false information about Global Warming, so that they may profit financially from doing so, are most certainly deficient in either mental ability, or even more likely, and certainly more dangerously, MENTAL STABILITY. The pattern of this crazy denialist culture is unfortunately exacerbated by, and in some ways, validated by, a National Newspaper, in that they would seek to try and create an unfairly false impression of the facts, by cherry picking details they believe support a contrary view, and then extrapolate that they have somehow debunked the whole thrust and validity of the original premise, in this case, that real scientists are under physical and psychological threat, from denialist loonies. The Australian, if I was a dead fish, dipped in batter and deep fried, I would still recoil from ever coming in contact, with that rag. Your almost there. All you need to do is reverse the logic denialist/AGW believer and you are on a winner. Cant have it one way without the other im afraid. So then you are back to square one. lol try again. You pathetic answer proves Mozza's point. The denialists are being plain fruity. Your position has nothing to do with GW or AGW it is pure partisan politics and only further demonstrates the dangers of unthinking people who blindly follow. http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3507732.htm This would be a reasonable start point for you to begin to actually understand the issue. From here you can search a bit more but do watch the whole thing not just the bit's you want to hear.

Oh you poor darling. Things not going your way I see. Have a cry.

progressiveslol wrote on May 27^th, 2012 at 11:27am:

nairbe wrote on May 27th, 2012 at 8:31am: progressiveslol wrote on May 27th, 2012 at 6:24am: mozzaok wrote on May 27th, 2012 at 5:08am: The glaringly obvious fact of the AGW debate, being occupied on the positive side by predominantly sensible, intelligent, concerned global citizens, and on the negative side by reactionary extremists, and the politically extreme, as well as a substantial proportion of certifiably crazy, unstable, conspiracy theorists, should tell anyone all they need to know. LOONIES ARE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS. Now anyone who cannot concede that point is not worth talking to, because they are denying a basic truth that all humanity has experienced to some degree or other, and I know from personal experience, I would rather fight tough, than CRAZY, anyday. That loony denialists who accept unquestioned, the moronic fallacy that climate scientists promote false information about Global Warming, so that they may profit financially from doing so, are most certainly deficient in either mental ability, or even more likely, and certainly more dangerously, MENTAL STABILITY. The pattern of this crazy denialist culture is unfortunately exacerbated by, and in some ways, validated by, a National Newspaper, in that they would seek to try and create an unfairly false impression of the facts, by cherry picking details they believe support a contrary view, and then extrapolate that they have somehow debunked the whole thrust and validity of the original premise, in this case, that real scientists are under physical and psychological threat, from denialist loonies. The Australian, if I was a dead fish, dipped in batter and deep fried, I would still recoil from ever coming in contact, with that rag. Your almost there. All you need to do is reverse the logic denialist/AGW believer and you are on a winner. Cant have it one way without the other im afraid. So then you are back to square one. lol try again. You pathetic answer proves Mozza's point. The denialists are being plain fruity. Your position has nothing to do with GW or AGW it is pure partisan politics and only further demonstrates the dangers of unthinking people who blindly follow. http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3507732.htm This would be a reasonable start point for you to begin to actually understand the issue. From here you can search a bit more but do watch the whole thing not just the bit's you want to hear. Oh you poor darling. Things not going your way I see. Have a cry.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You truly have completely made an absolute idiot out of yourself. What a goose. You didn't even watch the link did you? you have not even bothered to understand the timeline nor realised the complete rubbish the Australian wrote to suck fools like you in. The original article in the Canberra Post does not refer to ANU scientist receiving death threats, the scientists were moved before the time of the emails due to someone making threats in person and others have in fact received death threats around the country. The facts that has been revealed in this are how the media get it wrong and to how people like you end up with egg on your face. regularly.

As far as I can tell there were some isolated threats more than a year ago. They were not taken very seriously.

Then someone in the media got hold of the story on a slow news day and beat the sh#t out of it leaving out some salient facts (such as the timeframe involved). Then the media who didn't break the story decided to beat the sh#t out of the media that did.

