"Death threats" to ANU scientists

Why no investigation?

The ABC and other news sources are reporting that climate scientists at the Australian National University (ANU) have received “death threats”. The ANU climate department is a hotbed (if you will excuse the phrase) of warmism, and is the home of government scaremonger, sorry, adviser Will Steffen:

Several of Australia’s top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security.

Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research.

Vice-chancellor Professor Ian Young says the scientists have received large numbers of emails, including death threats and abusive phone calls, threatening to attack the academics in the street if they continue their research.

However, a later part of the article says the following:

The Australian Federal Police says it is aware of the issue, but there is no investigation underway.

Last time I checked, which was about thirty seconds ago, making threats to kill in the ACT was a criminal offence, thanks to section 30 of the Crimes Act (ACT) 1900, and punishable by a maximum of ten years imprisonment. A similar provision for threats to kill via a postal service or carriage service appears in the Schedule to the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995, with a similar punishment.

TEN YEARS in clink? That’s a serious offence. So if such threats have been made, why isn’t it being fully investigated?

Read it here.


  1. I do not condone death threats, or personal threats of any kind. However, it’s hard to be completely sympathetic when you consider this quote:

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

    Really? Is it so shocking? How would they feel if they were equated with holocaust deniers; accused of being in the pay of “Big Oil”; of being the equivalent of those who deny cigarettes cause cancer; of being called heretics, insane, anti-scientific, deliberate deceivers; even (in some rare cases) compared to rapists, pedophiles & other human scum.

    Bearing this in mind, is it really so shocking to believe that individuals — even scientists — can be vilified or threatened for their views? I find the above quote a rather self-centered and naïve one, under the current, highly-charged political climate.

    Furthermore, how many of these Climate Scientists stood up for their scientific colleagues like Ian Plimer, Bob Carter, and Richard Lindzen — who happened to hold opposing views? Or, at the very least defended them against offensive public labels? Perhaps even try to encourage the media & politicians to give them a voice too, rather than approve of them being silenced/ignored.

    My sympathy is real — if these are real death threats — but, forgive me if my sympathy is tainted by feelings of resentment.

  2. Sean McHugh says:

    This is what I wrote to the Telegraph:

    With this report, I see compliant hook, line and sinker reporting, with apparent censorship of detracting comments. The only comments that appear are ones the accept the claims without question. Challenging comments haven’t appeared, including mine. Did the Telegraph not notice the vagueness of the claims? Did they not think it strange that it has not been reported to the police and the fact that there is no investigation? It’s on record that this wouldn’t be the first time the warmist scientists have beat up robust criticism into threats if murder – a serious crime. Exaggeration is what they do for a living. If this whole catastrophic Global Warming thing is genuine, why does it need to be protected with hysteria, ridiculous propaganda and political correctness?

  3. Baldrick says:

    Whilst I would never condone that sort of behaviour, it is understandable. These scientists and academics are sitting in the rareified air of Canberra being paid obscene amounts of OUR money to perpetuate the global warming lie so that Julia Gillard and her Labor cronnies can stay in power with their Green and Independent mates!
    They live in a world of academia so their perspective of a threat would be different to ‘real’ people. I don’t think the Federal Police would be too interested just because somebody call one of them a nancy boy.

  4. They have no science to back up the warming scam so they are trying the sympathy scam. No wonder there’s no death threats to investigate.

  5. The Loaded Dog says:

    So if such threats have been made, why isn’t it being fully investigated?

    Because the “threats” are probably of similar ilk as the ones alleged by Windsor and not really threats at all. But certainly good for a martyrdom headline.

    “You’re a f***ing liar, a dog, a rat … I hope you die, you bastard.”


  6. Graham Richards says:

    TEN YEARS in clink? That’s a serious offense. So if such threats have been made, why isn’t it being fully investigated?

    Because no threats have been made. The warmists are trying to show how evil all the ‘non believers are’. Same as the non threats to the so called independents. When allegations like this are made it proves how little attention people are paying to the warmists. They then dredge up some crap to attract attention.

    • gyptis444 says:

      “The whole scientific process is one of open debate and discussion, but the concept that you would be threatened for your scientific views and work is something that is completely foreign to them.”

      Open debate and discussion? Really?

      When did ANU climate scientists participate in open debate? I must have missed that! The AGW proponents have done their utmost to suppress any dissenting views or contrary evidence.

      While I certainly do not condone death threats I can understand the frustration that skeptics experience because of biased media, “political correctness” and the general reluctance of the AGW climate scientists to consider any contrary evidence, and their active suppression of dissenting views. No debate is tolerated by the AGW academics at least not in Australia.

  7. Sean McHugh says:

    It’s worse than we thought. As indicated above, I wrote a critical comment on the basis of the Daily Telegraph article:


    It wasn’t published. My wife brought home a copy of the Sunday Telegraph. In it is another rendering of the story, except in this one, it says that the Federal Police are aware of the allegations, without any mention that they haven’t been contacted. In other words, it falsely gives the impression that the alleged threats have been reported to the police, when instead, they have only been reported to the newspapers. Clearly this has the earmarks of a PR and vilification stunt, with the newspapers enthusiastically aiding and abetting barefaced propaganda.

    • I’m making investigations about this whole story…

      • Sean McHugh says:

        Good luck getting through the circled wagons.

      • Sean McHugh says:

        That wasn’t my only reply to the Telegraph yesterday. There was another following this editorial:


        Why the carbon tax terrifies families, especially in western Sydney

        The editorial were basically talking about the financial burden. However, further down, this comment appeared:

        Western Sydney isn’t stupid or uneducated. Mums and dads are firm believers in climate change and, just like inner-city greenies, are worried for their kids’ futures.

