Trial by Media

I thought it a good time to rehash the Australian Climate Scientists attempts to discredit their sceptics and the Australian Media reaction

One of the reasons for this is besides the Gillard regime’s advocating the science is settled and their experts are totally reliable, we have the oppositions shadow climate Guy Mr Hall telling us Climate Change is happening and it’s our fault also.  Someone must be wrong!  

No I don’t really mean wrong as to whether man has had an effect on Climate Change, but wrong on whether man’s contribution is any more than a pin in the Hayshed.  Of no consequence but enough to make us think about whether we want to ignore the pin is their when we jump in the hay.  And people have thought about this before the current regime became obsessed with their Carbon Tax.  We are accused of being one of the major contributors, however they don’t account for Australia s land mass just our population a ridiculous assumption as the supposed Greenhouse gas emissions would spread over our land mass not just stick to where most people live meaning these emissions are far smaller percentage than they want to blame us for and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is almost an advantage as it would mean it is harder for bush fires (Co2 is a retardant where O2 is a fire accelerant) to start than it did many years ago.  Unfortunately our recent bushfire crises have denounced that as they have been finding plenty of fuel to burn.

Now the Government’s Climate Scientists have put all their wages behind Global Warming, and this has meant wages they never received in the past and people forced to listen to them as experts, their trouble is the science wasn’t agreeing with their statements or their reports, and their Climate modelling was based on flawed data and inadequate statistics.

In order to silence their critics someone came up with an outrageous claim they were receiving death threats and without evidence to back them up and without a report going to the police the Scientists, the University, the Government and the Media ran with what they said and tried to vilify those of us that disagreed with them and we were subjected with smear campaigns circulating these headlines:

“Australian National University scientists moved to safe location after threats” The Australian

   “Death threats sent to top climate scientists” ABC

“Australian climate scientists receive death threats” [Guardian UK]

“Australian climate scientists face death threats” [Nature Blog]

Climate scientists receive death threats [SMH]

Death threats to scientists  [Canberra Times]

Chubb deplores ‘low’ climate debate [Canberra Times]

Climate debate hitting new lows – scientist [Daily Telegraph]

Climate change scientists threats reheated [news.com.au]

Climate debate ‘appalling’ [The Canberra Times]

 ”Climate of Fear” [The Canberra Times]

Universities condemn threats against climate scientists  ABC Online

Australian climate change scientists receive death threats as debate heats up Telegraph.co.uk

The Australian -University World News - AFP

And with stories claiming:

Will Steffen, head of the Climate Institute and paid thousands of dollars to advise on billion dollar policies, appears unable to tell the difference between a bad mannered email and a direct threat of violence. Just how good is his judgement on the finer points of feedback loops in complex models?

Professor Will Steffen, of the Australian National University’s Climate Change Institute, said some were direct threats of violence, while others were ”simply very nasty emails with veiled threats in them that what might happen to us in a very general way”.  Canberra Times

The serial exaggerators tossing baseless ad hominem smears then called for a “logical public debate” about the science.

Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, Professor Ian Young, said staff should not have to put up with such behaviour. “Professor Young says the outrageous behaviour [of receiving 11 rude emails] has left the scientists shaken.” “These are issues where we should have a logical public debate …” [ABC]

Prof David Karoly, of the University of Melbourne’s school of Earth science took the opportunity to suggest the 11 rude emails could be an organized campaign:

“It is clear that there is a campaign in terms of either organised or disorganised threats to discourage scientists from presenting the best available climate science on television or radio,” he said.

According to Andrew Macintosh, the 11 emails were an acceleration of a campaign running for years (What? Perhaps there was one email 5 years ago, and another 18 months ago? That bad eh?)

“Andrew Macintosh, associate director of the ANU Centre for Climate Law and Policy, said the scientists had been targeted for years but it had worsened. ”I received a few a couple of years ago. It was three letters, with pictures of dead animals and print cut out from newspapers. There was a variety of ways I was going to die. They were going to shoot me, gut me and so on. Since then I’ve had lots of abusive emails and phone calls.”   [ canberra times]

Instead of informing Canberran’s that the ANU had not reported the rude emails to police, journalist Eamonn Duff at The Canberra Times phrased it as such: “Federal police said they were aware of the issue.” A hired PR agent could hardly do better.

