tip off

‘You overpaid, overeducated parasite’: ANU climate scientist emails

Abusive emails and accounts of threatening behaviour towards climate research staff have been released by the Australian National University, following a Freedom of Information request.

The Canberra-based university has decided not to appeal against a Privacy Commissioner’s finding that 11 documents unearthed through a FOI request should be released.

The FOI application, lodged by Sydney-based climate sceptic blogger Simon Turnill, requested any records of threatening or abusive correspondence sent to six named scientists between January and June 2011. ANU originally blocked the request, which came after a Canberra Times article reported that more than 30 climate scientists at universities across Australia had been subjected to a sustained hate campaign.

The names of staff members and names of the people sending the correspondence have been blacked out by the university, which said the release of the documents risked ANU staff suffering further abuse.

Crikey revealed earlier this week that staff at ANU’s Climate Institute were moved to more secure premises in April 2010, some eight months before the period covered by the FOI request. That decision came after two incidents where “aggressive” members of the public had entered institute premises.

Australia’s chief scientist Professor Ian Chubb told Crikey that he hoped scientists would “not be silenced” by the email attacks. Chubb, a former Vice-Chancellor at ANU who decided to move staff to more secure premises, told Crikey: “I had anxious staff — made anxious by some of this stuff — and I feel I had a duty of care to them.”

One email released is a report from one ANU staff member to another, describing an incident at a university-run public engagement event shortly after staff were moved.

The email recounts the words of an ANU staff member who was present at a table where a climate sceptic had become frustrated by an earlier speech given by a climate scientist. It reads:

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.”

 

In another email, a correspondent writes:

What a fckn load of pseudo scaremongering turd… at youd expect from someone sucking of the tit of the public sow.. coz of 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.”

The email appears to be referring to an appearance on a radio show by Professor Will Steffen, the director of the ANU’s Climate Institute. The email concludes:

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.”

 

Another email calls its recipient an “overpaid over educated parasite” and calls the scientist a “leech”.

This isn’t how scientists and the public should speak to each other, says Australia’s chief scientist. “I have said in multiple speeches that there’s a need for a more reasonable and civilised debate from both sides about what is a very important topic,” Chubb told Crikey. “There should be no abuse at all in this debate because it’s too important. We don’t need the sort of scaremongering stuff, particularly of the kind put out by the Heartland Institute recently.”

Chubb was referring to a billboard advertising campaign by US free market think-tank the Heartland institute, in which it used a picture of the so-called Unabomber Ted Kaczynski beside the words “I still believe in Global Warming. Do you?”

The advert was used to attract attention to Heartland’s upcoming climate sceptic conference in Chicago, which has three Australian organisations — the Australian Libertarian Society, the Carbon Sense Coalition and the new Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance — among its sponsors.

Chubb added: “My message to the scientists is to not be silenced. It is important that they get their message out there. I hope scientists continue to put the line carefully and ethically and seriously and that any alternative views can be debated by those that know what they are talking about.”

An ANU statement released with the emails said the university had been advised the release of the emails “would lead to an increased risk of harassment” and it had declined the FOI request on these grounds.

ANU has a duty of care to its staff and students and we note the finding of the Privacy Commissioner: ‘In my view there is a risk that the release of the documents could lead to further insulting or offensive communication being directed at ANU personnel ,” said the statement.

However we have chosen not to appeal the decision of the Commissioner and are releasing the documents with information removed that would identify those sending or receiving the emails, as per the Commissioner’s decision.”

44
  • 1
    Edward James
    Posted Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    Interesting Crikey. As you and your readers know. I have published on this site a link to my published allegations identifying politicians who have shown no interest in the NSW coroner being misled by my local council. Not one of your people at Crikey have contacted me to question my often published position and often published links to allegations our elected reps accommodate systemic corruption. Edward James Central Coast NSW 0243419140 near where Craig Thomson resides {:-)

  • 2
    Sancho
    Posted Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    Organisations like the IPA and Heartland Institute pitch their arguments directly at people who regard “overeducated” as a term of abuse.