No doubt the truth is out there somewhere but has now been so muddied we will probably never find it.

Well progs, from your nonsensical replies, can we assume that you did not follow the links to the source material, which examined just who said what, and when???

This thread is about decent people being harassed and threatened, because loonies do not understand what their work is, or what it means.

Denialists even here, choose to characterise these poor victims of intolerable abuse, as liars, because they accept the irresponsibly written article from the Australian, on face value.
The Australian is the denialists most trusted source of expert opinion from the mainstream aussie media, because of the opinion pieces promoting denisalist lies in a similar vein to those they glean from nutty bloggers.

Not unlike the political leader whose campaign to become PM, it so tirelessly champions, the Australian presents an almost schizophrenic stance on the issue, with editorials declaring the science is accepted, and that  action is required, at the same time that they run a far greater proportion of opinion pieces which vehemently declare the opposite, effectively promoting ALL the popular denialist lies.

Their actions so closely follow those of Abbott, as to make you wonder if he is setting their agenda, or merely following it?

Denialists have the habit of going off half cocked based on false information and ridiculous suppositions they latch onto from other deniers, and misinformation blogs, designed for the express purpose of creating a place where loons can get their lunacy validated.

Denialists, by definition, just love denying facts, as well as latching onto loony conspiracy theories, it seems.

The unchallengeable facts are that Climate scientists in Australia have received DEATH threats, as well as other disgusting harassment, the level of which was so bad, that their employer relocated them, for the sake of their safety, as a responsible step to maintain their duty of care, to provide a safe work place.

The issue behind the issue is, that having a political leader who makes statements like, "climate change is absolute crap", such as Tony Abbott has done, helps to create a toxic environment, which gives these crazy denialists all the justification they need, to feel vindicated in trying to intimidate scientists whose work they refuse to accept.

They do not have the decency to try and actually inquire into the facts which these scientists present, but take the usual loony shortcut, just like the political leader they support, and declare agreed upon scientific consensus is crap, thereby negating any chance that they ever actually listen to the facts, and merely keep parroting denialist lies, whilst adding their own virulent hatefulness to the mix.

MOTR wrote on May 27^th, 2012 at 8:41am:

Global warming is unequivocally happening, and humans are highly likely to be causing most of it.

Pure speculation.

AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 28^th, 2012 at 12:53am:

MOTR wrote on May 27th, 2012 at 8:41am: Global warming is unequivocally happening, and humans are highly likely to be causing most of it.  Pure speculation. AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis.

I did say highly likely.

Assuming we are responsible, which I'm pretty sure you accept as a possibility, when would you be prepared to advocate a reduction in our emissions of CO2?

MOTR wrote on May 28^th, 2012 at 7:53pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 28th, 2012 at 12:53am: MOTR wrote on May 27th, 2012 at 8:41am: Global warming is unequivocally happening, and humans are highly likely to be causing most of it.  Pure speculation. AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis. I did say highly likely. Assuming we are responsible, which I'm pretty sure you accept as a possibility, when would you be prepared to advocate a reduction in our emissions of CO2?

Yes, I certainly accept it as a possibility.

I'm prepared to advocate a reduction in our emissions of CO2 right now.  I've never (ever) said otherwise.  As an insurance policy, I have no problem with that idea.

I do, however, remain sceptical of the hypothesis (and deplore the fear mongering).

progressiveslol wrote on May 27^th, 2012 at 7:05am:

muso wrote on May 27th, 2012 at 6:43am: This thread has nothing to do with politicians, so I have moved it to the General Board. This type of thread was good enough to be in the political area when the loons came out to tell us the scientists got death threats, well lied about the death threats, but whatever floats this boards boat.

If you actually watched/read the Media Watch link I provided, you'd see that there is no evidence that the death threats didn't occur. The FOI request (and the Australian's subsequent story) covered a period some 18 months after the scientists were moved for the alleged threats.