Not surprisingly Julia Gillard blamed Abbott:

Prime Minister Julia Gillard said the plunge in debate should be blamed on the Opposition’s preparedness to ”abuse scientists”. [ canberra times ]

She took the chance to smear the Tea Party too. Combet also held Abbott responsible.  Our current political leaders struggle somewhat with cause and effect.

The man trying to scare us into paying billions to stop storms and floods, Climate Minister Mr Combet, said:

“People whipping up anxiety over a carbon price should temper their language and engage in rational debate rather than irrational scare mongering,’’

Australian climate scientists targeted by death threats

Posted on June 6, 2011 by Rick Piltz

“Australia’s leading climate change scientists are being targeted by a vicious, unrelenting email campaign that has resulted in police investigations of death threats,” the Canberra Times reports. “One researcher told of receiving threats of sexual assault and violence against her children after her photograph appeared in a newspaper article promoting a community tree-planting day as a local action to mitigate climate change.” Among the scientists receiving threatening and intimidating email are Will Steffen, Andy Pitman, and David Karoly. This is the dark underside of right-wing sociopathy and the global warming denial machine.

Climate of fear: scientists face death threats

BY ROSSLYN BEEBY – SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT REPORTER

Australia’s leading climate change scientists are being targeted by a vicious, unrelenting email campaign that has resulted in police investigations of death threats.

More than 30 researchers across Australia ranging from ecologists and environmental policy experts to meteorologists and atmospheric physicists told The Canberra Times they are receiving a stream of abusive emails threatening violence, sexual assault, public smear campaigns and attacks on family members.

Among the scientists being targeted is Australian National University climate institute director Professor Will Steffen.

Others include University of NSW climate change research co-director Professor Andy Pitman and University of Melbourne meteorology professor and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author Professor David Karoly.

Many scientists spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they feared the email attacks would escalate if they were identified.

Several scientists have installed upgraded home security systems and switched to unlisted phone numbers after receiving threats that their homes and cars would be damaged.

Australia’s new chief scientist, former ANU vice-chancellor Professor Ian Chubb has condemned these email threats as ”an outrageous attack” on open and public debate.

”These hurtful attacks are intended to intimidate scientists, to scare them off and stop them from participating in public discussions on climate change. They are the antithesis of democratic debate,” Professor Chubb said. …

University of NSW senior psychology lecturer Jason Mazanov said the emails were indicative of a ”closed room” mentality where people have lost all sense of what is normal.

”They send a threatening email with no thought of the social cost or consequences,” he said.

The AFP have advised that if an individual receives death threats and/or violently abusive emails, they should contact their state or territory police.

As can be seen we were treated as Jack the Ripper and the Boston Strangler meets Godzilla in these reports, however let’s look at the evidence, the actual emails they refer to as the reason they are so scared and why we are so dangerous:

EMAIL NO 1

Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011

Subject: Henrik Svensmark “Cosmic Ray Flux”

Henrik Svensmark discovered a startling connection between the cosmic ray flux from space and cloud cover and recent results from Cern confirms this research…Comics’ Leaving Outdoor Droplets or the CLOUD . Are you aware of the science? Are you aware of its implications to the “Consensus” on climate change and AGW.

Our weather is not climate. I am deeply offended that you use the deaths of loved ones in the recent Victorian bush fires to peddle lies to the community about climate change and its affects. You should be ashamed that policy is driving the science and that you are putting your voice behind policy rather than truth. Are you morally and ethically aware (awake) of your actions? ALSO Please stop telling lies about sea level rises. It is so full of BS it is not funny, it is insulting to anyone with enough intelligence to do simple research about sea level rises.

I ask that you seek the truth objectively and use your voice for truth. I am all for renewable energy, a greener society and less pollution but you and I both know the carbon tax is fraudulent and will hurt many people for the sake of a few. The carbon tax will not change our climate for the better it will have no affect at all.

Please be truthful in the future.

A concerned citizen.

EMAIL NUMBER 2

Date:Tue, 24 May 2011

pass this on…to boy…heard on leon delaney show today…what a fckn load of pseudo scaremongering turd…its what youd expect from someone sucking of the tit of the public sow..coz if he had to make money in the private sector he’d be fcked..You’ll be pleased to know willie boy all of us ‘stupid ignorant’ australians out there came on the radio after you went and panned the fck out of you and your idiotic toilet…”these deniers have no qualifications in climate science’-oh yeh? and flannerys a paleontologist-you dckhead…yuppie turds the lot of ya..why dont ya all fck off to yr beloved europe where their economies are fckd because of stupid schemes like yours and leave us to run this great country as it should be..

