How does one trust an Australian climate scientist?

Let us get this:

1) A certain number of climate scientists in Australia receive emails. These are characterized as ‘death threats.’ The alleged threats are publicized worldwide in Nature and the Guardian

2) Much after the news is disseminated and public sympathy garnered, the threatening emails are released under FOI to the blog owner of Australian Climate Madness

3) The emails contain no threats. Understandably enough, those at the centre of the event, still, do not want to be seen condoning any form of abuse. Discussion is stultified by reaffirmations of the virtues of civility.

… but …,

4) There do not seem to be any death threats.

Right now, cries of “A-Ha!” by climate skeptics derive mainly from the impact of revelation of facts previously  hidden from public view.  But there is one group who knew these facts all along  –  the climate scientists who originally received these emails.

Even as the spectre of death threats was raised and cynically exploited – perhaps by the university, and by Nature and Guardian, the scientists kept mum. As skeptics said: “the debate may be heated up, but whatever the case, death threats are not acceptable”, the scientists knew there were no threats of the sort, but yet kept their silence. They simply let faceless and anonymous members of the public – i.e., skeptics, be tarred.

What does one trust such scientists to tell us, as the media informs us about ‘threats’ to the climate?

I want to see episodes where climate scientists renounce immediate worldly benefits of media prominence and moral one-upmanship, and shut down habitual alarmists who slyly recruit scientists’ names for their pet political causes and buy their silence with a hoary pretense that what’s good for alarmism is good for science.

Believe me, the skeptics are waiting.



  1. papiertigre

    Good point. Who are these six senior members of the ANU’s Climate Change Institute who sat on their hands while over half of the population was smeared by political magazines and news outlets?

    They need to explain themselves, and justify any further credence a third party might attribute to their opinions.