Given the vitriolic statements and actions of the anti-science crowd from the climate denier side of the fence (not to mention the seething emails that were published), I wouldn't be at all surprised if death threats and/or threats of harm occurred.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 28^th, 2012 at 8:58pm:

MOTR wrote on May 28th, 2012 at 7:53pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 28th, 2012 at 12:53am: MOTR wrote on May 27th, 2012 at 8:41am: Global warming is unequivocally happening, and humans are highly likely to be causing most of it.  Pure speculation. AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis. I did say highly likely. Assuming we are responsible, which I'm pretty sure you accept as a possibility, when would you be prepared to advocate a reduction in our emissions of CO2? Yes, I certainly accept it as a possibility. I'm prepared to advocate a reduction in our emissions of CO2 right now.  I've never (ever) said otherwise.  As an insurance policy, I have no problem with that idea. I do, however, remain sceptical of the hypothesis (and deplore the fear mongering).

Uncle Meat is losing his footing!!

Every heard of a  slippery slope dood??  ::) ::)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 3:20pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 28th, 2012 at 8:58pm: MOTR wrote on May 28th, 2012 at 7:53pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 28th, 2012 at 12:53am: MOTR wrote on May 27th, 2012 at 8:41am: Global warming is unequivocally happening, and humans are highly likely to be causing most of it.  Pure speculation. AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis. I did say highly likely. Assuming we are responsible, which I'm pretty sure you accept as a possibility, when would you be prepared to advocate a reduction in our emissions of CO2? Yes, I certainly accept it as a possibility. I'm prepared to advocate a reduction in our emissions of CO2 right now.  I've never (ever) said otherwise.  As an insurance policy, I have no problem with that idea. I do, however, remain sceptical of the hypothesis (and deplore the fear mongering). Uncle Meat is losing his footing!! Every heard of a  slippery slope dood??  ::) ::)

No he's not.  Uncle Meat remains an open-minded sceptic.

Nothing has changed.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 3:21pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 29th, 2012 at 3:20pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 28th, 2012 at 8:58pm: MOTR wrote on May 28th, 2012 at 7:53pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 28th, 2012 at 12:53am: MOTR wrote on May 27th, 2012 at 8:41am: Global warming is unequivocally happening, and humans are highly likely to be causing most of it.  Pure speculation. AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis. I did say highly likely. Assuming we are responsible, which I'm pretty sure you accept as a possibility, when would you be prepared to advocate a reduction in our emissions of CO2? Yes, I certainly accept it as a possibility. I'm prepared to advocate a reduction in our emissions of CO2 right now.  I've never (ever) said otherwise.  As an insurance policy, I have no problem with that idea. I do, however, remain sceptical of the hypothesis (and deplore the fear mongering). Uncle Meat is losing his footing!! Every heard of a  slippery slope dood??  ::) ::) No he's not.  Uncle Meat remains an open-minded sceptic. Nothing has changed.

He thinks it's possible man has contributed to the warming of the atmosphere!!!  ;) ;) ;)

Lol, doesn't sound that sceptical to me!!!  :-*

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 3:23pm:

He thinks it's possible man has contributed to the warming of the atmosphere!!!  ;) ;) ;) Lol, doesn't sound that sceptical to me!!!  :-*

Really?  Perhaps you should buy a dictionary.

One can be both sceptical and open-minded.

Sceptical =

"not convinced that something is true"

"Skepticism or scepticism has many definitions, but generally refers to any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere."

Uncle Meat wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 4:32pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 29th, 2012 at 3:23pm: He thinks it's possible man has contributed to the warming of the atmosphere!!!  ;) ;) ;) Lol, doesn't sound that sceptical to me!!!  :-* Really?  Perhaps you should buy a dictionary. One can be both sceptical and open-minded. Sceptical = "not convinced that something is true" "Skepticism or scepticism has many definitions, but generally refers to any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere."

O DIVINE ART OF SUBTLETY,

ya see, you have admitted you aren't convinced it's not true!

You are skeptical of thedeniers!!

lol  :D :D :D :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

ya see, you have admitted you aren't convinced it's not true!

That's correct.  That's always been my position.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 29^th, 2012 at 4:35pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 29th, 2012 at 4:34pm: ya see, you have admitted you aren't convinced it's not true! That's correct.  That's always been my position.