EMAIL NUMBER 3 

Date: Mon, 23 May 2011

Dear ,

The people and the world are waking up to your junk science and your self-promoting global warming con, which pays your wages with government grants.

Climate Gate exposed you all for the con men that you are. Your doomsday predictions over the last 10 years did not come true and your doomsday predictions of the future will also follow the same destiny.

e.g.

“The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.” Flannery 2007 (AU)

“there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis”.Flannery 2004 (AU)

“Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past “ By Charles Onians Monday, 20 March 2000 (UK)

There are many more examples where you JUNK predictions have failed miserably, I am sure you are more than aware of them so I see no need to post more.

YOU KNOW that Anthropogenic Carbon emissions in Australia make up less than 1% of the total greenhouse gasses in the planet, if you include water vapour. You know this and you still push the agenda of carbon taxing the Australian People.

We have had enough! Sometime in the future your days of leeching off the tax payers of Australia will end and you will be looking for work in the employment office where you might find a real job and contribute to society in a positive way.

Regards,

EMAIL NUMBER 4 

Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010

[Infantile professor pronounces debate "infantile"]

The Age – formerly a decent newspaper – never fails to take an opportunity to parrot PR for Team AGW.

Last week they gave a free shot …

Climate debate ‘almost infantile’

(The Age, ADAM MORTON, May 25, 2010)

A SCIENCE adviser to the federal government has described the debate in the media over the basics of climate change science as “almost infantile”, equating it to an argument about the existence of gravity.

It takes a tax-payer funded Pro-fessor to equate AGW to gravity. It must have taken years of education to be able to issue pronouncements like this eh? If Australian taxpayers were hoping to get a bit more than just bluster and name- calling from certain public servants, they’re bound to be asking for their money back soon.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the existence of gravity is proven each day you don’t get flung off the planet when you get out of bed. We can measure gravity to twelve significant digits*, but our value for climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide varies from 0 to 10. Pick a number. We can’t even get one significant digit fixed. Quantifying gravity involves dropping a rock with a clock and a ruler. Quantifying carbon’s effect on climate change involves understanding cloud-formation, ice sheet changes, evaporation, humidity levels in air 8000 m above Singapore, and ocean currents at the bottom of the endless abyss that we can’t even measure.

Speaking at a Melbourne summit on the green economy, Professor Will Steffen criticised the media for treating climate change science as a political issue in which two sides should be given a voice.

Is it political? Heck No. It’s not about managing our economy, assessing risks, choosing between different courses of action. err. it’s pure science has modeled our future, there’s no need to involve the economists- consumers-engineers-investors-medical-experts-or those pesky kids we’re supposedly saving-the-planet-for. Managing the country is pure science now; free speech and democracy-babble, who needs it!

This censorship of speech, and appeal to authority is the antithesis of science, and …simplifies things ad absurdium. In Australia, he appears to have been appointed Carbon-King-of-Bluster. Find me a sentence where he substantiates a claim with something that amounts to more than “it’s true because I say so”.

“It’s a no-brainer. If you go over the last couple of decades you see tens of thousands of papers in the peer-reviewed literature, and you have less than 10 that challenge the fundamentals – and they have been disproved,” Professor Steffen said after an address at the Australian Davos Connection’s Future Summit.

“Tens of Thousands” of papers eh? So why doesn’t he dig out a few and help his colleague …who is at least honest enough to engage in a debate…and try to answer the question: Can you name any paper that supports the claim that positive feedback occurs and will double or triple the direct effect of carbon dioxide? Without that amplification the big scare campaign is all over (and so is much of the funding that feeds the associated junkets, conferences, grants, Institutes, and certain “science advisers” to the government ).

And which 10 papers exactly have been disproved? … can’t name them, won’t try, and helpfully leaves things vague as a one-size-fits-all whitewash. Pure bluster. Adam Morton dutifully prints all that without checking, as if it’s a pronouncement from the Mount and one of the ten commandments.

Don’t give me the excuse that he’s written giant documents with thousands of references, so the evidence is there “somewhere”. It only takes a few minutes to name and explain one paper. Waving vaguely at tomes is part of the shell game. If he wants rational discourse, this is where it starts, with details.

Right now, this almost infantile debate about whether ‘is it real or isn’t it real?’, it’s like saying, ‘Is the Earth round or is it flat?’

