Frankly Dr Odius, when i see you condemning the use of the term "denier" by the warmists in no uncertain terms then I might accept your platitudes.

It would be a very simple measure to release the emails as photocopies or scans of the originals with the personal details redacted.

As the original Canberra Times story had pointed out, the newspaper had found evidence of a campaign against at least 30 climate scientists at institutions across the country.

Today, Canberra Times environment and science reporter Rosslyn Beeby, who broke the story, has called for a more mature debate, while outlining again the disturbing nature of the campaign. One researcher’s two young children were named and threatened.

But let’s go back to The Australian and its original claim, repeated at popular sceptic blogs around the world, that the claims of death threats had been “debunked”. The report in The Australian claimed that Privacy Commissioner had been called in to “adjudicate” on FOI in relation to reports of the campaign, which had led to staff being moved to more secure premises.

Professor Will Steffen, the director of the ANU Climate Change Institute, has now told me staff were moved to a more secure area in April 2010, well before the period covered by the Privacy Commissioner’s report.

He said: “I and my Climate Change Institute staff were moved to more secure quarters around March-April 2010 because of concerns my staff had about the very open and accessible premises we had at that time. I had a duty of care to my staff to respond to these concerns. The move was taken in consultation with the vice-chancellor and with the ANU security office. This, of course, is well before the January-June 2011 period that the FOI request is concerned with.”

I understand there were several incidents at the ANU in early 2010. On two separate occasions, individuals had walked into institute premises demanding to see particular staff members. Both individuals were acting “aggressively”, professor Steffen said. The institute’s offices were on the ground floor with open access with no security restrictions. The institute’s website had also been subjected to what professor Steffen described as a “cyber attack”.

At the same time, other climate scientists at other institutions had been receiving abusive messages and emails.

Soon after ANU staff were moved, there was an incident at an ANU public engagement event where a climate sceptic who had been invited to attend had become frustrated. During an exchange, the individual had showed what he claimed was a gun licence to people sitting at the table, before claiming he was a “good shot”. The individual is understood to have left voluntarily.

Whether any of these incidents constitute a “death threat” is, to me at least, beside the point. But you have to ask yourself, if you were their boss and the staff were concerned about their safety, what would you have done?

Hmmm...



If anyone is reading the Climate Audit detail, then the CRU Briffa defense of Yamal mentioned is this item:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/

Warmistas is a very mild term compared to the prolific and continual use of the term "Denier" by the aforesaid warmistas, something that has been an ongoing grossly insulting term used continually by the warmists for many years now.

And i have never seen a condemnation from the warmists here about the use of the "Denier" term in reference to those who disagree with the CAGW meme.
However to give proper due where due, the warmist on this forum have generally avoided that "Denier" terminology.

Frankly Dr Odius, when i see you condemning the use of the term "denier" by the warmists in no uncertain terms then I might accept your platitudes.

As we have just seen with the Heartland affair, the warmists operate to double standards, one of which very hypocritically, they believe they can describe those who disagree with their beliefs and ideology in the most insulting and nefarious terms and the other where even a very mildly disparaging comment or description is treated as the grossest of insults.

I am sick to death of the blatant outright hypocrisy of those warmists who are prepared to dish it out in the most insulting terms but who scream like stuck pigs when somebody that disagrees with their ideology and belief system says or posts something that supposedly affects their own personal sensibilities.

If the warmist want to dish the insults and hate talk out and there is plenty of that from the warmists, even here on this forum from one or two individuals, then they had better be prepared to cop plenty of flack in return.

Moderator that is slander please delete ST post. I have tried always to respect the other side and obly use AGW or CAGW in all posts.
This naming is well out of order. I will forgive you but others may not! This is taking it to a new unwanted level!

I am a peacemaker not a trouiblemaker whatever you say...I just state my case and articles and leave it at that normally...So I don't know what you are on about ST, once again, you provide good posts, then spoil it with the odd strange one it appears to me anyway!

ST... I don't think that BD was objecting to "old gang" per se but the inclussion of "bully" where it was originally mentined. The fact that you named names escalates the direct perjorative.

The fact remains that it is those posters who cannot abide by the "old gang" posting instances of crappy science and having a chuckle over them are the ones that inevitably cause the forums to be shut down. A simple objective test would be to count the instances where the "old gang" complained and "Notified" versus how many times this was done to them. And I will accept BD's complaint above - though he gets credit for doing it in the open rather than simplen whingeing to the mods...

ST, you appear to be deliberately avoiding and even excusing the manner of use and the intended gross insult that the term "Denier"with it's associated connotations on the denying the Holocaust, is being used by the climate warming alarmists to denigrate and insult those who do not believe in or accept the warmist alarmist ideology.
Skating around and minimising the impact and gross, deliberate insulting intent of the use of term, "Denier" by the warmists does nothing for your credibility or your professed impartiality.

But maybe as an excuse you don't really know your history of the 20th century's horrors and are just posting out of ignorance!

Six of ten local politicians in Sweden doubt whether human activity is to blame for global warming, a new study has found.

In addition, one out of ten municipal politicians and local government managers totally deny that the phenomenon of global warming even exists, according to a survey carried out by the Swedish Defence Research Agency (Försvarets forskningsinstitutet

There is a remarkable weblog on Nature from an unexpected source that supports these views. The weblog is presented by one of the Lead Authors of Chapter 3 the IPCC WG1 report [Kevin Trenberth] and is in direct conflict with statements that climate science is settled.

&
In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if� projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines� that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable. But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.

Even if there were, the projections are based on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, that may depend on the thermohaline circulation and thus ocean currents in the Atlantic, is not set up to match today’s state, but it is a critical component of the Atlantic hurricanes and it undoubtedly affects forecasts for the next decade from Brazil to Europe. Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized. [ etc ]

This is funny. It was a forum Mod that said it's good to see others with a different POV (the few warmists that post here) refusing to be bullied by the old gang (skeptics who are the majority of posters here)

ST makes the plea: "So how about we stop the conspiracy and get back to the interesting articles?"

I woould second that normally. But what if there is a conspiracy going on? A conspiracy to manipulate science in a push to promote a political agenda. If for example those who support the "consesus" will as a quid pro quo agree to stop calling me funded by big oil and Heartland billions, does that mean, I can't point out the Briffa Bodge and how data was hidden to presnet a false impression, Upside Down Tiljander proxy and how a proxy was used incorretly over and over again regardless of how many times it was pointed out, and the Yamal "one tree to rule them all" deception. And this is just a smattering of issues.

Is that what you want? Coz it's pretty well another conspiracy theory of mine... The "consensus" types can't defend. And so they are trying to shut down debate.

And that is what this argument here is all about.

Kev's post was fine - it wasn't personal. Though in my opinion the debate has deteriorated significantly in that - just like you have just done by adding in what I italicised in your above - it has been made personal.

ST makes the plea: "So how about we stop the conspiracy and get back to the interesting articles?"

I woould second that normally. But what if there is a conspiracy going on? A conspiracy to manipulate science in a push to promote a political agenda. If for example those who support the "consesus" will as a quid pro quo agree to stop calling me funded by big oil and Heartland billions, does that mean, I can't point out the Briffa Bodge and how data was hidden to presnet a false impression, Upside Down Tiljander proxy and how a proxy was used incorretly over and over again regardless of how many times it was pointed out, and the Yamal "one tree to rule them all" deception. And this is just a smattering of issues.

Is that what you want? Coz it's pretty well another conspiracy theory of mine... The "consensus" types can't defend. And so they are trying to shut down debate.

And that is what this argument here is all about.