iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Climate Scientists Face Death Threats In Australia

Australia Carbon Tax

The Huffington Post   First Posted: 06/07/11 08:47 PM ET Updated: 08/07/11 06:12 AM ET

When a tree-planting advocate receives threats of sexual assault and violence against her children, it is perhaps a red flag that the practice of healthy discussion has gone terribly awry.

In the heat of a carbon pollution tax debate, Australia’s top climate change scientists are facing an attack that has led some to go into hiding.

Over 30 researchers across Australia told The Canberra Times that they are being harassed with abusive emails. The violent threats haven't just targeted the scientists, but their families as well.

Why are people so angry? AFP explains that a debate is raging over Prime Minister Julia Gillard's plans to reduce pollution through a tax on carbon emissions. The goal is to tax polluters with a fixed price levy, and then move to an emissions trading scheme within the next five years. Reuters reports that Australia is the highest emitter per capita due to its reliance on coal (providing 80 percent of the nation’s power.)

The seemingly excessive anger towards scientists was fueled a few weeks ago when a new ad campaign featuring Cate Blanchett launched, advocating for the carbon tax. The ad suggests that big companies should pay for their pollution. The carbon tax proposal would result in more jobs, better health for children, and, as Blanchett says, “finally do something about climate change.” The ad appears to be rather understated (there is literally a singing birds sound cue), and yet the clip further enraged some people. As Grist writes, “Positivity + babies + gorgeous actresses seems like a pretty good recipe for getting people to, if not agree with you, at least not want to KILL YOU.”

The Guardian reports that Tony Abbott, the conservative opposition leader who once described man-made climate change as “crap,” critiqued the advertisement and actor, stating, "People who are worth $53m have a right to be heard – but their voice should not be heard ahead of the ordinary working people of this country.”

One recent poll found that 58 percent of the 500 voters questioned were against the tax. The proposal’s opposition argues that the carbon tax would damage the economy.

Meanwhile, Treasurer Wayne Swan argues "Our economy will continue to grow solidly while making deep cuts in carbon pollution," according to a speech excerpt provided by Reuters. According to Australia's ABC News, the debate comes on the heels of a new report commissioned by the Federal Government, predicting that by the end of the century, thousands of buildings could be destroyed with $226 billion worth of assets at risk due to climate change.

The problem is that this debate has in some cases materialized into serious anger.

According to The Canberra Times, The Australian National University moved high-profile climate scientists into secure buildings after they received explicit threats.

Scientists from other universities have been threatened as well. One scientist told The Canberra Times, ''If you want to find me, it's impossible unless you make an appointment, sign in with some form of photo identification, and are personally escorted to my door… That's directly as a result of threats made against me.''

One researcher told the paper of an instance where her photo appeared in an article promoting a community tree-planting day -- she then received threats of sexual assault and violence against her children. Another scientist received death threats and was advised by police to install a ''panic button'' in his office.

Many have changed their home security systems, deleted social media accounts, and switched to unlisted phone numbers after receiving threats to their homes.

Australia's new chief scientist, former ANU vice-chancellor Professor Ian Chubb, denounced the threats, stating, ''These hurtful attacks are intended to intimidate scientists, to scare them off and stop them from participating in public discussions on climate change. They are the antithesis of democratic debate.”

Christine Milne, Australian Greens deputy leader, said the emails were ''an orchestrated, extremist anti-science campaign attempting to threaten and intimidate people into silence.''

Professor David Koroly from the University of Melbourne tells Australia's ABC News that he receives threats every time the media interview him. Yet, he argues, "It is still very important that climate scientists present the best available information to the community, to the business community and to politicians and that we seek to protect our individual safety, but that we still provide the best available climate science."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

When a tree-planting advocate receives threats of sexual assault and violence against her children, it is perhaps a red flag that the practice of healthy discussion has gone terribly awry. In the ...
When a tree-planting advocate receives threats of sexual assault and violence against her children, it is perhaps a red flag that the practice of healthy discussion has gone terribly awry. In the ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,069
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (13 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:56 PM on 07/02/2011
From noted Australian Journalist Andrew Bolt.....

