Climate Scientists in US Receive Death Threats

Leo Hickman of The Guardian covers the scientists’ reactions and police inaction:

The scientists say the threats have increased since the furore over leaked emails from the University of East Anglia began last November, and a sample of the hate mail sent in recent months and seen by the Guardian reveals the scale and vitriolic tone of the abuse.

The scientists revealed they have been told to “go gargle razor blades” and have been described as “Nazi climate murderers”. Some emails have been sent to them without any attempt by the sender to disguise their identity. Even though the scientists have received advice from the FBI, the local police say they are not able to act due to the near-total tolerance of “freedom of speech” in the US.

The problem appears less severe in the UK but, Professor Phil Jones, the UEA scientist at the centre of the hacked email controversy, revealed in February he had been receiving two death threats a week and had contemplated suicide. “People said I should go and kill myself,” he said. “They said that they knew where I lived. They were coming from all over the world.” The third and final independent review into the issues raised by the hacked UEA emails is due to be published on Wednesday when Sir Muir Russell presents his panel’s conclusions.

Professor Stephen Schnieder, a climatologist based at Stanford University in California, whose name features in the UEA emails, says he has received “hundreds” of violently abusive emails since last November. The peak came in December during the Copenhagen climate change summit, he said, but the number has picked up again in recent days since he co-authored a scientific paper last month which showed that 97%-98% of climate scientists agree that mankind’s climate emissions are causing global temperatures to increase.

Schneider described his attackers as “cowards” and said he had observed an “immediate, noticeable rise” in emails whenever climate scientists were attacked by prominent right-wing US commentators, such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

“[The senders] are not courageous people,” said Schneider. “Where are they getting their information from? They just listen to assertions made on blogs and rightwing talkshows. It’s pathetic.”

Schneider said the FBI had taken an interest earlier this year when his name appeared on a “death list” on a neo-Nazi website alongside other climate scientists with apparent Jewish ancestry. But, to date, no action has been taken.

(story continues at The Guardian…)

A collection of some of the hate emails.

38 Comments on "Climate Scientists in US Receive Death Threats"

  1. tonyviner | Jul 6, 2010 at 6:12 pm |

    Scientists do deserve to die. How else should we handle someone that goes around saying that God doesn't exist, evolution is real, climate change is a threat, abortion is okay, lead in toys is bad, books are good, etc.?

    • Wow, lame strawman bullshit.

      Funny that these so-called scientists whose methods have been revealed as being less than scientific are complaining about death threats when they have been sending death threats to the public for many years now.

      • Wow, lame strawman bullshit.

      • Tuna Ghost | Jul 6, 2010 at 9:29 pm |

        how have their methods been revealed to be “less than scientific”? Are you speaking of their research methods? Or are you speaking of the fact that a couple of them discussed resorting to tactics used by oil companies, crooked governments, big corporations, and politicians in a private email? Be more specific, sir. I sincerely doubt you're in a positition to judge their research methods, but I'm willing to be surprised.

      • Rupert Screwduck | Jul 8, 2010 at 8:28 pm |

        Agreed some peolpe are brainwashed by the men in lab coats “Millgram Experment”. They were busted by there own notes now its you dident see nothing. LOL

  2. “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination […] So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts […] Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
    – Professor Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

    ExxonMobil is giving $10 million a year for 10 years starting in 2007 to Schneider's school to support the AGW scam.

    Make no mistake: Schneider is a Big-Oil funded shill who wants to put you and your family back in the stone-age.
    Not sure how he can get away with calling himself a climatologist, since he's a biologist, but in any case he is to science what Josef Mengele was to medicine.

    I can't believe there are still people who swallow the catastrophic AGW bullshit. I assume all those who still advocate it are either paid shills or antehumous brain donors.

    The Guardian has also published some of emails in question:

    Despite some of them containing the C*-word I doubt their recipients could have been as offended by them as I was by the perversion of science exposed by the liberation of the Climategate documents. Whoever released those files is the greatest hero in history.

    James Hansen – who, despite earning his money by dreaming up AGW horror-fantasies and writing fiction on the subject, is allowed to supervise one of the few global temperature records that would prove he's full of shit – has called for “crimes against humanity” trails for oil company executives who disagree with him. Luckily for oil company executives they're all in on the scam (for the carbon-credit swag, to make their remaining oil more expensive and to cash-in on the useless green tech bubble). A couple of examples:

    BP chief Peter Sutherland KCMG (Bilderberg steering group and Trilateral Commission member): “BP led the industry in recognising the dangers of climate change and we are making pioneering investments in Alternative Energy. I want to make it clear we remain firmly committed to that policy.”

    Shell Oil chief Lord Oxburgh ' “He has told the press he sees “little hope for the world” unless carbon dioxide emissions are dealt with. And climate change makes him “very worried for the planet”. ' (This is the same Lord Oxburgh who chaired one of the “independent” inquiries into climategate, despite his company Shell (and BP) having bankrolled the research under investigation )

    *The C-word is cunt.

    • Tuna Ghost | Jul 6, 2010 at 9:05 pm |

      “Whoever released those files is the greatest hero in history”

      Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah that is so completely retarded I don't know where to begin. Exaggerate much? How is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you write things like that?

