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.

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.  

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

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



Believe what?

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



Are you going to answer the question?

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



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.