Something else I’m skeptical about

Updated, see below: This looks like a matter of convenient timing elevating dubious and/or nonsense claims.

To begin with it is not in the least unusual for academics to receive “I hope you eat shit and die“-style correspondence – you get these from students believing they should receive higher results, even from other academics whose conclusions you have not immediately endorsed and you get them from the general public if you happen to kick their sacred cows.

Persistent cases and any credible threats are forwarded to administration as a matter of workplace policy and police are informed as a matter of course. I can’t recall any university failing to offer screening and support as part of standard workplace policy protecting staff from harassment and that has been part of boilerplate policy for the last three or four decades.

Given that Australia’s socialist government is in desperate trouble trying to craft and support legislation to implement highly unpopular taxation on energy use and ANU’s hard-Left political orientation; and given also that ANU has not initiated police involvement my assumption is that this is a piece of melodramatic fluff over nothing in particular.

If people are writing nasty missives to ANU’s CAGW cranks then please stop doing so – it doesn’t win friends or favorably influence people and apparently upsets the poor dears.

As for ANU or their staff running to the media (or at least the equally Leftist Australian Broadcasting Corp.) with over-the-top tales of “Ooh, we’ve been threatened for our beliefs!“, that just looks like they fell from the top of the Stupid Tree and hit every branch on the way down.

Update: Dr. Chris Breivogel helpfully demonstrates academic nasty-notes for us (see comment 2) but at a very amateurish level compared with say, anti vaccine campaigners, greenie chemophobes, animal libbers etc., merely calling me a neo-con propagandizing POS [gasp!]. Sadly Chris also demonstrates the lack of English literacy so distressingly common in graduates of the last decade or two, confusing “your” and “you’re”. A good demonstration of “conviction science” in his comment too, given that he is an Assistant Professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences with an apparent fascination with Cannabis sativa. :End update

Australian National University scientists moved to safe location after threats

A CANBERRA university has increased security following death threats to its climate scientists, some of whom were moved to a safer location.

The Australian National University has received a large number of e-mails with threatening and abusive language directed at some of its scientists.

The Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, Professor Ian Young, said staff should not have to put up with such behaviour.

“Obviously, climate research is an emotive issue at the present time, but these are issues where we should have a logical public debate,” Professor Young told ABC News 24.

“In fact, it’s completely intolerable that people be subjected to this sort of abuse and to threats like this.”

Professor Young said the threats had unsettled the scientists.

“Academics and scientists are actually really not equipped to be treated in this way,” he said.

“The concept that you would be threatened for your scientific views and work is something that is completely foreign to them.”

The Australian Federal Police said it had not been contacted by the university although it was aware that threats had been made. (AAP)

9 responses to “Something else I’m skeptical about

  1. Propaganda at it’s finest.
    “Listen to me, I am correct as my life is being threatened.”
    Most of these guys are hard to contact at anytime. And they think the police would not take any threat seriously?

  2. Dr. Chris Breivogel

    It’s a-holes like you that are at least partially to blame for scientists being threatened. Your goal appears to be to confuse the public about the reality of the science on global warming. You and people like you have successed in creating confusions and doubt where there should be none. While in real science, nothing can ever be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, I imagine you know that the science on global climate change is at a point now where anyone who really understands the science is convinced it is real and that it’s being caused by human activity. I don’t know what you get out of this, but I assume your being well-paid for these unconscionable activities. If you really do believe in what your posting on this “junk information”/neo-con propaganda website, then your merely pathetic, and I suggest you leave the criticism of science to “real” scientists.
    The effects of global warming are already here, and when they become so obvious that no one can continue to ignore them, I hope you at least feel some regret of your part in trying to prevent reasonable action, you POS.

    • Thanks Chris, I’ve updated the piece in response to your comment. BTW, I’ll be posting on climate sensitivity shortly, I do hope you’ll comment on that too, sharing the benefit of your extensive climate research with our readers.

