Bishop Hill A difference of opinion
May 21, 2012 Climate: other Australian Climate Madness notes the Australian National University's amusing impression of Baghdad Bob. With the statement by the Australian Information Commissioner and John Coochey's statement having conclusively shown that there were no death threats issued to university staff, ANU has nevertheless stood its ground, as ABC reports in a surreptitious update to its original story:
The release of these emails under Freedom of Information followed reports last year (see related stories above) that ANU scientists had received death threats. Climate change sceptics have claimed that the released emails contradict suggestions that any death threats were received, but a spokesperson for the ANU says the university is standing by its claims that death threats were received. Questions have also been raised about whether one of the released emails did, in fact, constitute a threat to use a gun, with a person involved in the kangaroo culling program claiming the comments were made by him, and were in no way intended as a threat.
There is no hint of a correction in the Guardian's story on the subject.
Reader Comments (17)
In view of the importance of non-verbal means of communication perhaps the ANU is correct. Couldn't the death threats have been received telepathically? If so sceptics will find it difficult to prove that the threats never existed!
Yeah, it was fun while it lasted now lets oblige them and stop being inquisitive and move on.
It is easy for these people - the media and scientists- to lie in this environment we have today. An environment where it is considered clearly bad manners for anyone to raise even the slightest query about anything from the realm of climate orthodoxy, and when the most pungent and accurate criticism from what is percieved as an outcast "sceptic" is beyond the pale to consider.
When you operate in this comfort zone then it is hardly any wonder the tendency to embroider moves quickly to lying and gets more common and more extreme. It does seem as though Australia has it worse although I think we are seeing an escalation of a similar acts of disdain in the UK e.g. the latest Goldenberg report.
I can only wonder what the limit can be? There has to be some limit before even the most ardent progressive starts to vomit from the amount of outright bullshit being fed to them?
"Media Watch" has just covered this story as I write. According to the summation, which came before the evidence, the Canberra Times comes out unscathed, the ABC not so well and The Australian worst of all.
About par for the course for Media watch.
I'm sure the script of this will be up shortly on the Media Watch website.
"I can only wonder what the limit can be? There has to be some limit before even the most ardent progressive starts to vomit from the amount of outright bullshit being fed to them?"
The current breed of egalitarian radicalism is rather mild-mannered and spayed compared to more full-blown examples of (sometimes "scientific", sometimes more "spiritual") radical/liberal-leaning movements. Scientific Marxism (a former haunt of many of the current promoters of Climate Change) for instance, had far more *oomph* to it.
So, in short, I´d say we have quite a distance to go before there is any more broad-based reaction within the ranks. However, it is likely that a spark of doubt has been created in the more peripheral actors.
Going forward, I doubt they will be able to replicate the atmosphere of the heyday of 2006-2009 - especially as marginalizing critics completely has become more difficult with the rise of the Internet.
You are close to the mark TLIB, around 60% of us in Oz have had an absolute gut-full (the other 40% being Greens, assorted lefties, generational welfare spongers and inner city trendoids) but because of two deceitful independents occupying very conservative seats we must endure the agony of many more months of the worst government this country has ever had before giving it the boot. You are optimistic about the rusted-on "progressives" though. Probably a question of the more unearned bread they're given, the less s**t they need to eat.
"...but a spokesperson for the ANU says the university is standing by its claims that death threats were received."
Show us the money ANU spokesperson.
So the "Death threat" is fake yet the Melons promise to kill 6.5 billion is ignored.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-face-genocidal-eco-fascism
Is there any ANU class in Sydney?
SLOP- Standard Leftist Operating Procedure.
Tell lies if it suits and never, ever admit you have.
Instead throw a hypocritical and self-indulgent wobble about "shadowy & sinister right wing denier organisations", funded by "big oil", to muddy the waters.
"The Australian Federal police said that it was aware of the threats but had yet to receive a complaint."
So these "threats" are how serious exactly?
The edition of Media Watch about the death threats is up on the ABC site now:
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/
Tell lies if it suits and never, ever admit you have.
and whats more, keep on and on repeating them with a straight face even when no intelligent person could possibly believe them anymore. Because another bit of SLOP is to focus on fooling the fools, which is where the votes are, so who cares what a handful of clever clogs think? Let them do their intellectual gymnastics, its the well-repeated sound bite and slogan wot sews the votes up.
The Guardian makes unsubstantiated allegations, and then fails to correct or retract them when found out.
Is this a recurring theme?
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/5/21/gleick-uncleared.html
The once great Manchester Guardian is being dragged lower and lower.
"...amusing impression of Baghdad Bob."
Sigh!
Wikipedia:
The last time I checked His Grace was still "an Englishman who lives in rural Scotland."
Don't get the wrong impression about the political climate in Australia, folks. The current Government, which supports all these travesties, is running at between 27% and 32% of the primary vote, depending on which poll you believe. 7 out of 10 of us can't wait to get rid of them at the next election.
As for the ABC, despite a lot of stonewalling and fudging, it has had to make numerous corrections to its climate reporting, which is on a par with the Guardian's. Strangely, their 'inadvertant errors' (as they describe them) are always in the same direction, ie supporting CAGW propaganda.
Re the ANU, I seem to recall that there was one genuine death threat (an incoherent email from a complete nutcase) about five years ago. If there was anything more to their assertions, wouldn't you think they'd be shouting it from the rooftops, or at least reporting it to the police?
BTW, don't expect to hear from John Coochey for a bit. The annual kangaroo cull started yesterday. :)
More likely that these were quantum threats -- they both existed and did not exist. They existed in the minds of the ANU people, but did not exist anywhere else, least of all in the factual evidence.
Surely the kangaroo cull 'threat' was a completely separate issue and not in the 'offending' emails at all?