"CLAIMS prominent climate change scientists had recently received death threats have been revealed as an opportunistic ploy, with the Australian National University admitting that they occurred up to five years ago.

Only two of ANU’s climate change scientists allegedly received death threats, the first in a letter posted in 2006-2007 and the other an offhand remark made in person 12 months ago…

The outdated threats raised question marks over the timing of their release to the public, with claims they were aired last week to draw sympathy to scientists and their climate change cause.

The university denied it was creating a ruse, maintaining the initial report, in the Fairfax-owned Canberra Times last week, failed to indicate when the threats were made.

Reports also suggested the threats had forced the ANU to lock away its climate change scientists and policy advisers in a high-security complex. The Daily Telegraph has discovered the nine scientists and staff in question were merely given keyless swipe cards - routine security measures taken last year."

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/even_those_death_threats_are_a_beat_up
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
12:05 PM on 07/10/2011
For what, exactly, is Andrew Bolt "noted" and by whom?


Andrew Bolt is a conservative columnist for the the Herald Sun, a tabloid Melbourne newspaper which is published by News Limited, a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.
A biographical note states that Bolt "was born in Adelaide to a Dutch migrant family and started in journalism with The Age in 1979, working as a sports, politics and crime reporter. He later joined the Herald Sun, becoming an assistant editor, and then worked as Asia correspondent for the News Ltd group of newspapers, based in Hong Kong and Bangkok. For the past five years he has been a full-time columnist." [1]
In his biographical note, Bolt claims that he "fearlessly cuts through the myths and the spin to tell you the bottom-line facts behind everything from global warming to terrorism, from refugees to the stolen generation. No sacred cow of the New Age is safe from his scalpel." 


In November 2010 it was announced that Australia's richest person, mining magnate Gina Rinehart, had bought a 10% shareholding in the television company Ten Network Holdings. Announcing the shareholding in a media statement, Rinehart's company stated that "our company group is interested in making an investment towards the media business given its importance to the nation's future and has selected Channel 10 for this investment."
...
A few months later it was reported that Channel Ten had recorded a pilot program hosted by Bolt. Amanade Meade reported that "sources said a keen advocate of the show was Ten board member and Australia's richest woman, Gina Rinehart, who is a fan of Bolt's work. Ms Rinehart has also been heard to complain about the alleged left-wing bias of Ten's popular 7PM Project, and to say the network needs a right-wing Fox News-style show in its line-up."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Andrew_Bolt

Being "noted" by a mining heir who wants to turn a major Australian network into a clone of the United States' Fox "News" is no endorsement of him as a journalist. It means he's a shill.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:43 PM on 07/10/2011
Andrew Bolt is an award winning Journalist. You seem to be a Rommulan character assassin.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
07:19 PM on 07/10/2011
Tough luck, Ork. As long as you insist on parroting shills, I'm going to show you that they're shills.
04:37 AM on 07/02/2011
Welcome to TP politics, Ozzies!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
eaarth2
“An era ends when its illusions are exhausted
03:40 PM on 06/29/2011
I wonder if these clueless thugs would be carousing around like stormtroopers threatening scientists if they took the time to read the facts about AGW? Naw- they only believe what the Rupert Murdoch media office of propaganda tells them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PlayTOE
Morals evolved due to cooperative group living
10:42 AM on 06/25/2011
Climate change is just the latest in a very long list of reasons we need to get off of fossil fuels. Thing is, the option of freezing in the dark is not acceptable.

A "sin tax" on carbon will do little to really help the environment. What we need to see is real alternatives to fossil fuel made available at a reasonable cost. We have those alternatives (wind solar, geothermal & other non-polluting alternatives) if the financing and political will are available to make them build-able and get them incorporated into our grid.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jeremyewilliams
Reality is not the GOPs cup of tea!
01:52 PM on 06/22/2011
To make the case that global warming is a hoax, someone would have to believe that environmentalists and political liberals control businesses and industries worldwide as well as the legislative bodies and scientific institutions of every developed nation in the world. That would be a hard case to make.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
11:50 PM on 06/20/2011
American Physical Society position statement:

(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultur­al processes.