    • Doc,

      Scientists have refused for years to listen to anyone outside their “peer-reviewed” buddies.
      In consequence, a great deal of science was suppressed or ignored due to the “I am the expert” attitudes.
      Many items in science are ignored such as motion, planetary shape, suns angles of reflection and absorption, cloud cover(that does not cross the equator), plus many more.
      Just to follow temperature numbers at an extremely short duration to find a pattern to project a future pattern. Garbage science at it’s finest.

    • Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
      Chris (I won’t give you the honor of Dr. because you don’t deserve it with that attitude.) You note: “anyone who really understands the science is convinced it is real and that it’s being caused by human activity”. Really? the Atmosphere has around .003 % CO2. Man’s contribution to that is a very tiny fraction of a percent. I Live in Northern Utah (A Desert) and we have had the coldest wettest Spring in the last 150 Years. Global Warming??? I wish.

  3. My readings have led me to exactly the opposite conclusions as Dr. Breivogel. Perhaps a National Merit Scholar with a B.A. in Psychology is unqualified to judge. Perhaps a fellow who studies Marijuana has a special insight. Back in the 60s and early 70s I got some insights from THC. Not scientific ones, but fun. I grew up, darn it, and no longer buy certain fantasies. I like data and replication. Oh, and transperency, at least with gov funded research.

  4. Dr. Chris Breivogel,
    I absolutely agree that people shouldn’t be threatened for their scientific views, yet it has been documented that those who are on the opposing side of this thing have been under attack by your side for years. Many have lost grants and jobs. Your side was more subtle, but the end result was the same; scientists under attack for their scientific views! I am curious if you were as indignant when this came to light as you as you are for your own “family” of scientists? It is amazing how what is right and ethical is often a matter of whose ox is being gored.

    You then wallow in the same kind of activity you decry in vilify the opposition verbally by calling the opposition A-Holes and POS. You denounce the opinions of opposing scientists and commentators for confusing the public and creating doubt where there should be none; yet I wonder if you denounced those who have promoted AGW for the corruption and fraud they have perpetrated and for which they have been exposed. As for there being no doubts; that is dogma, not science. Besides, that is also a logical fallacy known as An Appeal to Authority. You might call it the Dan Rather defense; trust me, I know best.

    To accuse someone of being well paid for opposing your views is irrational. It has been documented that the Warmers have received billions for their efforts. Those in opposition have only been vilified…and there is very little profit in that.

    You claim that the effects of global warming are “here”? That is irrational, especially since according to your side everything is a sign of AGW. If there is a drought it is AGW. If there is too much rain, it is AGW. Too cold, too hot, too many animals, too little animals, too many trees, too few trees….it is all caused by AGW.

    It was obviously that the AGW rantings were wrong from the beginning because it failed the history test. The world was substantially warmer during the Medieval Warming Period than it is now…and it was not an isolated situation. None of the things your side is predicting occurred then, so why should we believe they will occur now? We also know that past warming periods were not caused by mankind. Why should we believe mankind is capable of it now? Furthermore, it is clear that the world fares better at all levels when it is warmer.

    I have been involved with a number of Ph.D.s over the years and I am amazed how many lack the ability to think critically and expound their views with a minimum of logical fallacies. Your words exemplify that.

  5. Those that show evidence that AGW is not, nor will not cause the untold devastation on the planet and to humanity are the ones that get death threats, have houses burned to the ground, have families terrorized, have cars tampered with that could cause the car to crash, loose jobs, and loose funding for empirical research. Those that promote AGW get grants and funding by the dozen. I can not imagine that anyone would receive threats, regardless how small, would not have the authorities involved to investigate. Could it be just “psychological projection” – to blame others for what you are doing yourself as a distraction from you doing what you accuse others of doing?? This is one tactic for those that promote AGW use to confuse the issue, since they can not legitimately present empirical evidence to promote their ideology.

  6. Pingback: From the “I told you it didn’t smell right” department | JunkScience Sidebar

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s