        I replied as follows:

        “Western Sydney isn’t stupid or uneducated. Mums and dads are firm believers in climate change . . .” Unfortunately though, the Telegraph editors are demonstrating their own ignorance, firstly by implying that AGW sceptics are uneducated and stupid, and secondly, by implying that the sceptics don’t believe in climate change. Unlike the alarmists, we are constantly aware that the climate has always been changing and will continue to do so. We can also see how the alarmists will now use any undesirable weather (exceptional rain, dry, whatever) as evidence of a looming climate Armageddon. For the alarmists, ‘Climate Change’ has shed its natural meaning and has became a new catch-all ‘sign’ for preachment of a new state-run religion. If the Telegraph editors cared to go online and read what the sceptics are saying, they would discover that they are well informed on the subject. The Telegraph editors might actually learn something, something other than propaganda. More and more, the alarmists are loathed to take the sceptics on. That’s because the former usually lose. By insulting its readers, the Telegraph will only encourage more people to get their information from the Net.

        That didn’t get published either.

  8. I agree unconditionally there in no place for threats of any kind whatsoever, but the fact there is no investigation makes me think they maybe a beat up.
    In the context of the reasons how and why threats could happen however, it would be good if the people who are demanding the action on global warming took a step back and had a long hard at themselves and actually stopped the abuse and name calling that I am absolutely fed up with and it is aimed at us without reservation.

    I have recently seen examples of pathetic personal abuse, eg. toward Lord Monckton about his facial features and that is blatantly discrimatory and absolutely appalling and those making the comments should cease.

  9. Michael Cejnar says:

    Thank you Simon for great analysis. I was asked for comment by ABC, but have instead chosen to make a post for them and included link to your analysis.

    I too wondered at the vagueness and why no investigation, but given the specific description of threats against the children of one scientist, I chose the path of condemning such behaviour in the most unequivocal and unreserved manner I could.

    I have also chosen to resist any wisps of schadenfreude. We have indeed been vilified, called names and ridiculed, have feared for our jobs and businesses, but, that of course does not equate to having one’s family threatened at any level of seriousness or credulity. Lets hope it stays that way for all concerned.

  10. In 1930s germany, Adolf Hitler burned down the Reichstag and blamed it oin the communists. It was a classic false-flag operation.

    have we just witnssed something similar?

    Is this the Australian Climate Reichstag Burning?

    They must be VERY desperate if they have to resort to such low tactics…..

    Once I saw the threateneing emails, I realised it couldnt have come from sceptics, as sceptics prefer debate to threat. That kind of behavious seems to come from the aggressive pro-AGW crowd.

  11. A change of heart from Chris Evans? Considering his previous stance on opposition (or should I say “climate change deniers”).

    “Chris Evans: ‘No one should feel intimidated about expressing their views openly, irrespective of which side of the debate they are on,’ he said.”

    Australian National University scientists being threatened for researching climate change

    ” ‘We have been trying all year to get climate change legislation passed by this parliament. And we have been denied that legislation by the climate change deniers,’ government Senate leader Chris Evans told parliament.”

    Climate Revolt: Australian Senate delays carbon trade vote

  12. Sean McHugh says:

    I’m apologise to Simon and ACM for going off on a tangent, but there is an interesting followup to my previous tangential comments.The next day, after my comment to the Sunday Telegraph editors, about their insulting their readers, columnist Tim Blair wrote about the same sort of thing. He composed an excellent article in the Telegraph about how the alarmists and the media assume intellectual superiority and how, if they are not overtly and rudely insulting the sceptics, they are patronising them. Celebrities also get due mention.

    Simple way to spit on the dummies

    AN EMAIL arrived last week from a PhD student at the University of Western Sydney who wanted to write a “climate change for dummies” opinion piece for The Daily Telegraph.

    Basically, our correspondent explained, her article would translate climate change “into a simple picture” that people working outside of climate change research could comprehend.

    “I’m targeting this paper,” she continued, “because, no offence intended, the readership may be in need of some simple material to assist them in understanding better the debate.”

    I hope the editors took note. The rest can be read here:


  13. Confusious says:

    I guess these were of the same magnitude as those to Noveau Rich Turncoat Tony Winsdor….and his occassionally bearded buddy Oakeshott.

  14. Dallas Beaufort says:

    False witness is also a crime!

  15. It it not an “investigation worthy” crime.

    A minimum of three sequential emails from the same person is required to justify a waste of resources. Intentions to kill are not traditionally preceded by announcements and digital bread crumbs.

    Even then threats may correspond with other crimes such as using a carriage service to harass, intimidate or offend. I’ve had personal experience with this scenario.

    No action was pursued – despite grave assurances – and I was never contacted again by authorities.

    I’m afraid you’re sincerely mistaken or intentionally biased.

    I trust you will rescind the offending post.

    • No of course I won’t. The law states that death threats are a serious criminal offence. The AFP have said that such threats would have been investigated had a complaint been made, but as of 6 June, none had. I am in touch with the AFP media office to see if that position has changed.


  1. […] trying to smear the sceptics or whether their threatening content is being exaggerated, given that no investigation seems pending, the implications are the […]

  2. […] and find the ISP from the sender. It is a crime in Australia to send a death threat see here ( Australian Climate Madness). The AFP must investigate it find the person responsible or to verify her […]

%d bloggers like this: