Weak response
The (warmist) journalist who broke the ANU death threats story in the Canberra Times last June responds to the article in The Australian. Beeby is “surprised” that I dared make an FoI request, apparently. She claims the “death threats” were “irrefutable”. Sorry, the “trust us” line doesn’t work on me, nor on the Privacy Commissioner.
So it came as a surprise to learn last week that a Sydney climate blogger had made a freedom of information request to obtain examples of these emails from the Australian National University. The ANU initially refused to release the documents, and in response to a formal appeal by the blogger, the Privacy Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim was asked to a adjudicate. He is reported as ruling that 10 of the 11 emails sought under FoI ”do not contain threats to kill” and the other ”could be regarded as intimidating”. The emails in question pertain to one scientist, ANU Climate Change Institute director Professor Will Steffen.
How could she possibly know this without access to the emails? It isn’t stated in the FoI decision that they “pertain” solely to Steffen, so it appears the ANU are clearly happy to provide this information to a sympathetic journalist when it suits them, but are fighting every step of the way to prevent their release to me. Hypocrisy.
We eventually get to the point, namely, that according to Rosslyn Beeby, the single “threat” was made verbally to one of Steffen’s staff, and she won’t discuss it (I assume that this may relate to the infamous “11th document” from the FoI judgment):
He was among the group of 30 contacted by The Canberra Times, and revealed the worst threat he received – and we will not divulge it – was made verbally to one of his staff. It was the chilling nature of that threat – and the casual way in which it was made – that prompted the ANU to question its security arrangements. If they had not, they would have been guilty of ignoring staff safety requirements. (source)
And despite all this, there is still no explanation as to why the police were not involved if the threats were so serious. And no explanation as to why the ANU are so desperate to avoid releasing the emails. Show us the evidence – it’s very simple.
(h/t Tim Blair here)
Australian Climate Madness 
What is the bet that aunty ABC’s Media Watch fails to mention Ms Beeby’s errant reporting……
Her entire tone seems to imply that you were doing something wrong by making the FOI request. Of course it would never be wrong if a warmist journalist made such a request.
“Last year, The Canberra Times broke the story that a number of Australia’s leading climate change scientists were being targeted by a vicious, unrelenting email campaign that had resulted in police investigations of death threats.”
So… was there or was there not, police investigation(s)???
If the article by the Fairfax press in the Canberra Times is correct, then why did they make such a fuss about it in the first place when only 1 ‘scientist’ was involved by 1 verbal 3rd party threat which was at best described as intimidating?
So much hand-wringing for such a pathetically small outcome … much the same as the rest of the warmist debate!
“So much hand-wringing . . .”
Actually, when you have most of the media in your pocket, making a claim such as this is very little effort for a potentially large return, if your primary objective is to paint the opposition as crackpots – until a blogger like Simon calls your bluff (well played sir, as they said to the chairman of a Climategate Inquiry!).
“So much hand-wringing for such a pathetically small outcome … ”
These idiot leftists always have to have some minor matter to wring their hands over. With out these “minor matters” they remain irrelevant in the real world. A real world that’s concerned with real issues instead of imagined, fashionable or created ones.
Ahh the left. What more can I say?
Thanks for taking the time to discover the truth 🙂
Like Canaries in a cage!
Graham Readfearn is like many eco-fascists who don’t care that Greens inspired laws around meeting Kyoto obligations abuse the property rights and civil rights of fellow Australians. I guess he doesn’t give a flying fig about the unfolding human rights crisis in the bush. http://queenslandparty.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/urban-greens-violate-civil-rights/
Simon – Good stuff it gets better as it ages, just like blood red wine. This story is a classic, an Alfred Hitchcock plot with no murder, no weapon, just a poorly constructed, poorly manufactured lie. I get chills down my spine!
In the midnight hour I want more, more, more!
“………was made verbally to one of his staff. It was the chilling nature of that threat – and the casual way in which it was made – that prompted the ANU to question its security arrangements.” – Rosslyn Beeby
On the one hand Beeby now says that the emails had nothing to do with the original Canberra Times article and now instead relies on third party hearsay and on the other she advises that this third party hearsay is the singular reason “…..that prompted the ANU to question its security arrangements.”.
Oh dear !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
These guys don’t need death threats..
What they do need is a good clip around the ears..
maybe that would wake them up to reality !!!
They’re Socialists and as proven by the current excuse for a government they are devious, immoral, liars. It’s easy to tell when they are lying……… just wait for their lips to move!! They will do and say anything to pull the wool over the eyes of the nation.
Can you credit the PM saying she did not know that Craig Thomson’s legal expenses were being paid by the Labor. Absolute compulsive liar that woman.
“Last year, The Canberra Times broke the story that a number of Australia’s leading climate change scientists were being targeted by a vicious, unrelenting email campaign that had resulted in police investigations of death threats.”
There isn’t a single accurate “fact” in this sentence. They weren’t targeted, there was no campaign, therefore it wasn’t “unrelenting”, there were apparently no police investigations and there were no death threats. (See the recent revelation about the kangaroo cull – which is nothing to do with a climate scientist cull.) The one semi-plausible perhaps yet completely wrong “death threat” didn’t come by email at all. It was reported by a staff member in an email and said staff member got it completely, totally, and laughably wrong.