Cool Bannanas buddy: have a nice day!

So you are skeptical of the deniers then?!!?  ::)

Chubb: no death threats in emails


CHIEF Scientist Ian Chubb says he stands by his decision to relocate ANU climate scientists after they received threatening emails, but has admitted he never actually sighted the threats.

Appearing before a Senate estimates hearing, Professor Chubb said when he was vice-chancellor of the Australian National University in 2010, a senior member of his staff came to him with concerns from the institution's climate scientists over emails they had received and said they had also had "a couple of visits from people who had walked in off the street".

The staff member expressed a desire to have the climate scientists moved from their then-location, Professor Chubb said. "We looked at what we could do and we moved them. Senator, we did not make a fanfare, we did not go public. We simply moved them and got on with our business," he said in response to Liberal senator Scott Ryan's questioning.

"I did it then, and I'd do it today if I was still vice-chancellor of the ANU . . . I was pleased I did it because I was a responsible employer. Their physical location was moved. They moved behind a door that had a swipe card access, rather than in a building that had four, maybe five, doorways open to the public."

Professor Chubb admitted he never saw the threatening emails. However, he denied any of them had included death threats as was widely reported. "They were at least abusive but let me be clear . . . I didn't read the emails. I trusted the man who came to me, he was a senior member of the staff and he represented concerns of the staff to me," Professor Chubb said.

"For the record, there were no alleged death threats except when journalists picked up the story."

Last week, the ABC issued a correction over its reports on the threats, acknowledging 11 emails sent to climate scientists at the ANU contained abuse, but no death threats.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/chubb-no-death-threats-in-emails/story-e6frg8y6-1226370442926

;D :P :P

Uncle Meat wrote on May 28^th, 2012 at 8:58pm:

MOTR wrote on May 28th, 2012 at 7:53pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 28th, 2012 at 12:53am: MOTR wrote on May 27th, 2012 at 8:41am: Global warming is unequivocally happening, and humans are highly likely to be causing most of it.  Pure speculation. AGW is merely the currently accepted hypothesis. I did say highly likely. Assuming we are responsible, which I'm pretty sure you accept as a possibility, when would you be prepared to advocate a reduction in our emissions of CO2? Yes, I certainly accept it as a possibility. I'm prepared to advocate a reduction in our emissions of CO2 right now.  I've never (ever) said otherwise.  As an insurance policy, I have no problem with that idea. I do, however, remain sceptical of the hypothesis (and deplore the fear mongering).

Here's the problem, Uncle Meat, if the hypothesis is correct, which is highly likely, we're not acting fast enough. Educating people about a highly likely adverse outcome is not fear mongering.

NBN MYTHS

Quote:

If you actually watched/read the Media Watch link I provided, you'd see that there is no evidence that the death threats didn't occur. The FOI request (and the Australian's subsequent story) covered a period some 18 months after the scientists were moved for the alleged threats. Given the vitriolic statements and actions of the anti-science crowd from the climate denier side of the fence (not to mention the seething emails that were published), I wouldn't be at all surprised if death threats and/or threats of harm occurred.

Thanks NBN Myths, for your posts, and the links to the original source material, including copies of some of the disgustingly shameful emails, that our top climate scientists have received, paints a very different picture than that which the Climate Change denialists are trying to have you believe.
I do not, doubt that THEY, the Denialists, believe their own opinions are correct, they have a history of forming very, very, strong opinions based totally upon, laymen's misinterpretations of scientific findings,  deliberately false misinformation, and pure misleadingly false invention from extremist zealots, whose sanity has to be questioned, considering the extreme conspiracy theories they base their conjecture upon.
On top of that they also have developed a very closed mindset, where they refuse to even examine any of the actual information they so vehemently declare to be false, declaring it to be part of a global conspiracy of evil scientists all colluding to perpetrate a massive global swindle, supposedly based on a fraudulent attempt to gain increased research grants.

It certainly does not surprise anyone who engages these denialists in debate, to hear that some of them are so  deranged as to make incredibly excessive statements that include vile abuse, threatening abuse, and even abuse wishing death and suffering upon those they believe are a part of a global scientific conspiracy, that THEY actually seem to believe is real.

But, let's not just take my word on that, even though my word happens to be far more reliable than the raft of misinformation that they base their irrational hatred upon, let us have a look at a sample of some of the "REAL" emails these poor people just doing their jobs, have had to endure.

WARNING!!!! The following quotes are actual emails from nutters, to Australian Climate Scientists, and they contain very bad language as well as disgusting abuse, do not read if bad language will upset you.;

Sent: Sunday 24th, April 2011 2:20 PM
         YOU ARE A smacking LYING PIECE OF poo COMMUNIST!!!!!!!!
GO bugger YORSELF AND DIE YOU front bottom !!!!!!!!
(Spelling changed of expletives, to bypass the site naughty word censor, so as to truly show the type of vile emails sent to Climate Scientists)
Sent: Sunday 24th, April 2011 5:40 PM
Subject; Re: MORE CLIMATE ALARMIST LIES DEBUNKED- "Past Alarm. World's Coral: 40% gone by 2010"
EAT SH1T AND DIE  TO LYING COMMUNIST ASSHOLE !!!!!!!
smacking TRAITOR TO YOUR FELLOW AUSTRALIANS !!!!!!!!

Sent: Tuesday 26th April 2011 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: Is the IPCC to close to Greenpeace?
"YOU "#@$#@$%$#@" are nothing but a Traitorous lying asshole !!
The quicker that front bottoms like your kind Die the better!!!!!!
Piss Off !!!

1st March 2011

GLOBAL WARMING IS THE BIGGEST FRAUD IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND
PEOPLE THAT PROMOTE IT NEED TO BE PUT DOWN!


15th Jan 2011
re: queensland floods..
   arfgh shaddup you fckn wanker...go push your yuppie bllshit propaganda to your useful idiot mates and shut the fck up...
Chn9 "this is the worst it's ever been"- how the bugger 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 dickhead-and they made you a professor-what out of a fvckn cornflakes packet?

11th Jan 2011

Wouldn't mind that turds such as yourself spend your time masturbating and collecting grants but you are costing jobs, and billions to the taxpayers your lying filthy piece of sh1t!

Die you lying bastard@

2nd Jan 2011

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!


Very Classy lot these Denialists, aren't they?


So, instead of just believing the opinion piece in The Australian, claiming this whole email scandal was debunked, go and read the actual transcripts from the media watch presentation, and see that, that alone tells you that whilst they agree that the ABC online reporting of the incident was sloppy, and contained some incorrect claims, the actual fact that Australian Climate Scientists have been subjected to an horrendous campaign of hate, including at least one email that was considered as a death threat, and reported to police, is not a lie, or debunked.

The ones I quoted saying how they wished the subject dead, were not the email in question, they were just the run of the mill insanity that these poor scientists have been subjected to since we saw the escalating hysteria whipped up by the opposition, in it's opportunistic zeal to try and make The Carbon Tax and Global Warming an issue more controversial than it need be.
The Liberals conveniently forget that when Rudd was planning an Emissions Trading Scheme, Tony Abbott went on television declaring a straight out
"Carbon Tax" was the way to go.

The lack of honesty, and the lack of ethical portrayal of current Liberal Policy, from the opposition leader, Tony Abbott, as well as the incessant stirring up of hatred towards Prime Minister Gillard, over the Carbon Tax, and by association, the legitimate position of the Liberal Party on Global Warming, has seen even the most loopy denisalists believing that they have a legitimate grievance, which has them believing the vile, hateful garbage  they spout, is justified.

Shame Denialists Shame.
Shame Liberal Pasrty Shame.
Shame Abbott Shame.
Shame The Australian Shame.

The only thing The Australian has "debunked" is any shred of credibility thay believed they could still lay claim to, after more than two years of absolutely partisan cheerleading for one side of politics, which removes any semblance of objectivity they may try and claim.      
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3507732.htm   
That is a reposting of the  "MEDIA WATCH" link originally referenced by NBN Myths, and the emails link;
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1216_scientist.pdf
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

MOTR wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 1:39am:

Here's the problem, Uncle Meat, if the hypothesis is correct, which is highly likely, we're not acting fast enough. Educating people about a highly likely adverse outcome is not fear mongering.