  • 3
    ochre1954
    Posted Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    Your wasting your time Edward. This site is not interested in a balanced argument or outlook. In my opinion it is nothing more than the propaganda journal of the Labor/Greens Coalition.
    I do believe that there is climate change, however when the head of the commission has been proven to have been misleading and telling downright lies, who do we “ordinary” Australians believe.
    I have a degree in business not in climate science and neither does Tim Flannery.
    So who do we believe.
    The emails have proven to have not been as abusive and threatening as reported in the media and the alleged death threats; come on. It made for good news.
    Again when distortions like this occur how can you believe the climate scientist and the Climate Commission.

  • 4
    bluepoppy
    Posted Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    What is it about climate change that brings out the rage. There are certainly many more issues one can think of that might rate this angst such as lies about WMDs, corruption, peodphiles, sexual abuse, children in detention, persecution of organisations like Wikileaks, Bradley Manning, but climate change seems to have a much more heightened and polarising effect.

    Whether one agrees or not with a carbon tax or the causes of climate change, the tax will have negligible effect, certainly no more than any other tax like the GST. Also you can just change your habits and use less of whatever it is that incurs the tax.

    What is it with the mentality that thinks it is all a global conspiracy. For what purpose. I need to be enlightened.

  • 5
    Liamj
    Posted Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    Given News Corps preemptive apologetics for the haters, i think ALL climate scientists who have received abusive comms should publish all of them. That would both prove the problem, give the AFP plenty to work with, and demonstrate what sort of people most of these deniers are. I read above that ANU are worried about further targeting but that is going to happen anyway; passive good manners are not the way to deal with bullies.

  • 6
    Microseris
    Posted Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    1st comment, WTF? Off topic trolling?

    Can’t comprehend the arrogance of deniers, gambling our planet as they are just so sure they are right. Can I suggest if they want to gamble, only gamble with things they own and can afford to lose. Or just go to a pokies venue, I’m sure they will gratefully accept your money.

  • 7
    davidk
    Posted Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    Fancy calling these ‘hard working normal folk’ ignorant.

  • 8
    Son of foro
    Posted Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps the Drum can dedicate a show to asking the IPA about these views.

  • 9
    Stiofan
    Posted Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    These emails are no worse (and arguably a lot milder) than the abuse regularly hurled at anyone who disagrees with the groupthink on Crikey forums.

  • 10
    Stiofan
    Posted Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    PS Anyone who is shocked by the these emails has clearly never been inside academe.

  • 11
    Delerious
    Posted Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    So the IPA supporters are illiterate. I’m a little surprised by that.

  • 12
    zut alors
    Posted Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    Gee, I’d always assumed 2GB listeners couldn’t string a sentence together. But apparently they can…sort of.

  • 13
    seriously?
    Posted Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

    STIOFAN - well that just makes it so right then, doesn’t it? I mean, what else are academics for, other than to be targets of abuse.

    Re post #1 - EDWARD JAMES - you are obviously smoking something real good up there.

    I’m with you BLUEPOPPY.

  • 14
    bluepoppy
    Posted Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

    Why is it when a person disagrees ipso facto they are guilty of groupthink. That means everybody is guilty of groupthink.

    PS: I’ve wanted to use ‘ipso facto’ ever since seeing it on Malcolm Turnbull’s twitter bio

  • 15
    Rich Uncle Skeleton
    Posted Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

    ….who do we “ordinary” Australians believe.
    I have a degree in business not in climate science and neither does Tim Flannery.
    So who do we believe.

    I dunno.

    Climate scientists perhaps?

    Just a suggestion.

    Obviously if you believe that climate scientists have invented death threats based on a tiny selection of emails to a small number of scientists at one university, go on believing that. There would be no hope for someone with as little rational thinking or logic as that.

