ANU "death threat" emails released

FOI request

The ANU on Tuesday agreed to release the 11 emails which were the subject of my FOI request, redacted to maintain the privacy of the individuals concerned. LINK HERE to a ZIP file of the documents. The Australian reports on this here.

Analysis of the Documents

Seven out of the eleven documents contain no threats, and at worst contain mild abuse – these are documents 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10 and 11.

Document 1 discusses Svensmark and CLOUD, is generally polite, is signed “a concerned citizen” and the worst that can be said is that it says:

“Are you morally and ethically aware (awake) of your actions? ALSO please stop telling lies about sea level rises. It is so full of BS it is not funny it is insulting to anyone with enough intelligence to do simple research about sea level rises.”

Document 3 refers to Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery’s failed predictions and the government funding for climate alarmists. One paragraph refers to ANU scientists as “con men” and another reads:

“We have had enough! Sometime in the future your days of leeching off the tax payers of Australia will end and you will be looking for work in the employment office where you might find a real job and contribute to society in a positive way.”

This could be viewed as abuse, or alternatively merely strongly worded and passionate disagreement.

Document 4 refers to Will Steffen’s claim in the warmist Age that the climate debate is “infantile” and compares the certainty of climate armageddon to the certainty of gravity. ACM posted on this laughable article here. Another reader felt moved to write to ANU in generally polite terms. I see no abuse, again just strongly worded disagreement.

“It takes a tax-payer funded Professor to equate AGW to gravity. It must have taken years of education to be able to issue pronouncements like this eh? If Australian taxpayers were hoping to get a bit more than just bluster and name-calling from certain public servants, they’re bound to be asking for their money back soon.”

Document 6 is politely worded disagreement, following a Climate Commission report, and citing scientific papers that challenge the consensus. How the ANU construed this email as abuse or threats a mystery. Again, it seems as if challenging the consensus is by default “abuse” in the minds of the some.

Document 11 is an absolute PEACH and fell into the FoI because it was sent on the day after the “death threats” story broke in June 2011, and just prior to the FoI request being received. It is actually a critique on the ANU’s actions in bringing the issue to the attention of a sympathetic media rather than the proper authorities. Unfortunately, it calls out the ANU all too clearly, and, once again, passionate disagreement is therefore regarded as abuse by the ANU in determining which documents to provide.

Here is a sample of what the writer has to say:

“Death threats are intolerable and indefensible. Period.

So is the way that the ANU is thuggishly manipulating the demented expressions of a few sick people as a propaganda weapon to smear the entire sceptical community. Period.

The death threats obviously come from mentally diminished losers. That’s their excuse. Using it as an agitprop smear on rational scepticism coming from our nations most powerful university timed to incite mob outrage in this weekend’s Say Yes rally is malicious, pre-meditated and abominable abuse of authority and power. What’s ANU’s and the ABC’s excuse?

The Australian Federal Police said it had not been contacted by the university…”

Duh. Why did the ANU take this information to the ABC rather than the AFP? If the threats are credible, why didn’t someone at the university pick up the nearest phone and call for police help, ASAP. Instead of calling the AFP, the university organised a public relations campaign utilising the powers of our state-owned nation broadcaster to announce at the top of every hour for the last two days that climate skeptics in a concerted effort to stop the “release of climate data” and thwart public debate are issuing death threats to climate scientists.”

Couldn’t really put it better myself!

Document 10 is a record of a phone call in which the caller states a member of the climate science team is “uneducated, has never worked like the real people and receives handouts from all us taxpayers”. That’s it. Abuse? Perhaps, in its mildest form.

Document 9 is a one line email that states:

“Mate, that report is the biggest load of rubbish I have ever seen.”

Abuse or just disagreement? You decide.

Three (two) of the documents are crank abuse emails – the kind that our correspondent above refers to, peppered with bad spelling, swear words and offensive language. These are documents 2, 7 and 8, although documents 2 and 7 are identical in content, so I assume they are the same message.

One document contains a report of an alleged threat of violence which I discuss below. This was dated June 2010, well outside the six-month scope of the FoI request. By the way, that period was chosen because the news reports stated that the threats had been going on for six months, but had increased in the last few weeks (see later). It states (in full):

Looks like we’ve had our first serious threat of physical violence. It has come from a participant in [redacted] deliberative democracy project last weekend. One of the participants left early after he too exception to my talk about climate science. [redacted] exact words were: 

“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.” 

I think the final day is this weekend but I am not sure. Anyway, I’ve asked [redacted] to brief the VC and the head of security ASAP. The latter will determine whether this should go to the AFP or not.

But in the meantime, we should be careful about anyone we don’t know who approaches our offices. 

