Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Aussie Climate Scientists Receiving Death Threats

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the warming-up-to-you dept.

Australia 638

An anonymous reader writes "With the Australian parliament beginning the debate on setting a carbon price, climate scientists are reporting an increase in threatening phone calls and even death threats. The threats are serious enough that several universities have increased security for their ecology and meteorology researchers. The Australian government is seeking to introduce a carbon tax by July 2012."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Pie (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497642)

...is good.

Re:Pie (1, Funny)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497796)

...is good.

Do you intend to turn that into carbon dioxide and water?

--

The other threat was made to a scientist at a university function last year by a person not known to university staff (or the cops).

Re:Pie (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498158)

...is good.

Do you intend to turn that into carbon dioxide and water?

Probably solid waste with a dose of methane for good measure...

Re:Pie (1)

naz404 (1282810) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498236)

Methane is colorless and odorless. That's hydrogen sulfide you're smelling.

I heard you have a problem, Professor Sakharov. (1)

conscarcdr (1429747) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497646)

Strelok is here to help.

Re:I heard you have a problem, Professor Sakharov. (0)

kirbysuperstar (1198939) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497686)

Get out of here, Stalker. Get out of here, Stalker. Get out of here, Stalker.

Its getting to the point where (4, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497656)

...a guy isn't safe checking his wet dry hygrometer in the morning.

Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservatives (0, Flamebait)

mozumder (178398) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497680)

Since people can't rationalize their hatred of science (since science is logic and reason), they get all emotional and cry and whine and make death threats.

Always do the opposite of a conservative, especially the "freedom-loving" libertarian types.

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (3, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497734)

Yo. Conservative checking in. There's no hatred of science. There's a dislike of fudged numbers, BS, doom and gloom, including the usual "If we don't..." and "we'll be drowning in 10 years, no wait 30 years, no wait 80 years!!11!" that people get tired of. That's not forgetting the refusal to disclose publicly funded data, and then spending years tying up the courts over that pubically funded data. And so on either while refusing FOIA/SOI requests either. Nah. I know it's difficult to accept, but damn. But I suppose you can't fault groups like greenpeace(among other groups) turning around and trying to get their fingers in the pie either. I mean they sure have gone out of their way to invent BS to get written into the last several IPCC's.

Then again, perhaps I could simply say ah liberals. Actually going out and attacking people, including attempting to assassinate them when they don't like their political ideology. Which is sadly much closer to the truth. The US sure has had no shortage of liberals running amok in the last 6-8mo physically attacking conservatives that's for sure.

Also tip: I'm a canuck.

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (5, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497780)

There's a dislike of fudged numbers, BS, doom and gloom, including the usual "If we don't..." and "we'll be drowning in 10 years, no wait 30 years, no wait 80 years!!11!" that people get tired of

Good thing you don't ride a bike to work like me then because its a never ending stream of "if I don't do something now things could be really bad for me in about five seconds".

For me managing the planet should be like riding a bike. I keep an eye out for developing problems and take action when I think something might kill me. The fact that it hasn't so far doesn't invalidate the assumptions I make.

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (4, Insightful)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498244)

Think again. Instead of trying to fix real existing threats that we have in front of us (waste management, water resources, starvation, pollution, etc.), the goal is to have a CO2 tax for something we aren't sure about. And we're not talking about banishing fossil fuel cars here, and replacing them with electricity, which would be the first thing to do. No, just tax them... Tax everyone, make a bank of the world which will be privately held, and go with that, continuing to pollute the world. If you think that will save you from dying, you are mistaking!

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (-1, Troll)

harrytuttle777 (1720146) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497866)

I have first hand experience with fudging numbers. In the coast guard, we were required to submit a weather report to NOAA every 4 hours called synoptic weather. There were 2 of us on the cutter that took the job seriously. Everyone else I knew pretty much just made up numbers, because it was time consuming, and made it difficult to do some of the other BS that watch standers were supposed to be doing. I can't help but think that a lot of this garbage data made it into the hands of 'scientist' who were trying to model weather. I just hope scientists are looking at the accuracy of the data that is being submitted to them, and make appropriate allowances. But I doubt it. I know I would not feel comfortable making policy decisions based on the data we gave them. But everyone on slashdot seems to think that the word of scientist is the word of God almighty himself, rather than actually taking the time to look at the situation critically.

Just my 2 pennies.

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (5, Insightful)

xehonk (930376) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497992)

You're talking about data submitted to the scientists by tree rings, right? Or by drilling cores? Or satellites? I'm sure those lazy satellites are just making stuff up instead of measuring it! Just like those evil weather stations all over the world!

If there was only one line of evidence that climate science was based on, you might have a point. But it's not.

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (0)

harrytuttle777 (1720146) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498200)

weather stations all over the world!

Our cutter was one of those weather stations. 98% of the time the data we gave out was bogus. Obviously some data is good. My point was one should not place blind faith in what people are telling you. You should question assumptions, and the validity of the world view.

-Or you can just go on putting blind faith in the experts, and believing the results of the latest scientific study that contradict the results of the second most recent scientific study.

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (1, Troll)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498328)

Oh dear, you've attacked the sacred almighty science reputation ! Kill the traitor ! Oh wait, it's climate "science" (I'm of the exact sciences persuasion, and well, they don't measure up) ! Exterminate the traitor, slowly, neuter his dog and kill his family !

You know, this repuation [neatorama.com] .

The sad fact is, attempt to hold up climate science to the standards of other exact sciences, like physics, and nothing remains. Predictions made by climate scientists in the past "with 95% certainty" (and higher) have failed to materialize. Do that in physics, and your theory gets laughed out of every conference.

What is by far the most disgusting bit about climate science is that "skeptic" has become an insult. Imho, the basis of science is doubt, and so everybody should be a climate skeptic, even when it comes to established theories. If anyone needs more proof that this science is overly politicized, there you have it. Everybody also knows that this is done for political reasons (the climate treaties) ...

this is disgusting

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (-1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498204)

No, he is talking about the data used to write the AR4 from the IPCC, which multiple times, the university of East Anglia refused to give out, hiding behind copyrights. He isn't exactly writing about any random data here, but about the data set that everyone talks about in policy making meetings.

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (4, Insightful)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498014)

Yea, the research universities use data from tired overworked coasties.

Not.

Anyways, even if you guys made up all of the data statistically some of the data would trend in the other direction also wouldnt it?

Have you thought this through?

No, OK. That explains alot.

 

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (0, Troll)

harrytuttle777 (1720146) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498154)

I am just using the only data and evidence that I have available to me; mainly my own knowledge and experience. Admittedly I have only my have one sample point, and I hope that all the rest of the data is good ,as everyone is putting blind faith into it (although there is no reason to believe it is unless I want to believe that weather scientist are omniscient god like entities who never submit to societal pressure). However I don't have access to the rest of the data, and apparently it is proprietary information. So given the fact that I do not access to this proprietary data, and the only data that I do have is false, I have two choices. I can believe what ever the media is saying, or I can use my own common sense and the very limited data I do have. I have to look outside the window, and ask myself if the weather is going haywire. No. Is it likely that the climate of the planet is changing. Yes. Has it changed in the past. Yes. Would it be great to have a warmer climate, and have dinosaurs running around and shit like they did in the past. Yes. Does it make sense to throw all humanity's efforts into combating this weather change, that might in the end be inevitable? No.

Rather that snipping at each other and making snide character comments it would be better if humanity could work together to try to get off the planet. Rather than worrying about what impact humans have on the climate, climate scientist could be looking into Terra-forming Mars. The only way to eliminate the affect that humans have on the planet, would be to eliminate all the humans. Ohh wait, I forgot only conservative people affect the climate. OK, so just kill all the conservatives, and I a sure the planet will be happy.

-Regards freedom loving libertarian.

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (0)

lisaparratt (752068) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498344)

But everyone on slashdot seems to think that the word of scientist is the word of God almighty himself, rather than actually taking the time to look at the situation critically.

What, they're both made up nonsense?

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (3, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497876)

So science should be ignored, as it never deals with proof. Kinda hypocritical as you're reading this on a computer. So it seems you accept science when you want to, and dismiss it as sensationalist bullshit when it suits you. You also seem to have a very perverse idea about climate science and the scientists involved in that field. Which in itself is strange, as your actions ("fuck it - it's wrong") would only be a valid position if you had a solid understanding of of this field.

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498256)

So science should be ignored, as it never deals with proof. Kinda hypocritical as you're reading this on a computer. So it seems you accept science when you want to, and dismiss it as sensationalist bullshit when it suits you. You also seem to have a very perverse idea about climate science and the scientists involved in that field. Which in itself is strange, as your actions ("fuck it - it's wrong") would only be a valid position if you had a solid understanding of of this field.

I'm not sure exactly how you got to this from what harryturtle777 wrote. Seriously.

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (3, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498100)

What reports are you referring to here and why should you expect scientific predictions (which are usually couched in error bars and scenarios) to stay constant in the face of new evidence or better modelling? And your appeal for raw data is particularly laughable, given that it's the usual gambit that deniers throw out as if it's all some vast conspiracy and if only scientists would spend every waking moment satisfying specious FOIA requests this conspiracy would be revealed.

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498280)

Just a guess, but he might be talking about the data from East Anglia, NASA and MIT, which were used to build the IPCC AR4 in 2007, which is always the report everyone talks about. The issue is that gathering all the data is both very hard and very expensive. And what would be a peer review if we had no data sets to work with? Those who asked about these data, like Vincent Courtillot, later tried to gather data from other data sets, as they were in front of walls when asking. And their conclusion are very different. So yes, asking for the data sets on which all the later CO2 policies are extremely important.

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498224)

People doing moderation on the above should use the "Reply to This" link instead. That's how you express yourself when you do not agree!

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (-1, Troll)

harrytuttle777 (1720146) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497736)

I don't know what the 'scientist' are worried about. Thanks to the 'liberals' there are no hand guns hand guns are illegal in Australia, and therefore it is impossible for anyone to carry out one of these threats.

-Sincerely a freedom loving conservative.

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (3, Informative)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497820)

There are other ways to kill somebody than guns. And people who don't care about laws can still get guns on the black market.

And scientists (who want to abide by the law) can't defend themselves using guns...

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (-1, Offtopic)

harrytuttle777 (1720146) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497930)

Wait. I am trying to use logic and reason. The OP said that as a conservative I am naturally disadvantaged in this regard, but I will try nevertheless. If banning guns won't prevent murders, and will in fact just prevent the good people from defending themselves against the gun crazed lunatics, what is the purpose of banning guns.

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36498112)

Is it your position that any law which doesn't completely eliminate a crime is useless against that crime? If a gun ban stops a few accidental killings and a few crimes of passion, is that not good enough? As for criminals, a man who has a gun is usually not out to kill you anyway; he is working on the assumption that the threat of the gun will get him what he wants. Killing you is a hassle. If he's really out to murder you, then whether you have a gun is most likely immaterial because you are alerted to the situation by the first shot.

You may think, "but if he knew other people had guns he wouldn't work on that assumption," but here's the thing - yes he will, because even without a gun ban, most people do not own guns, and most of the people who do own guns don't walk around with them. So his system still works, even against most gun owners. And if you're one of the few, and you pull your gun, you've just escalated a robbery into life or death stakes. This may work out in your favor, but it may not. Maybe to you the contents of your wallet are worth dying for. I've never met anyone who couldn't replace everything in there, though. Most people agree with me; this is why the robbery at gunpoint is successful in the first place.

Putting guns in the hands of every citizen isn't going to decrease murders. Guns have exactly one purpose, and if humans are good at anything, we excel at using tools for their intended purpose.

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (1, Offtopic)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498146)

what is the purpose of banning guns.

preventing the populace from defending itself from a totalitarian regime. History is replete with kings and warlords making weapons illegal for the populace (hence why many weapons are derived from farming tools). Just be glad you're not in GB where knives are on the chopping block.

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (0)

queBurro (1499731) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498266)

I live in one of the UK "stab cities" and you might as well ban carrying knives, if you're thinking they'd be any good in an uprising against the government, well they'd be as much use as bringing a ...

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (0)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498298)

During the French revolution, they rushed into the "Bastille" prison. Not in order to save or free people from there, but because there was guns in it. We got to remember that one... :)

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (0)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498156)

http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/international-and-domestic-statistics-compared [washingtonceasefire.org] : banning guns does prevent murders.
and accidents: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html [cdc.gov]
and even suicides: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press04102007.html [harvard.edu]

having guns does not really do anything to protect anyone.

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (0)

harrytuttle777 (1720146) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498258)

I suppose you are right.

People die from fire related deaths each year. I suppose if we banned matches, we could do a similar job at curtailing arson. People die each year from drowning . Maybe if we banned swimming pools we could curtail some of those deaths.

Guns like matches are a tool. You can use the tool wisely or you can not. It is a question of freedom, and whether you have enough faith in humanity to not go around shooting each other just because they can. I being a freedom loving conservative have a great faith in individuals, but not so much in governments, which over time grow corrupt. That is why I would choose to let people have the means to defend themselves in such eventualities. As a liberal, you probably have a distrust of people, but believe a government will protect you from the lone wacky individual, when you don't trust yourself to (by arming yourself). We should just agree to disagree.

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (1)

jareth-0205 (525594) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498176)

Given that there quite obviously is a link between overall murder-rate and gun murder rate, *that's* the purpose. Lower ownership of guns leads to lower murder rate (whatever the weapon).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence [wikipedia.org]

Fairly obvious when you think about it (go on, use your logic). It's lots easier to pull a trigger than physically melee someone to death.

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36498214)

the purpose of a gun made for killing someone is usually to function so that the target dies before he can reply, so a gun works best against people who don't shoot first.

the real purpose for banning guns, controlling them and forcing you to store them disassambled is rather simple. it's to prevent drunk shooting or doing it quickly in bad temper - it's to prevent accidental murders. that's how most of the regular joe vs. regular joe stuff happens anyways.
 
  now if you need to protect yourself from random hired crazies then you need a bodyguarding team complete with bulletproof cars. if you need to protect yourself from a rebellion then you need a gaddafi hideout and your own army.

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36498142)

And yet the homicide rate is lower in Australia than in the U.S.

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36498206)

Of course. Any responsible citizen will call the cops after they've been mugged/raped/stabbed/shot/burnedwithfile/killed. Defending yourself can only put yourself and others into danger.

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497864)

Dickhead

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (1)

zblack_eagle (971870) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498024)

Because the fact that murder is illegal means that nobody ever kills anyone /sarcasm. I'd consider owning an illegal handgun less severe a crime.

However, the people who illegally possess such guns in this country (Australia) generally aren't going to use them against scientists so much as dispatching competitors in their illicit businesses ie. gang/mob violence.

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497752)

That kind of blatant hypocrisy makes others with positions similar to yours look bad via guilt by association. Please try not to set yourself up as a straw-man.

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497886)

Since people can't rationalize their hatred of science

Yea! Think about the Church of Global Warming

Re:Just goes to show the lunacy of the conservativ (1)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498278)

Since people can't rationalize their hatred of science

Yea! Think about the Church of Global Warming

Church of Global Warming? Oh yeah! That's right next to the Church of Gravity and just up the street from the Church of Evolution and the Church of Quantum Mechanics.

Whichever (0, Flamebait)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497698)

Are these the same guys who've been refusing SOI/FOIA requests because they claim that their work which is publically funded is 'proprietary'? Or are these the same ones from aussieland that made up the shit including forging the emails that they were being harassed.

Then again I can't really feel too much sympathy. People will only take a decade or two(maybe three) of doom and gloom based on fudged numbers, and corrupted policies. Especially when they realize that what you're proposing will effectively bankrupt the entire country and turn it into a 3rd world dirt farming nation.

Re:Whichever (2)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497708)

Are these the same guys who've been refusing SOI/FOIA requests because they claim that their work which is publically funded is 'proprietary'?

No.
Next question?

Re:Whichever (-1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497746)

And you're so sure because? Of what. A two letter word? Sorry doesn't wash. "Climate scientists" in australia have been doing the same thing as their colleagues have been in the UK, US, and in Canada. Refusing to disclose data including methodology for years.

Re:Whichever (3, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497850)

It appears you are building a straw man so you can have a burning. The sheer idiocy of pretending that all of the people in any one occupation are exactly the same will become clear if you actually think about it.

Re:Whichever (5, Informative)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498120)

And you're so sure because? Of what. A two letter word? Sorry doesn't wash. "Climate scientists" in australia have been doing the same thing as their colleagues have been in the UK, US, and in Canada. Refusing to disclose data including methodology for years.

Actually they have been disclosing their methodologies for years. As one would expect from papers submitted to various peer reviewed journals. That isn't quite the same as feeling inclined to satisfy arbitrary, time consuming FOIA requests from armchair bloggers who want the data merely to nitpick it. It's funny how the so-called "climategate" email leak didn't unveil some vast librul conspiracy. What it did reveal was a bunch of scientists bitching in private about armchair bloggers wasting their time with specious FOIA requests.

Re:Whichever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497756)

His next question is right after the quote you clipped.

Re:Whichever (1, Informative)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497858)

No, that was rhetorical bullshit from an anti-intellectual luddite designed to build up a strawman fit to be lynched.

Re:Whichever (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498164)

You could at least answer his next question, unless the answer is "yes".

Re:Whichever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497762)

It used to be the extreme far left who carried out and justified political assassinations. How does it feel to have adopted the tactics of the european extreme far left of the seventies ?

Re:Whichever (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497830)

The tactics of the eu far left benefited the other side, in case you didn't notice. Ditto for the neonazis. People get pissed when you blow them up, no matter what your political reasons are.

Re:Whichever (5, Insightful)

Jeeeb (1141117) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497852)

Are these the same guys who've been refusing SOI/FOIA requests because they claim that their work which is publically funded is 'proprietary'? Or are these the same ones from aussieland that made up the shit including forging the emails that they were being harassed.

No and even if they were that wouldn't justify sending them death threats. Also it doesn't seem to have come up on Slashdot yet, but the CSIRO has opened a site at http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/ [csiro.au] where you can view the raw information about green house gas concentrations that has been collected in Australia.

Then again I can't really feel too much sympathy. People will only take a decade or two(maybe three) of doom and gloom based on fudged numbers, and corrupted policies. Especially when they realize that what you're proposing will effectively bankrupt the entire country and turn it into a 3rd world dirt farming nation.

Step 1. Build a global conspiracy supported by every major research organisation world wide suggesting that emitting large amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is going to affect the climate and don't forget to suppress the voices of the brave and heroic rouge scientists and oil company researchers who attempt to reveal your conspiracy.
Step 2. Have governments world-wide introduces nation-bankrupting schemes to charge (some) people who bump lots of carbon into the atmosphere for that privilege.
Step 3. ???
Step 4. Profit!

Or something like that right? Looking at other countries, like for example NZ, which has a very very similar scheme to what is being discussed in Australia, the results so far have been positive, or is that just more misinformation?

Hell you don't even need to believe in climate change to see the need to encourage the uptake of more renewable energies. Global coal, oil, gas and uranium stocks are predicted to run out in the next few hundred years. In the meantime as demand continues to rise, prices will go up and countries which don't have alternatives will hurt (a lot in the nation bankrupting sense).

Re:Whichever (2)

walshy007 (906710) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498128)

Global coal, oil, gas and uranium stocks are predicted to run out in the next few hundred years.

Rest of it is half plausible, but running out of uranium in the next few hundred years? using fast breeder reactors? not likely.

It is still finite of course, but it will last a shite sight longer than all the other things you mentioned by almost an order of magnitude.

It's too late ... the work has been published ... (2)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497712)

To the people making threats:

The scientists' work has already been published. They can't revoke those publications no matter how much you threaten them. You may discourage them from publishing more work, but that doesn't take back what has already been said. On the other hand, you may also make them more zealous in defending their cause. This isn't only bad for you, but it's bad for science. Either way it's a lose-lose situation, so use your conscience and don't make threats.

Re:It's too late ... the work has been published . (3, Insightful)

metacell (523607) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497810)

Many activists are more interested in making grand gestures and gaining status within their own organisation, than bringing about actual change. Even terrorist organisations tend to follow this pattern.

Old news (1)

CurryCamel (2265886) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497714)

Comments in TFA link to this http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/carbon-death-threats-go-cold/story-e6freuzr-1226071996499 [dailytelegraph.com.au] article, that suggest there were two instances of threats five years ago. Why does it seem any and all articles with 'environmnet' in the title instantly get dragged into the mud? Be they pro or against.

Re:Old news (4, Informative)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497924)

And there were just those two threats, five years ago, eh? No. You need to get your information from other people than Andrew Bolt. Followup to TFA:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/change-of-attitude-needed-as-debate-overheats/2194216.aspx?storypage=3 [canberratimes.com.au]

Re:Old news (1)

CurryCamel (2265886) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498076)

My point exactly - no other topic can generate this much FUD and flame in this short a time.

But OK - seems my 'subject'-line was wrongly biased :)

Security... (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497718)

So they moved them to a more secure building, removed nametags from their office door and from the university directory, and think this will make them safe?

Any murderer worth his salt will get them while they are at home...

Re:Security... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497804)

liability ends in the workplace..

Re:Security... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497806)

Any murderer worth his salt

Keep in mind, although many of them are descended directly from murderers, they're the kinds of murderers who were generally not smart enough to avoid getting caught.

And that's by a police force equipped with sticks and rocks by comparison with the modern day.

Re:Security... (3, Informative)

synthesizerpatel (1210598) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497906)

Diabolical super-criminals with a grudge against weather scientists are pretty rare. Stupid ones are much more common.

I think these guys are probably safe - basically if someone holding a gun in one hand and a picture of you in the other asks you if you're 'you', point the other direction, say "I think I saw him go that way" and just keep walking.

It's happening to researchers in most countries. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497742)

But the reason this article made it to the front page of Slashdot is because these were Australian scientists.

Apparently any so-called story related to Australia and Australians is classified as important on Slashdot now and worthy of immediate acceptance by the "editors".

Any "story", no matter how worthless and banal.

Scientific debate, huh? (4, Insightful)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497784)

In the beginning, there was only climate science.

Then came some skeptics, and all was well. And the discussion was between scientists.
Then came some denialists, and all was not well. The discussion was now between politicians.
Now come the death threats, and all is getting worse. The discussion is now between activists.
What's next? Violence? And a 'discussion' between armies?

I'm so glad to see that a lack of knowledge does not hold the world back from taking violent action.

-- Is there any record of a scientist who threatens a religious leader for not agreeing with the Books of Science?

Re:Scientific debate, huh? (2, Funny)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497824)

I think Dawkins has come close to punching a few of them.

Re:Scientific debate, huh? (4, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497954)

I think Dawkins has come close to punching a few of them.

You'd think Dawkins would get along fine with religious leaders, seeing how they have the most dominant personality trait in common: neither can stand people not caring about what they care about.

Re:Scientific debate, huh? (2)

Xest (935314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498090)

Yeah but I think that's more about trying to knock some sense into them for their own good than doing them harm.

Re:Scientific debate, huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497922)

-- Is there any record of a scientist who threatens a religious leader for not agreeing with the Books of Science?

Well, there was that south park episode [wikipedia.org] ...

Re:Scientific debate, huh? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36498042)

In the beginning, there was only climate science.

Then came some anthropogenists, and all was well. And the discussion was between scientists.
Then came some alarmists, and all was not well. The discussion was now between politicians.
Now come the doomsday threats and public ridiculing, and all is getting worse. The discussion has been supressed by activists.

FTFY

Typical lying liberals (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497786)

Two 'death threats' were received, one 5 years ago and the other at a staff wine and cheese evening 12 months ago. None of the emails released contained anything remotely like a death threat, and no police involvement has been requested by the putative 'offended' parties. This is nothing more than a beatup by liars trying to get a better budget to improve their office quarters.
And you fell for it because you too are a liberal bigot who loves having their prejudices and bigotry stroked without any interest in the facts,

I'm A Climate Scientist (HUNGRY BEAST) (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497828)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiYZxOlCN10

Yo.

Tax? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497834)

A tax on breathing, i am confused... Needs more links for people who don't care about the subject.

IF YOU CAN"T TAKE IT DON'T DISH IT !! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497836)

Whoisthreatingwhom?

Are they real or sockpuppet army though ? (1, Informative)

alexibu (1071218) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497854)

Source of death threats is likely sock puppet army software by HBGary or similar, commissioned by USA federal government, discovered by anonymous hack.
Probably the source of lots of climate denial posts all over the web.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/16/945768/-UPDATED:-The-HB-Gary-Email-That-Should-Concern-Us-All?detail=hide [dailykos.com]
Link to government solicitation document not working, lucky the document is copied inline for our records.

Why in Australia? (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497910)

Hey, didn't British send their common criminals to Australia, religious nuts and crooks to America? With only two latter conditions being hereditary? Australians were supposed to be the sane ones!

Re:Why in Australia? (4, Informative)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498046)

They are, but the "Liberals" (just a name; they're actually the conservative group) have been adopting more and more American neo con tactics. They actually invited over several key Tea Party and Republican strategists to discuss tactics in private. Let's not forget the Rupert Murdoch owned newspaper "The Australian", which despite losing money year after year is subsidized by Murdoch to parrot right-wing talking points (see the National Broadband Network "debate"). Australia's media has consolidated and is failing them. The NBN will change that, but for the time being it's a real problem.

Re:Why in Australia? (2)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498060)

Hey, didn't British send their common criminals to Australia, religious nuts and crooks to America? With only two latter conditions being hereditary? Australians were supposed to be the sane ones!

TFA

University of NSW senior psychology lecturer Jason Mazanov said the emails were indicative of a ''closed room'' mentality where people have lost all sense of what is normal.

They must've been originated from America: with this big space available, the Australian can't stand closed rooms...

Re:Why in Australia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36498192)

Well, the reason why they went to Australia is because they carelessly lost the American colony where some 50000+ criminals, nutters etc went prior to the revolution. So don't be so smug, could be one of your ancestors

US and Australian problems (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498326)

If that's so, why do so many neocons and religious nutters in the US have German or Polish surnames? - though to be fair the Mormons were founded by someone with a British surname, and to my enormous embarrassment a member of my family was on the Great Trek.

The problem with Australia, strangely, is very different. It is not at all about criminals; it is because Australia is a society based on working class British culture which used to be highly unionised. Australians see high incomes and profligate use of energy as their "rights" - and, as we know, Trade Unionists would demand the suspension of the Laws of Thermodynamics if it infringed their members' "rights". They have got away with it because China has an insatiable demand for Australian minerals, but they are failing to develop a goods and service economy based on those minerals, which means the boom will eventually collapse. (Before anyone mods this flamebait, I have numerous Australian relatives, and the views described above come from my Australian uncle, who founded a successful business and yet used to ride a bicycle around Perth. He felt that the Australian economy was in the long term unsustainable - and his descendants have squandered his fortune.

Death worth? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497920)

How many carbon credits can i claim if i kill someone?

Gotta be worth something... They won't be producing carbon ever again. Just maybe some methane as they rot.

Catch the criminals instead protecting scientists! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36497942)

I think it's more important to establish some sort of procedure to catch those who places those threats and have them accused and trialed for their crimes rather than increasing security on university campuses.

Isn't there a some sort of police force in Australia that can set traps, look at e-mail and phone records and find those criminals?

Re:Catch the criminals instead protecting scientis (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#36497972)

Isn't there a some sort of police force in Australia that can set traps, look at e-mail and phone records and find those criminals?

Sure, but there is always the risk that the dangerous offender is the person for whom action speaks louder than words, while the person who makes the threat is all talk.

Cognitive dissonance endgame (4, Informative)

wisebabo (638845) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498002)

As the facts continue to mount against them, these groups...

Climate change skeptics
Evolution denialists
"Birthers" (USA only)

become increasingly more extreme due to cognitive dissonance. I guess the end is when they can no longer even separate the facts from the messengers and having lost the factual battle seek to strike back in any way they can.

How pathetic.

Re:Cognitive dissonance endgame (2, Insightful)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498056)

The sad thing is on slashdot there could easily be a post with your exact same words but applied to climate scientists, and that poster would have absolutely no freaking idea the insane amount of research and easily accessible evidence (realclimate.org for example) that would prove them wrong.

Re:Cognitive dissonance endgame (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36498160)

Evolution denialists

They would be (USA Only) as well.

The rest of the world is not as fundamentally religious as America is.

Inside Job (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36498012)

I'm sure the threats are just something their friends have cooked up, to make them seem more important.

Great (4, Insightful)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498026)

So the plebeians will rant and rave about how great science is when it makes their life easier and more productive (internet, modern medicine, manufacturing efficiency, productivity) but when it shows them changes need to be taken that will cost them a tiny fraction of their annual salary they go nuts. The greed of the average citizen in a capitalistic society knows no bounds.

Re:Great (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498330)

On the other hand we keep voting in people with green policies. Must be some psychological factor at work which makes it easier for us to do the right thing collectively but not individually.

Global warming is not the big problem (2, Insightful)

hessian (467078) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498030)

While I think it's great people want to get involved with the environment, stop and think about this like a computer scientist.

If carbon dioxide produces global warming, we will run into problems as the ratio of humans to trees changes. Soon we will have more humans than trees, which means more carbon dioxide than nature can re-absorb.

The only solution is for us to use less land, and have more trees on it, which requires we have fewer humans.

We're like an obese person on a sofa who can't stop spreading out over the whole thing. Soon there will be no sofa left, only fat. What then?

Re:Global warming is not the big problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36498110)

Stupid people shouldn't be allowed to breed. Two birds, one stone.

Re:Global warming is not the big problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36498134)

That's called eugenics.
And it didn't go over so well the last time it was tried...

Altho it's a good idea... It'll never happen anytime soon.
And by the time we realize it was a good idea.. It will be far too late to do it.

We're boned.

Re:Global warming is not the big problem (2)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498272)

Are trees a new form of algea or something? I thought most co2 was used by algea. Also, humans grow a lot of trees for lumber, lacing the lumber with arsenic to prevent it from decaying and releasing the carbon. I especially like how humans are the only o2 breathers in your example.

Re:Global warming is not the big problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36498302)

what the fuck are you talking about? Where do you think the carbon humans breathe out comes from?

Turnabout (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36498218)

Go find a medical researcher who works with animals and ask him for his death threat collection....

Re:Turnabout (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36498296)

I'm suddenly glad about my CS major. No mathematician or computer scientist ever got threatened for proving an unpopular theorem. :P

Time for the free thinkers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36498262)

It's time for all you free thinkers to get outraged. Just like when Anderson Cooper on CNN runs a story about a gay person getting treated badly, your job is to get outraged. This is kind of like a test of the emergency elitist indignation service. Everyone repeat after me: "I am smart because I repeat what I've been told. disbelievers are stupid because they question what I have been told is fact". After all, global warming... I mean global climate change... is just like original sin in religion, the only difference being global warming is a sin against the earth while Catholics sinned against god. Since we all know man kind is evil and stupid, except for us of course ;) , we must rise to the cause and save the us from ourselves.

Are denialists really that dumb? (0, Flamebait)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#36498270)

Not realising that making a threat to mount a "public smear campaign" not only negates your ability to do so, it in fact destroys your own position?

This campaign of abuse is so incompetent that it's utterly self defeating; any attempt to engage in nuanced debate can now be curtailed simply by labelling the doubter as "one of those denialist terrorists", and refusing to engage with them.

Indeed, if I were a ecomental activist, I'd mount exactly this sort of comedically clumsy campaign in the name of denialists. It works especially well since hug-a-dolphin liberals do actually believe that denialists (i.e. anyone who disagrees with them) are exactly "that dumb".

Bravo, ecomentals. Well played, sirs, madams and non-gender-specificists.

Of course, you're not really saving the earth, you're just inadvertently shilling for the very corporations who are selling snake oil to solve an intractable problem (too many humans), but don't let that stop you, you plucky mentals.

Hockey Stick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36498282)

...senior climate scientist found bashed with one...

Australia' Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36498336)

These are the tough days for the Australia..One after the other natural calamity comes.. God Bless us all !
Information Technology Healthcare [e-igs.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?