Actually, the only one trying to debate whether “it’s” real or the world is flat is him. No one else wants to reduce public conversation to meaningless descriptors as much as he does. What “it” is he talking about? Does he mean “climate change”? He’d sure like us to debate that, because he’d be on safe preschool-climate-science terms where he could win: Yes Esmeralda, the climate does change! But the rest of us keep asking him to debate the real issue instead of his fake-o-strawman-substitute.

[Climate change] is a hugely important question and yet we are not having a rational discourse in the media in Australia on this question. That is my biggest frustration.

This is quite funny really. (I laughed). So … is frustrated that the discourse is irrational? This is the man who uses his academic authority to mock opponents (that he won’t debate) with strawman arguments that are irrelevant. He claims he wants rational discourse, but works hard to stifle any discussion that doesn’t agree with him. He actively contributes to the nightmare of government spin and irrationality.

Asked about the scepticism of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, he said scientists respected leaders from both sides of politics who showed respect for scientific expertise.

“Respect for expertise” is code for argument from authority: Trust me I’m an expert. It’s the cop-out.

*Real scientists don’t have any respect for the fawning servants of bureaucracy or fame. We admire those who can reason, and not those who pour confusion on conversations with confounding pomposities. The ingratiates who take our money but call us names, while they dodge debates and hail vainglorious victories over points we never raised: these we mock.*

Thanks to Ainslie for the tip-off.?*Thanks to BobC for pointing out that we can measure gravity to 12 significant digits (not 4).

The short killer summary: The Skeptics Handbook . The most deadly point: The Missing Hot Spot

EMAIL NUMBER 5

ANU Climate Change Institute

Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010

URGENT AND CONFIDENTIAL

Dear All,

Looks like we’ve had our first serious threat of physical violence. (TT’s emphasis). It has come from a participant in (the) deliberative democracy project last weekend. One of the participants left early after he took exception to my talk about climate science. ..exact words were:

“Moreover, before he left, he came to the Fri dinner and showed other participants his gun licence and explained to them how good a sniper he is. Because he didn’t attend day 2 he will not be allowed to attend the final day. I will be notifying security to be on hand in case he turns up and causes a problem.”

I think the final day is this weekend but I am not sure. Anyway, I’ve asked … to brief the VC and the head of security ASAP. The latter will determine whether this should go to the AFP or not.

But in the meantime, we should be careful about anyone we don’t know who approaches our offices.

EMAIL NUMBER 6

Subject: Climate commission report

Date: Tue, 24 May 2011

Hello ,

I have just finished reading your report and I must say I am quite disappointed in the end product, my reasons for being disappointed are simple. I was of the understanding that the sole purpose of the commission was to explain the science to the Australian public, help build and foster a consensus among the people as outlined in the link below. Therefore I was waiting with great anticipation for this report as I hoped it would clarify I few issues I have with AGW. http://www.climatechange.gov.au/minister/greg-combet/2011/media-releases/February/mr20110210.aspx

However after reading your report I do not believe this has happened, in fact not even attempted. One example which springs to mind is your statements regarding the hot spot, you stated on page 16 and I quote,

“An apparent inconsistency between observations with greenhouse theory was the alleged failure to find a so-called “tropical hot spot”, warming in the tropical atmosphere about 10-15 km above the Earth’s surface. In reality, there was no inconsistency between observed and modeled changes in tropical upper troposphere temperatures, allowing for uncertainties in observations and large internal variability in temperature in the region. Furthermore, recent thermal wind calculations have indeed shown greater warming in the region (Allen and Sherwood 2008), confirming that there is no inconsistency and providing another fingerprint of enhanced greenhouse forcing.”

We both know the hot spot is a central plank in the theory of AGW, the hot spot is an accumulation of hot air generated by a positive feedback to increasing greenhouse gases by water vapor. If this hot spot does not exist then the AGW theory is falsified. The problem I have here with this whole sorry saga is the scientific process that has unfolded, for example we have two independent sources of temperature data being satellite and radio sonde. Both these sources of data have been rejected on the grounds that the data is erroneous and have been replaced with GPS data from the very same radio sondes that supplied the thermometer data that was rejected.

Can any scientist seriously condone the actions of Allen, Sherwood and Santer? Can any scientist seriously expect the general public to believe thermometers with the capacity to measure temperature to one decimal place to be more erroneous than a cheap throw away GPS?