Let’s analyse this carefully. One participant “left early” after he took exception to a talk on climate science. People are entitled to do that if they disagree. Moving on to the “threat”, this is a third hand account of the actions of that participant at an earlier dinner. This can obviously be interpreted in a number of ways. Either you can view this as a veiled threat, as if the individual in question was actually hinting that he would use his skills to cause harm, or you can interpret it as someone having had a few shandies disagreeing with the consensus and making a joke about his marksmanship. Without any evidence of the manner or demeanour of the individual concerned, or the circumstances in which it the comment was made, the hearsay report above is worthless.


Let’s reread the ABC’s story on this (my emphasis):

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.

He says it has been happening for the past six months and the situation has worsened significantly in recent weeks.

In fact, it appears that the six most senior and well-known climate scientists at ANU received NO death threats in that six month period. Of the “large number” of emails allegedly received, the university only provided 11, only 2 contained anything other than mild abuse. The one “threat” was received over a year prior to the story, and its authenticity would vary substantially depending on the circumstances – an answer to that question we will never know. The remainder were innocuous and were expressing little more than passionate disagreement. And apparently there are no transcripts or records of the abusive phone calls referred to above, since the only phone message disclosed is relatively tame. Politicians will receive far worse every day, of that we can be sure.

ACM unreservedly condemns the sending of threats and abuse, particularly in the febrile atmosphere of the climate debate. However, we believe that high profile organisations, such as ANU, operating in that environment, should be very wary of making claims that may act to emotionalise the issue yet further. To claim that the above constitutes a “campaign of death threats” is stretching credibility.

Note: various bloggers have criticised (a) the fact that it took me 2 whole days to comment on this, and (b) nothing changes except that I am now part of the problem. As to (a), I have many other things in my life besides climate blogging, and it takes a back seat sometimes – there is nothing more to it than that, despite your fertile imaginations trying to think otherwise. As to (b), I believe that when claims such as these are made, organisations should be prepared to back it up with evidence. I am glad that the public can read these emails and can make up their own minds about the contents.


  1. Just been reading the comment threads at Nick Stokes and Graham Readfern’s blogs. Even though they now have the emails, which indicate the whole thing was exaggerated, they’re still persisting with the smears. They attack skeptics for publishing the PUBLICALLY-AVAILABLE emails of these scientists, suggesting those that did share in the blame.
    “What did they expect to happen?”
    Maybe some people would present intelligent, scientific arguments, as they did, and talk about silly things like hot spots and cosmic rays.

  2. Well done for sticking at it and holding these [snip] to account.
    There is nothing in that entire lot that could be considered a death threat. In fact I am struggling to find anything that even qualifies as a threat.

  3. OctalBear says:

    I lodged a formal complaint last week with the ABC listing some 15 stories, videos, interviews etc. that they ran when the “death threats” story broke and asking that they would issue a retraction or correction.

    The first reply basically said there was nothing to retract or correct. Here’s the second reply I received today after I questioned the first reply. Slightly amusing 🙂

    “Dear XXXX

    You may be able to appeal to ACMA , however they have no authority in relation to online material and the broadcasts may be too old for them to review.

    We do not publish correspondence, however there is nothing to stop you publishing it if you wish.

    When reputable people make claims about actions that directly affect them it is normal practice in all media organisations to report those claims even if the claims cannot be independently verified as long as they are accurately attributed and there is no evidence that the claims are fabrications. The fact that a number of academics from different institutions reported similar threats and insults gave those claims greater credibility.

    You may be aware that the ANU has released the emails. Some excerpts can be seen at – while there are no direct death threats, the emails are very unpleasant and I’m not surprised the academics were upset and unnerved by them. The release of the emails would seem to support the fears of the academics rather than refute them.

    Yours Sincerely

    Mark Maley
    Audience & Consumer Affairs”

    I suggested (apart from a few other things) that next time they publish stories they should say some “very unpleasant” emails had been received rather than “death threats”.


    [REPLY – I’ll leave others to decide whether the content of the emails “supports the fears of academics”]

  4. I won’t comment as that could clearly be misconstrued as a “death threat” to alarmism, and to hype and lies in particular, and to anyone with a guilty conscience who might read it. Well done, very well done.

    Ooops…. I’ve done it – see you on ABC News and in the dock.

  5. AndyG55 says:

    A guilty conscience and paranoia often go hand in hand.

  6. Kneel 8250 says:

    Well, these Scientist’s certainly do have a vivid imagination.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Yep, that has been obvious from the very start of this AGW scam.. all imagination, zero fact.