  • 16
    Terry O'Connor
    Posted Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

    Can someone please tell the Crikey sub-editors - and Graham Readfearn - that sceptics and deniers are different things.

    I used to work with Graham and I tried to get this point across several times. Maybe the Crikey subs can succeed where I failed.

    Being a sceptic means examining the evidence carefully before making up ones mind; it does NOT mean denying things because one simply chooses not to believe.

    Onya. Love your work, nonetheless.

  • 17
    Steve777
    Posted Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

    It’s crazy. People are lining up on one side or other on the ‘debate’ about whether or not global warming is happening according to their political persuasion. The threats and abuse come from the fringes of those convinced that they are somehow being conned by ‘elites’ they despise.

    Few of us can make an independent judgement about the science, so I suppose it comes down to who you trust. I trust scientists more than I trust politicians of any persuasion and certainly more than I trust commercial interests. Others trust Alan Jones. The Heartland Institute and similar organisations have been very successful in getting the many on the right / conservative side of politics to deny that there is a problem: for some it’s a political strategy; others have been genuinely convinced that there is no problem. They have been very successful in getting their message across in a mostly right-leaning media. It helps their cause that they are very generously funded. But the laws of physics will play out regardless of what anyone believes or how well-funded the deniers may be. For Global Warming, we don’t know exactly how serious the consequences will be or how soon they will happen, but they are unlikely to be pretty.

  • 18
    Rich Uncle Skeleton
    Posted Friday, 11 May 2012 at 12:15 am | Permalink

    Terry O’Connor, in the global warming context they are the same thing. By default, all scientists are sceptics. But the deniers who call themselves sceptics are not. They use the illusion of caring about the scientific method to gain a thin veneer of respectability, but scrape that away and it doesn’t take too long before they are bleating ideological talking points and rejecting any hypothesis that impinges on their belief that Co2 emissions can’t possibly be causing global warming.

    Because “sceptic” sounds nice, doesn’t it? Reasonable. Of course we should all be sceptical of scientific claims, especially when there are profound policy implications.

    Deniers

  • 19
    Rich Uncle Skeleton
    Posted Friday, 11 May 2012 at 12:24 am | Permalink

    Clicked “post comment” too early!

    Anyway, the easiest way to tell a true sceptic from a denier is whether they are willing to show any scepticism towards the so-called “sceptics”. Nine times out of ten, they are not.

  • 20
    AR
    Posted Friday, 11 May 2012 at 6:50 am | Permalink

    Bluepoppy - I’d suggest that the main reason for the rage exhibited in this matter is that the outright refusal (way beyond scepticism or even denialism) to acknowledge the deleterious effect of climate change is because so many people have so much invested in our/their current way of life.
    Apart from the megacorps, for which the rapine of the planet & population is historical and thus sacrosanct, the vast majority of people depend for their livelihoods on a way of life that is predicated on waste & injustice.
    The fact that they suffer from this is insufficient cause to stop doing it as it is all they know.
    A small example would be the Drug War - anyone with a couple of spare neurons still firing knows that it is utterly counterproductive [assuming that the aim is to reduce crime, corruption and drug consumption] yet a huge industry, from Customs, spooks through to police, judiciary, prisons to medicine, manufacurters of the hardware all the way to the bottom feeders, meeja & politicians, has too much to lose were it to stop tomorrow.
    So with oil & coal, airfreighted herbs, globalisation in general (treating society as if it were a Bourse), and all the crap available to buy which no semi sentient would want - to paraphrase the final page of Eric Blair’s horribly prescient 1984, “..imagine a human body, stuffed with stuff for all Eternity but never satisfied..”.
    This is the ideal of capitalism.

  • 21
    Julian Fitzgibbon
    Posted Friday, 11 May 2012 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    It is testament to the dishonesty of climate scientists that in an FOI request for abusive email in the last six months they slipped in an email that was
    a. around 12 months old
    b. not an abusive email but a 2nd hand account of a verbal exchange

    What is it about climate scientists that they have this strange compulsion to lie? Even with a FOI request they can’t be ethical.

  • 22
    Liamj
    Posted Friday, 11 May 2012 at 10:15 am | Permalink

    ^^ spot the denier throwing a tanty over data outside of their cherrypicked sweetspot.

  • 23
    tinydropthestickgooddog
    Posted Friday, 11 May 2012 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    hmmm i guess self interest will rule on the climate change issue via the ballot box as it has in the opinion polls …

  • 24
    Boo
    Posted Friday, 11 May 2012 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    One thing I can say for Tim Flannery, as a paleontologist, he would have a fairly good idea of what the planet was like last time a whole lot of the carbon that was below ground was circulating around the atmosphere. He knows the end point and the time it takes for the atmoshpere to adjust back to something like what we have today. Some folks might want to consider that his concern is based on his knowledge of the consequences.

    And yet we are getting endlessly sidetracked from the real question.

    Which is: do we want to find out the point at which climate will change by actually changing the climate, or do we want to make an educated (ie, scientific) estimate of where that point might be and decide if we want to do anything about it? Prevaricating, distorting, misleading and delaying is not an answer, it is denial. Skepticism is an important part of science, however, it serves to ask questions. It does not provide answers. We need answers, and those answers must be acknowledged without fear nor favour.

  • 25
    Coaltopia
    Posted Friday, 11 May 2012 at 11:45 am | Permalink

    Like tinnitus, there’s a truth ringing in the deniers’ ear that can only be drowned out by shouting, or in this case, making threats for it to stop.

    Everyone should read Hansen’s “Game Over for the Climate” in Wednesday’s NYT.

  • 26
    Julian Fitzgibbon
    Posted Friday, 11 May 2012 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    @Coaltopia, oh no, another Op-Ed in the NYT. Well, that settles it.

    AGW proponents are increasingly beginning to resemble the messianic devotees of some obscure Californian cult. So the world didn’t end this year, oh well, never mind, next year the world is certainly going to end. Just you wait and see. Do read this marvellous op-ed from one of the cult’s leading acolytes.

    Such people are impervious to reason and logic and will just keep on endlessly delaying their beloved apocalypse.

  • 27
    Steve
    Posted Friday, 11 May 2012 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

    The irony of Julian Fitzgibbon claiming that people who are concerned about AGW are “impervious to reason” and are the “messianic devotees of some obscure Californian cult” is breathtaking. In the end it is the science that matters.

    Whenever I come across a Climate “Skeptic” I ask the following the question: “If I could convince you that all of our peak science organisations and virtually all science organisations in the world support climate science, would that change your opinion?” The answer that I get is invariably some variation of NO. One person came straight back with the claim that “they are all corrupt organisations”.

    My overwhelming impression when talking to Climate “Skeptics” is that they have no interest in profound science going back to Fourier’s work in 1824.

    For those interested the evidence for my claim about the views of science organisations regarding Climate Science can be found here: http://steve-marg.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/expert-opinion-on-climate-change.html

  • 28
    Rich Uncle Skeleton
    Posted Friday, 11 May 2012 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    Yes well done Julian. Climate scientists specifically said the world would end this year. Congratulations on taking down your own strawman argument.

  • 29
    Steven Warren
    Posted Friday, 11 May 2012 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

    So Julian, if it turns out you are wrong and due to your efforts to derail any attempt to lower carbon emissions we suffer dramatic climate change and rising seas, will all of you deniers do the right thing and euthenise yourselves to give those of us that didn’t willfully destroy the planet a larger share of what little resources and living space remain available?

    I kid, I kid, we all know deniers never put their money where their mouths are.

    You’ll all be pushing children out of their lifeboats to guarantee yourself a spot on dry land as soon as sea levels start rising.