Speculation.

Stop the fear mongering.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 3:00pm:

MOTR wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 1:39am: Here's the problem, Uncle Meat, if the hypothesis is correct, which is highly likely, we're not acting fast enough. Educating people about a highly likely adverse outcome is not fear mongering. Speculation. Stop the fear mongering.

Uncle Meat is putting his hand down the pants of the unborn again!

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/jumpers2.jpeg

HERE'S HOPING THEY DON'T PUNISH YOUR GRANDKIDS!!

(PEOPLE DO THAT SORT OF STUFF YA KNOW!!  ;) ;) )

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 5:23pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 3:00pm: MOTR wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 1:39am: Here's the problem, Uncle Meat, if the hypothesis is correct, which is highly likely, we're not acting fast enough. Educating people about a highly likely adverse outcome is not fear mongering. Speculation. Stop the fear mongering. Uncle Meat is putting his hand down the pants of the unborn again! http://www.hyscience.com/archives/jumpers2.jpeg HERE'S HOPING THEY DON'T PUNISH YOUR GRANDKIDS!! (PEOPLE DO THAT SORT OF STUFF YA KNOW!!  ;) ;) )

Yep, I'm single-handedly destroying the planet.

Because of my scepticism of the AGW hypothesis the entire human race will be wiped out in the next few decades.

We're all doomed, and our grandchildren won't live to see their teenage years, all because I decided to question the "science" behind AGW (all the while remaining open-minded).

Even though I have consistently said that I have no objection to carbon reduction schemes (as an insurance policy) my willingness to consider other reasons for climate change, and not blindly accept AGW as the only possibility, means that my grandchildren and all other inhabitants of this planet are destined to die in the very near future.

I didn't realise I was so powerful   ::)

Uncle Meat is a liar: he thinks he is a skeptic of the science yet he doesn't deny it's possible!

So, UNCLE MEAT OLD LIAR: Why would a 5% cut in emissions make sense but not more?

WE ALL KNOW YOU WON'T OPEN YOURSELF UP TO EXAMINATION BY ANSWERING QUESTIONS LIKE THAT OLD LIAR!!

All the same, sleep well....  :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*  ;D

  :D :D :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:01pm:

Uncle Meat is a liar: he thinks he is a skeptic of the science yet he doesn't deny it's possible!

Still haven't bought yourself a dictionary, have you?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Poker_chips.jpg/220px-Poker_chips.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Poker_chips.jpg/220px-Poker_chips.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Poker_chips.jpg/220px-Poker_chips.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Poker_chips.jpg/220px-Poker_chips.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Poker_chips.jpg/220px-Poker_chips.jpg

  ::) ::)  ;D

Uncle Meat wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:03pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:01pm: Uncle Meat is a liar: he thinks he is a skeptic of the science yet he doesn't deny it's possible! Still haven't bought yourself a dictionary, have you?

Dood, you're being very evasive!!

  :D :D

Am I too skilled to be taken lightly am I!!!  ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:01pm:

So, UNCLE MEAT OLD LIAR: Why would a 5% cut in emissions make sense but not more? WE ALL KNOW YOU WON'T OPEN YOURSELF UP TO EXAMINATION BY ANSWERING QUESTIONS LIKE THAT OLD LIAR!!

I've never said that a 5% cut in emissions would make sense but not more.

So, is there any particular reason why you would ask me that question?    :-/

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:01pm:

[color=#ff0000]Uncle Meat is a liar: he thinks he is a skeptic of the science yet he doesn't deny it's possible!

Wouldn't that just make him an agnostic.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:06pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:01pm: So, UNCLE MEAT OLD LIAR: Why would a 5% cut in emissions make sense but not more? WE ALL KNOW YOU WON'T OPEN YOURSELF UP TO EXAMINATION BY ANSWERING QUESTIONS LIKE THAT OLD LIAR!! I've never said that a 5% cut in emissions would make sense but not more. So, is there any particular reason why you would ask me that question?    :-/

Oh, so what kind of emissions cut would you recommend then?