  7. Simon congrats again on getting those emails out there.

    Having read them, there is simply nothing there. What a joke! I have formally asked the ABC if they will be updating or correcting their story.

    [REPLY – Thanks Marc, but it looks like the ABC have already decided on that, believing the emails to “support the fears of academics” apparently (see earlier comment from OctalBear)]

    • Yes, noticed that after I posted, good work octalbear! ABC have claimed in the past they would update news stories if new information appeared. This is such a case. I’ll put that to them.

  8. Baldrick says:

    The world of academia must be full of wimps who’ve never faced an angry man before or they’ve sold their souls for a few cheap shots at ‘deniers’ … or perhaps both. Either way it’s typical hype which does nothing for the credibility of these so-called scientists.

    Again Simon, you’ve done a bloody good job exposing this fiasco … well done.

  9. Simon

    I am extremely upset with your tenacious struggle to obtain these emails (you should feel uncomfortable now). You are such a ninny (that’s abusive). One of these days you may look back and wonder why you spent so much time on this ceaseless endeavour (that’ a death threat right there…. You’ll regret this mother f…..) I would relish the opportunity to debate you in person ( I’m gonna find you mofo….)

    Go forth and multiply ( f you Simon)

    [REPLY – have just called the police leaked this to the media]

  10. I’m simply amazed. Perhaps someone can start a “Drama Queen” award for these (non) scientists?
    How they can manufacture death threats out of those emails is beyond me but then again, they also claim that there will be permanent drought and devastating sea level rises. Fiction seems to be their real forte.

  11. Much ado about nothing eh …
    Most of these emails are well-argued comments, and took time and diligence to produce.
    On the other hand, I think the prize must go to the author of Doc 2.
    He speaks for many …

  12. OctalBear says:


    You can fool some of the people some of the time, …


  13. John Coochey says:

    I feel I can now throw some light on the matter. The document viewed as most “threatening” referred to an alleged Deliberation at the ANU about climate change in the Canberra region at which one person “made a death threat” (sic) by showing his gun licence and boasting about his skill as a sniper.. Only two people dropped out of the conference only one of those who did so attended the even meal. Me. I am certainly the one who is alleged to show someone their gun licence. That is not true while at the evening meal (of poor quality) comments moved to eating game meat and I was approached by the Commissioner for the Environment ACT, Dr Maxine Cooper who recognized me as someone involved in the kangaroo culling program in the ACT. She politely asked if she could sit at the vacant seat next to me and asked if I had past the recent licence test – not easy. I replied yes and showed her my current licence. I also impressed on any one interested the high standard of marksmanship necessary to allay any cruelty concerns. I might add that earlier in the day I had challenged two speakers to comment on a letter in the Canberra Times that claimed that temperatures had not increased in the Canberra area for decades. They were unable to do so, having not apparently checked the record despite the the “Deliberation” (conference) supposed to be about rising temperatures in the Canberra region. As all daytime conversations were recorded (we all signed waivers to allow this) this can easily be checked.

    • Mike Davis says:

      To get from your version of the events to what they reported took a lot of misinterpretation.
      You were specifically asked about your abilities.
      BAU in the environmental crowd.
      It is good to hear the whole story.

  14. Amfortas says:

    The ABC regularly abuses my intelligence and moral sense. Barely a day goes by without the ABC threatening everyone covertly. Even yesterday they were putting photos of smoke and water vapour stacks on the news when taking of the ‘carbon’ tax. That is abuse

    Perhaps they had better move to a secure location before I get mad.


  15. Tom Atkinson says:

    A heart-warming, brilliant performance Simon. We thank you.

  16. Mike Davis says:

    I just read the ABC report. What a joke your media is, right up there with ours.
    They definitely provided evidence of serious threats to the academics, NOT!
    To think they would have been able to hide behind the fairy tales if not for you! Thanks!

  17. Mike Davis says:

    [snip – let’s not encourage anything]

  18. Hmm, so it appears as if the only truly threatening email was actually a second hand cut and paste from a different email that we aren’t privy to? And we are supposed to take the word of Warmists who constantly make things up?

  19. I know where everybody in Australia lives. I know where you work and shop and where you go to school.


  1. […] Also see Simon’s ACM full report here […]

  2. […] ANU released this description of the incident, from an attendee at the ANU event: Before [the threat-maker] left, he came to the […]

  3. […] Australia Climate Madness has the details The ANU on Tuesday agreed to release the 11 emails which were the subject of my FOI request, redacted to maintain the privacy of the individuals concerned. LINK […]

  4. […] asked about wanting to see the emails, and they are excerpted and discussed along with links here and you can get the documents here Rate this: Share […]

%d bloggers like this: