FOI request

With 10 of the 11 emails released by the ANU containing no threats, there has been considerable focus on the 11th, a third hand report of an alleged “threat” at an off-campus event, referred to as the “Deliberative democracy project”.

ACM commenter “mondo” was a participant at said project, referred to in Document 5. Click here to download the zip file if you haven’t done so already.

To give it its full title, which is (rather worryingly) Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance (“DDGG”) [who said anyone who mentions global governance is a conspiracy theorist? – Ed], part of the ANU, the unit describes itself thus:

Deliberative democracy is one of the major growth areas in contemporary political theory and social science, and ANU claims what is possibly the world’s largest concentration of deliberative democracy scholars. Many of the world’s leading deliberative democrats have spent time with us. The ‘Global Governance’ in our title emphasises research directions that encompass transnational democracy and democratisation, though research on democratic theory, local and national deliberation, and the micropolitics of deliberative forums also flourishes.

One of the projects of the DDGG was entitled “Climate Change & the Public Sphere” has a web site here with rather paltry information. It appears the intention of the project was to subject some volunteers to some alarming projections of possible climate change between now and 2100, asking them at each stage to answer a number of identical questions – presumably to show how they would be more willing to accept the alarmist scenarios when presented with this kind of information. The final research paper from the project appears to be this one.

The project took place on 28/29 May 2010, which ties in with the date the ANU email was sent (2 June 2010). That ANU email (document 5), which is claimed to be a veiled “death threat”, states :

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.” 

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.” 

Conclusion

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.

Redfearn

Step 1: offer up “scary scenarios” (quote Stephen Schneider) by exaggeration and embellishment;

Step 2: turn the debate into simple questions of black and white, believers and deniers, for example, with no shades of grey;

Step 3: tell the public to “trust us”; and finally,

Step 4: criticise and smear anyone who dares ask questions.

Sound familiar? It’s a summary of the warmist mantra.

Graham Redfearn, the warmist blogger, has defended climate scientists and rubbished the claims made in The Australian that the “death threats” story last June was overblown, calling it all “part of the denier spin cycle”.

Redfearn makes a number of claims, all of them easily rebutted.

Firstly he claims that the scope of the FoI request was limited to six individuals. It was, but it included Will Steffen and Andrew Glikson, the two highest profile climate scientists at ANU and by far the most likely target for death threats at that university.

He claims also it only focussed on ANU. That is correct, but the ANU was the first mentioned university in almost all the news reports from June last year. He also claims that none of the emails he published on his blog last year were from ANU. You can read them here – and none of them contain “death threats”. They contain abuse and offensive language, but not “threats to kill” in the proper sense of the phrase.

Just to be clear, “F off and die” is not a death threat. A death threat is “if you do/do not do x, I will kill you”.

Redfearn claims that whether death threats were actually received or not was a “red herring” and that it’s still a hate campaign. Fine. Let’s see an official release of these documents from the scientists concerned, not just selective leaks to sympathetic media organisations like Fairfax, ABC and Redfearn himself. Then the public can make up their own mind.

But when the ANU refuses to back up a media story, that we must assume it released itself, with the documentary evidence to confirm it, even when requested to through a proper Freedom of Information request, and continues to refuse to release the documents and is even considering yet a further appeal, then the public is entitled to be suspicious.

And the hypocrisy is breathtaking – the abuse hurled at “deniers” (even that term hints at Holocaust denial) is just as offensive, but there’s a deafening silence from the warmists about that.

Such emails of any kind are objectionable, have no place in civilised scientific debate, and are condemned by this blog without reservation, but are sadly part of public life, not only in climate science, but in many other areas as well – politics, for example. However, claiming that such emails constitute death threats (a serious criminal offence that carries hefty prison sentences), and then refusing to release the documents that evidence such claims, is unacceptable.

If there are genuine death threats, then they should be fully investigated and the perpetrators prosecuted and punished. But like everything else from the warmist side, we’re supposed to take it on trust.

It appears that the subtle but important distinctions at work here, like so many aspects of the climate debate, are utterly lost on rusted-on warmists like Redfearn.

FOI request

UPDATE: Scan of article on page 3 of today’s Australian is here.

Following the freedom of information request story which made page 1 of The Australian yesterday, Christian Kerr and Lanai Vasek write a further story today, confirming that the Australian National University made no complaint to the police, despite alleging a vicious campaign of hatred against climate scientists.

As I said in my original post on this back in June 2011:

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.

So one has to ask why no action was taken by the university, given these were allegedly such serious crimes?

Police not told of ‘threats’ to ANU climate scientists

AUSTRALIAN National University authorities did not ask police to investigate alleged death threats against climate scientists, despite decrying a “totally outrageous” campaign against their staff.

The Australian yesterday revealed Privacy Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim had debunked claims of death threats in 11 emails sent to university staff.

The Australian Federal Police division responsible for law enforcement in Canberra, ACT Policing, said it was not contacted by the university over the matter. “As no complaint has been received, no investigation has taken place,” a spokesman said.

Fairfax Media and the ABC reported last June that ANU climate researchers had been subjected to a vicious and unrelenting campaign that included death threats.

At the time of the reports, vice-chancellor Ian Young denounced what he called intolerable threats against his scientists.

“These are issues where we should have a logical public debate and it’s completely intolerable that people be subjected to this sort of abuse and to threats like this,” he said. “I think it is totally outrageous.”

The university yesterday refused to say why no complaint was lodged with the police.

“Climate change staff approached university management about verbal and written harassment,” a spokesman said. “The university acted to move them to more secure offices.”

Mr Pilgrim, who was called in to adjudicate on a Freedom of Information request over the emails, found 10 of them did “not contain threats of harm against the recipients or the ANU”.

“I consider the danger to life or physical safety in this case to be only a possibility, not a real chance,” he said of the 11th email, an account of an exchange that occurred at an off-campus event sponsored by members of the university’s Climate Change Institute and other bodies. (source)

This confirms my own enquiries with ACT Police that no complaint had been filed.