(-->>More than 5%, obviously, I presume??  :D :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:05pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:03pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:01pm: Uncle Meat is a liar: he thinks he is a skeptic of the science yet he doesn't deny it's possible! Still haven't bought yourself a dictionary, have you? Dood, you're being very evasive!!

No, I'm not.

One can be sceptical of the AGW hypothesis without denying that it's possible.

What part of that don't you understand?

You do know what "sceptical" means, don't you?

Don't confuse "deny" with "doubt".

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:10pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:06pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:01pm: So, UNCLE MEAT OLD LIAR: Why would a 5% cut in emissions make sense but not more? WE ALL KNOW YOU WON'T OPEN YOURSELF UP TO EXAMINATION BY ANSWERING QUESTIONS LIKE THAT OLD LIAR!! I've never said that a 5% cut in emissions would make sense but not more. So, is there any particular reason why you would ask me that question?    :-/ Oh, so what kind of emissions cut would you recommend then? (-->>More than 5%, obviously, I presume??  :D :D

I have no recommendation.

I'll leave that up to the people who actually want that insurance policy.

I'm happy to go with the flow.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:10pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:05pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:03pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:01pm: Uncle Meat is a liar: he thinks he is a skeptic of the science yet he doesn't deny it's possible! Still haven't bought yourself a dictionary, have you? Dood, you're being very evasive!! No, I'm not. One can be sceptical of the AGW hypothesis without denying that it's possible. What part of that don't you understand? You do know what "sceptical" means, don't you? Don't confuse "deny" with "doubt".

Why would I take english lesson off a bloke who doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'evasive' ?????  :-* :-*

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:13pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:10pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:05pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:03pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:01pm: Uncle Meat is a liar: he thinks he is a skeptic of the science yet he doesn't deny it's possible! Still haven't bought yourself a dictionary, have you? Dood, you're being very evasive!! No, I'm not. One can be sceptical of the AGW hypothesis without denying that it's possible. What part of that don't you understand? You do know what "sceptical" means, don't you? Don't confuse "deny" with "doubt". Why would I take english lesson off a bloke who doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'evasive' ?????  :-* :-*

1.  You don't understand the meaning of the word "sceptical".

2  I'm not being evasive.

That's why.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:12pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:10pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:06pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:01pm: So, UNCLE MEAT OLD LIAR: Why would a 5% cut in emissions make sense but not more? WE ALL KNOW YOU WON'T OPEN YOURSELF UP TO EXAMINATION BY ANSWERING QUESTIONS LIKE THAT OLD LIAR!! I've never said that a 5% cut in emissions would make sense but not more. So, is there any particular reason why you would ask me that question?    :-/ Oh, so what kind of emissions cut would you recommend then? (-->>More than 5%, obviously, I presume??  :D :D I have no recommendation. I'll leave that up to the people who actually want that insurance policy. I'm happy to go with the flow.

Lol, I PRONOUNCE THIS EXACT POST GOLD!

  8-) 8-)

Uncle Meat wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:35pm:

Why would I take english lesson off a bloke who doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'evasive' ?????  :-* :-*

1.  You don't understand the meaning of the word "sceptical".

2  I'm not being evasive.

That's why.[/quote]
Anyone reading this dribble would not be scorned for lifting this word for word as an example of SMALL TARGET STRATEGY BY UNCLE MEAT!!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:42pm:

I have no recommendation. I'll leave that up to the people who actually want that insurance policy. I'm happy to go with the flow. Lol, I PRONOUNCE THIS EXACT POST GOLD!   8-) 8-)

Excellent.

I suppose you're not used to seeing such open-mindedness and honesty.  That's not really something the AGW disciples practice.

Anyway, I'm glad you liked it.

So, what's your recommendation?

