Scandal at ANU over claims of “death threats” in emails
May 3rd, 2012 by Warwick HughesWe all remember the story that ran viral last June about death threats in emails to Australian National University staff. It even ran overseas – here is The Guardian masthead for 6 June last year.
Now it has taken near a year but Sydney blogger Simon Turnill has had a huge FOI win in discovering that the emails contained no such threats. Read his story.
Why are we sceptics not surprised at this eventual outcome – so basic facts got hopelessly exaggerated by IPCC supportive scientists at ANU – so!! – and what does it say about about the rigor of higher level management processes at ANU. What a shocker.
Andrew Bolt has picked up on the story too – saying the smear was as bogus as their theory. Right on target.
I see nothing today in the Fairfax owned Canberra Times, home of ANU – not keen to rock any boats eh. Note to read the story at The Australian – Google – Climate scientists’ claims of email death threats go up in smoke – then read full version.
Posted in IPCC, News and Views | 7 Comments »
May 3rd, 2012 at 3:58 pm
I doubt we’ll see anything from The Guardian, either.
May 3rd, 2012 at 5:13 pm
[...] Scandal at ANU over claims of “death threats” in emails [...]
May 10th, 2012 at 1:49 pm
The emails have been made public over at the moyhu site. I have adapted and enlarged a list there by Alex – thanks Alex.
Doc #1 (25/6/2011) is just an upset citizen who accuses scientists of being dishonest.
Doc #2 (24/5/2011) is certainly hate mail by a fairly uneducated writer.
Doc #3 (23/5/2011) is a strongly worded email by another upset citizen who wishes unemployment upon scientists.
Doc #4 (4/6/2010) is an upset citizen who uses some sarcasm on this poor scientist.
Doc #5 (2/6/2010) recounting how a gun owner big noted himself over dinner – if you felt threatened – there is the option to mention to Police.
Doc #6 (24/5/2011) is almost collegial and simply raves on a bit about the lack of the ‘hot spot’.
Doc #7 is a duplicate of Doc #2.
Doc #8 (24/5/2011) is more brief hate mail from another uneducated upset citizen.
Doc #9 (23/5/2011) asserts that the report is ‘a load of rubbish’.
Doc #10 (16/6/2011) relates a phone call that the scientist evidently didn’t find threatening.
Doc #11 (8/6/2011) mostly an article from The Australian I think.
Editors note: I am amazed such pathetic material has been the subject of so much warmist beating up. I wonder at the cost.
May 10th, 2012 at 6:25 pm
delicate hothouse petals
do they breed those in the ivory towers of academia
May 11th, 2012 at 8:22 am
update at Catallaxy
also
May 12th, 2012 at 9:43 am
Do you see the ABC is still pumping out the lies despite evidence now that there were no death threats in emails.
“FOI emails reveal threats to climate scientists”talk about misleading the public. The ABC should be ashamed.
May 29th, 2012 at 10:44 am
I see there were no death threats in emails according to testimony at Senate Estimates.