The evidence is incontrove­rtible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significan­t disruption­s in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
03:59 PM on 06/14/2011
National Academy of Sciences, 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------

What is Known about Climate Change

Science has made enormous progress toward understanding climate change. As a result, there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels.

Global warming is closely associated with other climate changes and impacts, including rising sea levels, increases in intense rainfall events, decreases in snow cover and sea ice, more frequent and intense heat waves, increases in wildfires, longer growing seasons, and ocean acidification. Individually and collectively, these changes pose risks for a wide range of human and environmental systems. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science-Report-Brief-final.pdf
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
agwscam
Nullius in Verba
10:26 PM on 06/20/2011
“Publicola posts this same garbage about the discredite­d NAS on every green article. “The National Academy of Sciences is nothing but a propaganda machine...

~~~~~

http://tin­­yurl.com/­3­c6u6qj

“Far from providing objective, expert proof of a global warming crisis, the NRC report provides objective proof that despite their grandiose sounding names the National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council are more interested in political agendas than objective, fact-based science.”

~~~~~

"...Unfotu­­nately, the National Academy seems to have lost its way, and is morphing into a climate alarm propaganda organ of the U.S. government­­..."

"...A few years ago, the NAS shamelessl­­y defended the thoroughly demolished "hockey stick" graph which claimed to show that current temperatur­­es lack a historical precedent.­­­..And now it has allowed a badly flawed study in its flagship publicatio­­n that effectivel­­y creates a blacklist, in order to delegitimi­­­ze scientists who might disagree with a vague “consensus­­” position on climate-ch­­ange science...­­Someone needs to publicly clean house at the NAS, washing the institutio­­n’s hands of public policy pronouncem­­ents and renouncing efforts to turn them into a propaganda organ for climate alarmists. The alternativ­­e will be declining trust in the NAS, and the further erosion of the public’s belief in scientific pronouncem­­­nts in general."

http://www­­.american­.­com/arch­iv­e/2010/­jul­y/the-­nati­onal-­acade­my-o­f-blac­kli­sts/””
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
11:44 PM on 06/20/2011
There goes Scammer again, trying to discredit the National Academy of Sciences as "nothing but a propaganda machine" by citing science denier crapolla from anti-science propaganda machines - the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Yawn.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Diogo Marzo
06:59 AM on 06/24/2011
Have you considered which side has more to gain from lying here? Perhaps you ought to before quoting embarrassing attempts to discredit good science.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
agwscam
Nullius in Verba
10:28 PM on 06/20/2011
““"Three environmen­­tal activists and a duck walk into a bar and start talking global warming with a dozen people who have no formal education in climate science. Sound like the beginning of a bad joke? Actually, it’s not. It’s what the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) would have us believe is an expert, objective, scientific­­ally authoritat­­ive panel qualified to produce its latest report, America’s Climate Choices...­­"

"NAS Climate Panel Fails The Laugh Test"
http://ice­­cap.us/in­d­ex.php/g­o/­politic­al-­climat­e

"...When environmen­­tal activists lament the fact that public opinion has turned so forcefully against global warming alarmism, they need only look in the mirror to find the answer. You can’t trot out staffers from Environmen­­tal Defense Fund, WE ACT for Environmen­­tal Justice, and other environmen­­tal activist groups and claim this is authoritat­­ive, objective science. And if you are going to issue a global warming report and claim it is from impeccably qualified scientific sources, at least a quarter of the report’s authors should be climate scientists­­..."

"...the involvemen­­t of NAS merely illustrate­­s how far away from quality, objective science NAS has travelled when the topic is a political one as well as scientific one..."”
~”
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
01:35 AM on 06/21/2011
More of the same denier claptrap from scammer. Scammer likes to bash scientists. Funny thing, the Big Oil PR campaign against AGW also likes to bash scientists. Is scammer here a pieceworker or a volunteer for somebody like Heartland?
02:17 PM on 06/14/2011
Whilst I do not condone violence, or these alleged threats of violence, this response is demonstrative of just quite the level of fury being felt in Australia over the punitive and economically suicidal carbon dioxide tax scheme that Juliar Gizzard is trying to force through.