Uncle Meat wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:47pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:42pm: I have no recommendation. I'll leave that up to the people who actually want that insurance policy. I'm happy to go with the flow. Lol, I PRONOUNCE THIS EXACT POST GOLD!   8-) 8-) Excellent. I suppose you're not used to seeing such open-mindedness and honesty.  That's not really something the AGW disciples practice. Anyway, I'm glad you liked it. So, what's your recommendation?

To listen to the scientists!!
  ;) ;)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:50pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:47pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:42pm: I have no recommendation. I'll leave that up to the people who actually want that insurance policy. I'm happy to go with the flow. Lol, I PRONOUNCE THIS EXACT POST GOLD!   8-) 8-) Excellent. I suppose you're not used to seeing such open-mindedness and honesty.  That's not really something the AGW disciples practice. Anyway, I'm glad you liked it. So, what's your recommendation? To listen to the scientists!!   ;) ;)

Same answer as me.  Good.

"I'll leave that up to the people who actually want that insurance policy."

Uncle Meat wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 6:53pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:50pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:47pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:42pm: I have no recommendation. I'll leave that up to the people who actually want that insurance policy. I'm happy to go with the flow. Lol, I PRONOUNCE THIS EXACT POST GOLD!   8-) 8-) Excellent. I suppose you're not used to seeing such open-mindedness and honesty.  That's not really something the AGW disciples practice. Anyway, I'm glad you liked it. So, what's your recommendation? To listen to the scientists!!   ;) ;) Same answer as me.  Good. "I'll leave that up to the people who actually want that insurance policy."

So, your answer is, "to listen to the scientists", is it?

  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 7:03pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:53pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:50pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:47pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 6:42pm: I have no recommendation. I'll leave that up to the people who actually want that insurance policy. I'm happy to go with the flow. Lol, I PRONOUNCE THIS EXACT POST GOLD!   8-) 8-) Excellent. I suppose you're not used to seeing such open-mindedness and honesty.  That's not really something the AGW disciples practice. Anyway, I'm glad you liked it. So, what's your recommendation? To listen to the scientists!!   ;) ;) Same answer as me.  Good. "I'll leave that up to the people who actually want that insurance policy." So, your answer is, "to listen to the scientists", is it?   :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

In relation to the question you asked me, and I asked you, yes.

You seem to have trouble keeping up with the conversation.

The question you asked me:

"Oh, so what kind of emissions cut would you recommend then?"

My answer:

"I have no recommendation.

I'll leave that up to the people who actually want that insurance policy.

I'm happy to go with the flow."

My question to you:

"So, what's your recommendation?" (still on the subject of cutting emissions).

Your answer:

"To listen to the scientists!!"

What part can't you follow?

bUT UNCLE MEAT: YOU AREN'T LISTENING TO THE SCIENTISTS!  :D :D :D :D ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 3:45pm:

bUT UNCLE MEAT: YOU AREN'T LISTENING TO THE SCIENTISTS!  :D :D :D :D ;D

I'm listening to them.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 3:51pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 31st, 2012 at 3:45pm: bUT UNCLE MEAT: YOU AREN'T LISTENING TO THE SCIENTISTS!  :D :D :D :D ;D I'm listening to them.

Lol, 'listening' in italics = GOLD!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

SEE, we all know you're a time-wasting bean counter.

Time is money and all that hey buddy!

Lol, counting demands so much concentration: lol, ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh look at the exponential relationship go!

  :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[

1 + 1.1 + 1.11 + 1.111 + 1.1111

....

Lol, JUST SO LOL!!!  :-*

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 4:12pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 31st, 2012 at 3:51pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 31st, 2012 at 3:45pm: bUT UNCLE MEAT: YOU AREN'T LISTENING TO THE SCIENTISTS!  :D :D :D :D ;D I'm listening to them. Lol, 'listening' in italics = GOLD!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D SEE, we all know you're a time-wasting bean counter. Time is money and all that hey buddy! Lol, counting demands so much concentration: lol, ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh look at the exponential relationship go!   :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ 1 + 1.1 + 1.11 + 1.111 + 1.1111 .... Lol, JUST SO LOL!!!  :-*

Nope, not a bean counter.  Not sure where you got that from.