  • 30
    bluepoppy
    Posted Friday, 11 May 2012 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

    AR
    You probably have it in one, the idea that personal habits have to change in an already consuming society. But it is certainly an overreaction that goes way beyond rational thinking. Basically we are all going to have to change our wasteful behaviour if we are to share resources with a quicly developing world.

    Not sure about the drug thing for a number of reasons (I have leant on both sides of that one) but I get the drift about much needed reform - it is a health problem first rather than a punishment problem.

  • 31
    Julian Fitzgibbon
    Posted Friday, 11 May 2012 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    You’ll all be pushing children out of their lifeboats to guarantee yourself a spot on dry land as soon as sea levels start rising.”

    Are you insane? Why would I be wasting such an excellent protein source?

  • 32
    AR
    Posted Saturday, 12 May 2012 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    JulF/G - you might want to check a dictionary (clearly you don’t “do” science books) re calling Hansen (shorly a Patriarch or at least High Priest of the kult?) being an acolyte (a minor functionary/follower).
    But then again, why would you, accuracy not being your forte?

  • 33
    Matthew of Canberra
    Posted Saturday, 12 May 2012 at 10:06 am | Permalink

    Just repeating a comment I left at PP - I cannot believe that the national debate on a policy question of such staggering impact has now descended into “I don’t find your death threat claims convincing”.

    Anything to prevent actual debate, it seems.

    I don’t doubt that any climate scientist with a public profile will have received unpleasant communications, possibly including threats. When some berk posted the email address of the wrong andy pitman over on andrew bolt’s blot back in 2010, the owner of that address had apparently received enough nasty messages that within 12 hours he was threatening legal action if it didn’t stop.

    I don’t need proof to believe that people in the public eye who speak on divisive issues will receive threats. I know enough about human nature and the natural distribution of intelligence and perspective, and I’ve spent enough time on blog sites to know that road rage is rife on the internet. People say things without concern for their impact, things which they’d never say in person.

    PZ Myers used to make a point of publishing the hate-mail he got - complete with headers. Thats another option, I guess.

    I very much doubt if the emails that were published were complete. Normal Human Beings don’t keep that stuff, because they don’t regard themselves as being in a long-term ideological media battle.

    The problem here is that maybe the people who do have example emails would be better off keeping quiet about it. I suspect that revealing them will just fan the flames even more. The one thing I we can absolutely expect, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that the usual haters will NOT turn around and say “ok, we were wrong, this is inappropriate and we demand that it stop”. That’s not how this game works.

    But I do wonder if perhaps crikey might like to contact some of the folks involved and perhaps consider ways that the threats could be made more public, in a way that doesn’t identify the senders or recipients. I think any communication from the universities should be more measured and coordinated than the last try. Hey - it might be useful to chuck in any threats made to stem cell researchers, or folks at ANSTO, or CSIRO’s GM crop researchers. Maybe make it a national “hug a scientist today” campaign, and make it ecumenical.

  • 34
    Rob Da Borg
    Posted Saturday, 12 May 2012 at 10:15 am | Permalink

    Bwaaaaaahhhhh…Miss…Miss…those nasty AGW deniers are saying nasty things to us poor little academics…Bwaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!
    Grow up!
    From this infantile; and worse than pathetic episode we have had: run-for-the-hills hysteria (the deniers are coming…the deniers are coming…with GUNS!!!!!), security panic, cops called (?), frothing of the mouth/brain of the usual; drool bucket brigade mejia suspects (AKA: the ALP Priapicons); smearing of the skeptic movement and many other histrionics…
    Not a bad result from the self-important paranoid fantasies of these weak-arsed academics, who defecate themselves at (not even) the first whiff of grapeshot (or a Kangaroo Culling License - Not a Gun Licence BTW)…God help us!!!
    Yet another nail in the coffin of the AGW movement’s credibility.
    The AGW movement is now a fully fledged Totalitarian Cult that tolerates no heresy; masquerading as a Social Justice Re-Distribution gambit; masquerading as a Carbon Tax, masquerading as a good-vibe, feel-good solution to GW and…to stop us all Frying to Death…that is before we all drown from the sea level rise…!!!
    Bwaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!

  • 35
    Matthew of Canberra
    Posted Saturday, 12 May 2012 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    Rob Da Borg

    Wow, you’ve totally convinced my with your nuanced argument. Oh, and you smell. There - I win.

  • 36
    Julian Fitzgibbon
    Posted Saturday, 12 May 2012 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    @Steve,
    You are right, I am not interested in what scientific organisations say today, I am interested in what they will be saying in 25 years time. My calculations, based on ice core data going back 400 000 years, is that a C02 level of 650 ppm will add about 0.57 degrees to the global mean above today’s temperature - assuming no negative feedbacks. I fully expect the world’s assembled scientific organisations to come around to my position around 25 years.

    I hate to break this to you guys, but you have all fallen for a rather Machiavellian scheme dreamed up in the early 80’s in the Rockefeller centre. Basically big industry groups were expressing increasing concern at the way environmental and social justice agendas were beginning to capture the public imagination. A scheme was devised to discredit such concerns by stampeding them into a doomsday scenario and then very slowly pulling the rug from under them.

    Ethically, I am very much opposed to this stratagem, but I have to admit, it is working perfectly.

  • 37
    Liamj
    Posted Saturday, 12 May 2012 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

    Thank you RobDB & JulianF - gross abuse and ridiculous conspiracy theory, thats a wrap on the anthropogenic global warming deniers entire repetoir. Please keep up your efforts, by your works shall we know you.

  • 38
    Steve
    Posted Sunday, 13 May 2012 at 10:57 am | Permalink

    Julian,

    Where did you publish your calculation? I would be very interested in reading your argument.

  • 39
    Secret Squirrel
    Posted Monday, 14 May 2012 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    My Two Bobs Worth!
    I am not a sceptic or denier but more a Millennium Bug survivor and first time blogger.
    Didn’t we change the name from the green house effect to climate change?
    and what happens in a green house?
     Is this the reason for the name change?
    So should we all buy shares in John Deere?
    mower sales tipped to sky rocket!
    and what about the sea?
    Isn’t the latest work on the coral species that it is now known that the coral in the south will be better off if the temperature rises?
    Should we start a campaign to use more carbon to save the rare southern coral? Because it is living at the bottom of it’s range?
    But the truth is there is no reason why we shouldn’t be running our cars on fuel we grow and working on sustainable living, absolutely!   

    And what’s all the controversy that the Government isn’t going to fund scientists that don’t  believe in their thinking or motives? What is new here!