Juliar Gizzard stated before her recent Prime Ministerial coup that "there will be no carbon tax under a government that I lead". You can't get much more unequivocal than that, hence she is now proven to be a turn-coat and a bare-faced liar.

No one likes that sort of treachery, and especially not the Australian people who are more forthright than most. I know how they feel - we're being led down the road to rack and ruin here in the UK, by a similar bunch of disingenuous trough-snouters.

Everyone but the most blinkered (including the usual suspects on here) know that the theory of CAGW is threadbare and moribund, the weak foundations of which are crumbling as more and more evidence emerges of cranky climate models, blatant exaggerations, un-truths and book-cooking from rent-seeking 'scientists'.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
03:58 PM on 06/14/2011
First off, if you don't like the policies being proposed to address global warming that anger should be addressed at the policy makers, not the scientists - the scientists here are the messengers, and attacking them for their message is a classic "shoot the messenger" response that does not address the reality of what they are saying.

Second, your apparent belief that "the theory of CAGW is threadbare and moribund" demonstrates that don't don't have a friggin' clue as to what you are talking about here - it's either that or you are being disingenuous.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:09 PM on 06/17/2011
Sorry mate, but as an Australian I know your views are part of the extremist fringe. The latest polls suggest 70% or ordinary Australian believe AGW to be a threat. The issue is the how the tax will be implemented and at what rate.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ipolitics123
The Left is not Liberal
12:15 AM on 06/18/2011
You don't happen to have a link to that poll, do you mate? Didn't think so.

In related news, did you know that 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot?
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
12:17 AM on 06/14/2011
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:

There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities­. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon­, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanation­s…

From a philosophical perspective, science never proves anything... In practical terms, however, scientific uncertainties are not all the same. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris 1
11:38 PM on 06/13/2011
It's routine for the term "denier" which is a reference to Jewish Holocaust deniers to be used by agw fanatics. Essentially calling someone a Nazi or irrational.

The death threat claim is a relative joke compared to what the moonbat left rationalizes every day;

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/06/deaththreatgate-update-two-of-anu.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:46 PM on 06/14/2011
No, its the word that most aptly describes the cognitive error of denying whatever science is contrary to your worldview. That is why "denier" is also applied to those who reject evolution theory. You have to have data and evidence to deny what is founded on data and evidence. Deniers have neither, so the word is chosen for that reason. Your attempt to connect it to crimes against humanity is a psychological preemptive strategy to shift attention away from what could well be a natural world holocaust.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
05:53 PM on 06/14/2011
Irrational.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Counterintuitive
We'll steer by the beacon of our 100 year forecast
12:19 AM on 06/11/2011
The laws of chemistry can't be changed. CO2 is a chemical whose properties have been known for 150 years.

Blame God if you have to. But don't blame the scientists who discover this stuff.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris 1
12:11 AM on 06/14/2011
Man produces less than 4% of co2 input. Weather is complicated and there is no working model or formula that measures that impact on climate.

These are facts.

The IPCC is a U.N. agenda driven organization that has a politically select summary committee that needed to confirm agw to tax and regulate. It's clearly corrupt and the world has caught on to the many agendas of the process. Outside this tiny group that steered ar4 summaries there is little or no consensus that support the Gore like, eco-extreme agenda of doom about co2.

You should get over it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
05:55 PM on 06/14/2011
But the rest of the global oligopoly is hunky dory, and sweet as pie. Like the IMF, the US military, the World Bank and all those other perfect institutions of light and love.
11:36 PM on 06/10/2011
Skeptics and Deniers are not getting the hate mail that they used to, people are opening their eyes.
The Pal Reviewed "science" religion is coming apart.