I would now like to turn your attention to the Allen and Sherwood 2008 paper, in your quote above you reference Allen and Sherwood 2008 as evidence that the hot spot has been found, have you read this paper Will? I only ask because not only did I find his methods disturbing but also his graphs, please take a close look at Fig 6, you will notice the top two graphs are the results of Sherwood’s manipulation of the wind shear data and the bottom two are the expected model results.

Yes the graphs do look very similar to the IPCC graphs, the now obligatory big red blotch in the middle signifying to the reader how hot it is but what is interesting is the color scale on Sherwood’s graph. It would appear that a 0CDecade trend is of all colors……..RED, on closer inspection it seems that Sherwood has not found much at all.

Although to the untrained eye it appears that reality does indeed match the models prediction. Why would Sherwood use such a strange color code for his scaling?

There are other topics in this report that have been brushed over aside from the example I have offered, this highlights the true purpose of the report. I was hoping, no expecting this report to be subjective on these types of issues but it seems it is nothing more than another argument from authority.

Oh by the way if you want to be taken seriously from now on I suggest you remove the disclaimer from the inside cover, it does nothing for your credibility and gives the appearance that it is, to put bluntly an arse covering exercise. In fact the many people I have shown this to today now accept that this report is not worth the paper it is written on.

Yours Sincerely

EMAIL NUMBER 7

Tue, 24 May 2011

pass this on…to boy…heard on leon delaney show today…what a fckn load of pseudo scaremongering turd…its what youd expect from someone sucking of the tit of the public sow..coz if he had to make money in the private sector he’d be fcked..You’ll be pleased to know willie boy all of us ‘stupid ignorant’ australians out there came on the radio after you went and panned the fck out of you and your idiotic toilet…”these deniers have no qualifications in climate science’-oh yeh? and flannerys a paleontologist-you dckhead…yuppie turds the lot of ya..why dont ya all fck off to yr beloved europe where their economies are fckd because of stupid schemes like yours and leave us to run this great country as it should be..

EMAIL NUMBER 8

Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Subject: [Fwd: bullshit]

(…another charming email for the collection…)

How do you people sleep at night, you and that old idiot.. .They pay you thousands to feed us ordinary hard working normal folk bullshit. You come from well to do families who have never earned or done an honest days work in your life. You overpaid over educated parasite. Get a real job and pay your dues you leech

EMAIL NUMBER 9

Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Mate ,That report is the biggest load of rubbish I have ever seen.

EMAIL NUMBER 10

SENT: Thursday, June 16, 2011

Hi, The only insulting phone call I have received was just after the release of….latest Science Report from a man who said he was…on…”re…is uneducated, has never worked like the real people and receives handouts from all us taxpayers.”

I thanked him for his phone call and left it at that.

EMAIL NUMBER 11 

SENT: Wednesday June 8, 2011:

FW: THE LIES ABOUT DEATH THREATS TO SO CALLED “climate scientists”…. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is what prompted the Daily Telegraph’s angle. Regards,

SENT: SUNDAY, 5 JUNE, 2011.

[The email then cuts-and-pastes what appears to be a long comment piece on June 3, 2011, by Perth blogger JoNova on the ‘death threats’ story. Keywords can be googled to JoNova but the original post is not accessible. JoNova’s comment is neither threatening nor abusive, though very critical. The first paragraphs are transcribed below.]

Death threats are intolerable and indefensible. Period.

So is the way that the ANU is thuggishly manipulating the demented expressions of a few sick people as a propaganda weapon to smear the entire skeptical community. Period.

The death threats obviously come from mentally diminished losers. That’s their excuse. Using it as an agitprop smear on rational skepticism coming from our nations most powerful university timed to incite mob outrage in this weekend’s Say Yes rally is malicious, pre-meditated and abominable abuse of authority and power…

It took a blogger, Simon Turnill Australian Climate Madness ,  to check what Fairfax and ABC reporters did not – or would not and get these emails through Freedom of Information Requests.  Well done Simon. It also proves why the Gillard regime hate Social media and Bloggers so much, we won’t roll over the way some newspapers seem to.  So as this regime and it’s cronies continue to attack all those that disagree with them, one by one the truth appears, and in this case I believe the ANU the supposed “climate scientists working for the regime, in particular Will Stefan and Ian Chubb have a lot to answer for as they made false claims in regard to death threats and yet no one has held them to account over this to date.  If it had been us that made these claims Gillard would use all her resources to take us to court for such scurrilous statements.