Thursday, May 10, 2012
ANU emails - reactions?
They have been out now for over 24 hours, and in a word, blogwise, zilch.
Simon Turnill made the original FOI request for the emails. He was excitedly chronicling every step in the blogfuss based on reading meanings into comments of the Privacy Commissioner on what might be in the emails, made in the finding on his appeal.
Based on these speculations, WUWT pronounced BREAKING: “Death threats” against Australian climate scientists turn out to be nothing but hype and hot air. But I guess Anthony pronounced Game over.
So now they could actually read them and verify, right? Well, no. Simon Turnill has not posted them. Complete silence there. I posted a comment at WUWT - just one comment in response (we're all bedwetters).
My blog software lets me count how many people tuned in from other sites to link to the emails that I posted. From WUWT, just two. From Bishop Hill, where I also posted a notice and there was some discussion, there were four.
The Australian does have an article, which focusses on the "forced to release" angle. Very little about the outcome of their previous speculations. No mention of the main incident. And they haven't made the release accessible either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
What is your reaction to the self outing of the alleged shooter on Catallaxyfiles.com? here
ReplyDeleteAssuming this is correct, it would appear that no death threat was made or inferred.
Yes, it would. Undoubtedly, in these situations all kinds of misunderstandings are possible. It would be good to hear from others present.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think Steffen's immediate response to the report he received was what he had to do.
Apparently the story is so dead that WUWT has yet another story about it being a dead story (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/11/death-threats-against-climate-scientists-story-deader-still/). I thought a dead story was one that people didn't write about, but septic-land is a funny place. I'd tell him this myself but I'm banned. I see (from that and his "troll bin" stuff) that AW is pretty well abandoning the pretence that "unlike the warmistsas we don't censor anyone".
ReplyDeleteWilliam,
DeleteYes, there was a bit more discussion of "opposing views" here.
Dear Nick,
ReplyDeleteIt is a strange day when I find myself agreeing with some of William Connolley's snark - but 'AW is pretty well abandoning the pretence that "unlike the warmistsas we don't censor anyone"'.
I'd like to cross post the following at your blog too -
Alex Harvey says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 12, 2012 at 7:27 am
Dear Anthony,
You wrote to Nick Stokes above,
“You were put on troll moderation YESTERDAY, not after I made this post, and you know this. Both you and Appell can’t seem to embrace humility, or to even admit you’ve been wrong, try it sometime. Until then, you get the slow lane.”
I agree with you that the ANU death threats turned out to be a ruse and I strongly disagree with Nick on this. But I respect his right to hold a contrary opinion, and his right to freedom of speech. I thought this is something skeptics all stand for? Moreover, Nick is exceptional among AGW defenders in that he is always respectful and polite.
In my mind, you do huge damage to your credibility by putting people like Nick on ‘moderation watch’ and announcing that here, and I urge you to take him off it again and offer him the apology he deserves.
Alex Harvey
Thanks Alex,
DeleteI suspect that when things calm down, a modus vivendi will be restored.
One has to ask why anyone would carry a kangaroo culling licence on a planned attendance at a climate conference.
ReplyDeleteIf I had that morning passed the test I may still carry it.
But I do not even carry my driving licence, marriage licence, dog licence, or TV licence.
Why would I need to prove I can kill kangaroos legally at a climate conference!
Interesting (but probably irrelevant) links referencing Coochey:
http://www.ssaa.org.au/asj/asj-2001-v3-1.pdf
http://www.ssaa.org.au/asj/asj-1999-v1-2.pdf
http://www.mensrights.com.au/page13z2.htm
http://onemansweb.org/men-s-business/men-women-and-violence/men-behaving-badly-2.html
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3737400.html
I found Mr Coochey's explanation quite reasonable, although I wouldn't wish to make a completement judgment before hearing from the people who found it scary. But we don't have to make judgments.
DeleteHow big is a kangaroo culling license, tfp? Not a rhetorical question.
ReplyDeleteIf it fits in my wallet, I'd probably keep it with me, along with my fishing license, and other such documents.
Are you a death thread dead-ender?
Alex, I also agree with WC on this one to.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't simply a matter of censorship versus non-censorship, it's a matter of ethical behavior and respectful treatment of your opponents.
This isn't the first time somebody had to wheel AW in on this. It has become a pattern for him.
You were saying.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Eli, yes, I think it does correspond. I've posted an update on the other thread.
DeleteA bit late but I thought I'd add this for non Aussie readers. Our licences are credit card sized, generally laminated and are designed to fit into a wallet.
ReplyDeleteAs our laws require us to have the relevent licence on our person when doing whatever the licence is for, we tend to just keep them all in our wallet at all times.
So there is nothing unusual in having a culling licence on your person while at a dinner. You'll probably have your drivers licence, forklift licence and a number of others as well.
It's easier to keep them all in your wallet than try to work out which ones you might need during the day.