Church said"The debate is over" "I dont think so" said Galileo
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
09:57 AM on 06/11/2011
Playing the "science religion" card is a tacit admission that you have no cogent scientific argument.
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
03:56 PM on 06/11/2011
The proper analogy here would be to the church of the fossil fuel god Lambarf....Ralph Lambarf.
12:27 AM on 06/12/2011
One thing I will say is that the discussion on this thread has been very polite and in good taste. These GW/Climate change discussion are not usually like that. One reason might be its the Canadian portion of Huffington and Canadians are usually more polite and less direct. Anyway I have my beliefs formed over the last 7 years on Climate change and limited discussions on this board are unlikely to sway me at all.
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
11:21 PM on 06/10/2011
Madison Avenue and its various international equivalents have spent decades creating childlike desire for an unreal world completely free of stress, aging, unhappiness, or discomfort. As a result, moderns are unnaturally afraid of nature and of reality. This makes them easily manipulated by the oil companies.

Fuel prices too high? Afraid of gas taxes?Then buck the torrents of TV ads and buy a smaller car. Turn out the lights more often. Live outdoors more. Keep a more moderate home temperature. Take up pastimes that don’t require gallons of fuel to support. Using those simple steps, moderns could turn sharply turn down the demand for petroleum by a large percentage almost instantly. And if the petroleum market place were truly a free market, the price of petroleum could be immediately reduced.
Moderns, however, do not like to think about or experiment with different life styles, especially if they are conservative moderns. It is safer, and more cowardly, to simply go along with the neighbors, the peer group, and the right wing talk show liars.
And the petroleum markets have been controlled for over a century by various uber wealthy elites who do not want you to consume less and drive down the price of gas.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kadellagroove
Left leaning, Jeffersonian Whig.
09:18 PM on 06/10/2011
PART 2

one of the reasons people fight so hard against this issue is simple economics. And truth be told its a legitimate point.

If we ever want to truly save this planet we can't just change methods of deriving energy. We have to change the entire way we live on this planet. politics, economics, consumption, life style... the way we use energy is a direct result of the type of existence we have created for ourselves. one of unlimited comfort, convenience, excess, supply, instant satisfaction etc..

We (especially in the states) are massively materialistic, we consume more than we need and waste even more... it is impossible to solve the environmental problems with out drastically changing the way we exist. thats just the truth and its a hard one to swallow but theres no way around it.

I mean, gasoline is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to fossil fuels. all our plastics, synthetics, pigments, makeup, glues, rubbers, lubricants etc are made with petroleum.

Then there is the economics to consider. it is not realistic or fair for governments to impose all of these regulations on their people without also helping their people pay their bills in other ways. reducing waste in government spending, creating jobs etc... people cannot continue to just be squeezed by their governments AND be expected to carry the majority of the weight of climate change on their shoulders at the same time.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kadellagroove
Left leaning, Jeffersonian Whig.
09:11 PM on 06/10/2011
Well, this is nothing new. scientists have been killed for less in the past. In my experience, if people are that outraged it must mean the scientists are on to something.

I have two points to make

first- Volcanic lightning. We arn't exactly sure, but it has something to do with particles separating, shifting aerodynamics and negative and positive charges on a molecular level changing and breaking apart. All because of a cloud of gas, smoke and heat. For every action there is a reaction. There is no line of logic that one could follow that would suggest that in a closed system (earth) that balances itself naturally, a large amount of unnatural activity (human industry) would not have a large impact. it doesn't make sense. we don't live in a natural state. we create millions of tons of chemicals, substances, gases, etc... every year that other wise would not be introduced into the closed system.

to believe (even without the thousands of scientists and decades of research) is absurd. you can do any mental gymnastics and fidgeting with figures you want... the logic just doesn't hold up.
A scientific model is only good when it is "1-elegant 2- contains few arbitrary of adjustable elements 3- agrees with and explains existing observations and 4 - makes detailed predictions about further observations that can be disproved if they are not borne out" Steven Hawking

The anti-global warming model is not a good model. global warming is.

Cont...