    And another real question,  where are all the real Economists gone? 
    When I went to school big business was big business because it can pass on it’s costs!!! The lie of this decade is that the carbon tax is only  going to effect big business and for all of you who don’t agree, have a good look at your Power bill over the last few years?
    and the banks margin on the money they are lending you?
    and fuel prices? when I was younger there was a outcry if the price moved a cent, not the fluctuations we now see every week, Weren’t we tied to US barrel price?and when the dollar got better then conveniently to Singapore exchange?, what a load of bullshit, we are just getting ripped off?because it is big business and because they can!
    In the GFC most people lost money or didn’t make any? What about big business? I don’t think,
    Banks got another excuse to raise their margin and a Government Guarantee to boot,
    They then got rid of their higher risk loans, this is really great for small business and the economy long term? Yes they had to compete with the Governments record borrowings? Which doesn’t help!
    So in the next few weeks as this Small Business Tax (SBT) comes into effect, make sure you are thinking of the mums and dads who are the engine room of the economy, they are in the competitive environment! who can’t pass the costs on and will have to take a hit or go broke in the process of saving something?,stopping something? or is it just more plain old labour Government spending?  
    Malcolm what were you thinking? you would be Prime Minister now if you had of listened to you core voters.
    My Father a liberal voter all his life, rang his local member for the first time ever, just before Malcolm got the chop and said he would never vote liberal again if they supported the carbon tax or equivalent and along with thousands of other liberal voters, as they know this is only going to effect small business, not big business or the climate!
     It is not hard to see how conspiracies take off when Malcolm didn’t back down and isn’t he Goldman Sachs Australian man?
    And didn’t they have something to do with Dodgie loans in the US that caused the GFC?
    And don’t they have heaps of options on forests overseas to
    do deals with carbon credits, with who? and Malcolm what were you getting out of it? 
    and It was all for the climate and who’s children’s children?
    and you are still wondering why people are very  sceptical, not long after that millennium bug heist!
    Yes we should all be living more sustainable but surely not with another tax on Small business? 
    Are we not smarter than this? 
    Do you all want to have no choice but to work for big business and have no chance of having a go on your own?
    Not this little Duck!
    Wake up Australia! Wake up!

     

  • 40
    Alfonse
    Posted Monday, 14 May 2012 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

    The squirrel has spoken…..and makes sense ! But of course he/she will be much maligned by those of you whose hides are thinner than a climate scientist. Additionally I fail to see why would you agree to release documents OUTSIDE of the requested FOI period - other than suddenly realising you may have been gilding the lilly and looking to justify your (shock, horror) concerns. Nice pickup JF.

  • 41
    Chad
    Posted Tuesday, 15 May 2012 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    Hmmm, pathological exaggerators say they received death threats, emails released showing no death threats.
    As someone else mentioned, how important is accuracy to climate scientists?. Answer: rudeness equals a death threat, just like fail equals very accurate for climate models.
    Also like to thank Graham for a disturbingly inaccurate piece. No mention whatsoever of the “sniper” in fact being a retired public servant John Coochey, who was enjoying a discussion with fellow attendees regarding his involvement in the ACT’s annual kangaroo cull. Asked how he’d fared in a recent culling licence test, he proudly presented his licence as evidence that he’d passed.
    So he was more than a little surprised to discover that he is now accused of issuing a terrifying death threat to climate scientists.
    As a bemused Coochey points out, if these people can’t get a simple conversation right, why should we trust them on complicated matters like global warming?

  • 42
    Secret Squirrel
    Posted Tuesday, 15 May 2012 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    Not to be seen as abusive!!! I Just have another couple of questions
    Can someone tell me the expansion rate of salt water as it is being heated?
    Is there a graph?
    Because I have noticed that when I boil water on the stove
    (Without salt) that it only seems to rise drastically when it gets to boiling
    point, which i think is only because of the hot air?
    it doesn’t seem to expand much at all at say 80 degrees celsius, so for the sea level to rise
    a meter or more, how hot does the sea temperature have to get to?
    Or is it the sand that does all the expanding as it is heated?
    I am a bit confused???

  • 43
    David Corbett
    Posted Tuesday, 15 May 2012 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    Wow, Julian F has convinced himself climate change is a beat-up with his one piece of calculated data. “Assuming no negative feedbacks.” Also assuming no positive feedbacks. Also assuming all other scientific data is irrelevent.

  • 44
    Steve
    Posted Tuesday, 15 May 2012 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

    Squirrel
    The average depth of the oceans is 3800 metres. So a rise of sea level of 1 meter (which would have serious consequences) is an increase of 1/3800 or 0.000265 of the depth of the ocean. That small a fraction isn’t anything that you could measure in a pot.

    The Government gave up on tax cuts for business because the Liberal Party and the Greens said that they would vote against it. With the Liberals betraying their core constituency the ALP decided to push some more money towards their core constituency.

    Julian
    We are still waiting for the details of your calculation.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...