      Once again, you bring up the fact that oil companies funding alternative energy source reasearch and climate change investigations as some kind of conflict of interest–and once again, I must say that this is completely within the range of reason. For years oil companies combatted alternative energy AND research towards the effect of fossil fuels on our environment. Now that the problem is too big to ignore, they must be seen to be attempting to help (and try to position themselves to make a dollar). How is this difficult to understand? And what possible motive can there be for MOST OF THE WORLD'S LEADING SCIENTISTS to get behind the idea of man-made climate change if there is no scientific evidence, if it is all a huge scam? I've noticed no one ever answers this.

      • Money is the reason, you fucking genius. Now tell me that you don't earn your money from the scam you support.

        • Tuna Ghost | Jul 6, 2010 at 9:24 pm |

          So the vast majority of scientists are receiving bribes to ignore the lack of evidence? The consensus in the scientific community is completely fabricated and only held together with money? That the majority of scientists are shills who will are willing to completely trash the reputation of themselves and the fields they work within for a few bucks? Does that seem even remotely likely to you? More than the cheaper, easier, and far more reasonable scenario, which is that oil companies are primarily interested in money and realize that climate change info can hurt their profits, and must be seen to be trying to help the shit they've caused?

          • Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. A doubling of it's concentration in Earth's atmosphere will increase global mean temperature by about 1.2°C according to well established principles of atmospheric physics. Since the effect will mostly raise minimum and nocturnal temperatures this will be a massive boon to the majority of the human race which primarily dwells in the world's temperate zones. The IPCC have somehow squeezed 2.5° to 4° (or in fuckwit Hansen's case 6°) warming out of the 1.2C predicted by well founded physical principles.

            Now Tuna Ghost, if that is your real name, I repeat: tell me that you don't earn your money from the scam you support.

          • emperorreagan | Jul 6, 2010 at 10:44 pm |

            I made $164,000 last year lying about climate change on craigslist.

          • Yeah, but the tasting of sperm was a side benefit.

          • emperorreagan | Jul 7, 2010 at 6:52 am |

            Well, everyone who accepts climate change is a cum-guzzling communist afterall.


          • Tuna Ghost | Jul 6, 2010 at 11:28 pm |

            The figues I've heard for how much the temperature will increase changes from report to report, but this is immaterial as even the lowest estimate–the 1.2 you mention– can have significant changes on the environment and is hardly benign. Heat is incredibly important in chemical reactions, and pH can be altered by seemingly innocuous changes in temperature that we hardly notice. that number, the 1.2, can still be magnified by other factors as well, as can it's effects. So “only 1.2” is not a comforting thought, unfortunately.

            Anecdotal evidence is near worthless online, but as someone who HAS ran a couple scams in my life, both successfully and otherwise, I can say climage change looks in no way to be a workable scam, especially given that there are far easier ways to take advantage of the situation, which is exactly what oil companies are doing now.

            I noticed you haven't commented on the majority of scientists, even those not in connection with the organizations you rail against, being in the pocket of…uh…whoever. Is this because you realize it is a very unlikely scenario?

          • Christ, Tuna Ghost, if my granny had wheels she'd be a wagon. Can't you see that the IPCC play up all the negative effects of warming while dismissing the positive effects of same? And then when cooling occurs they say “well counter-intuitively what we said would be warming/reduced precipitation/stronger storms will actually cause cooling/increased precipitation/weaker storms. Can't you see that this is bullshit? If someone claims to be able to predict the future and fails time upon time you tell them GTFO or you're their bitch. Jesus H Christ; haven't you had a woman break your heart? Are you that naively trusting?

            1.2°C warming would significantly benefit a huge majority of mankind.

          • Tuna Ghost | Jul 7, 2010 at 7:35 pm |

            The only scam I support is the one about public education being an actual “education”, and that's only because as a teacher I get paid to do it.

            Your granny's vehicular predicates aside, lets ignore the “science” for a bit and view this is terms of the most likely scenario. You have “reports” saying a significant rise in CO2 levels would only benefit man, and I have reports stating the exact opposite. Since neither of us is a scientist, but just might be reasonably sane people who would like to believe we can spot a scam when it's right in front of us, let's examine the situation in that context.

            So oil companies set up this huge scam called Climate Change, and the accomplished this by bribing scientists. They've been doing this as far back as the early nineties, which is when I first began hearing warnings about what fossil fuels and CFCs may be doing to our environment (perhaps even earlier? I was just a lad in the eighties, but maybe even around then) while at the same time they were still keeping down alternative energy research and starting a disinformation program to keep people off their backs about what their product does to the environment. Now in present day they're paying the vast majority of scientists, whom are all easily bought (let's not examine that while some scientists would “discover” intelligent bacterial life on my nutsack if you payed them enough, most realized long ago that research science is not where the money's at and pursue science for distinctly different reasons), including the signatories of an open letter from scientists to the public in regard to assaults on climate change scientists written over a year ago, which included eleven nobel laureates begging the public to understand some basic scientific facts. These scientists have ALL been bought, including the ones who aren't associated with any organization you rail against. They were purchased and then set at cross-purposes to distract the public from the Oil Companys trying to make their oil more scarce and thus more expensive, and also make money from the “green” movement.

            Allow me to propose a much, much simpler scenario and see if occam's razor, in it's commonly accepted definition, can show us the way. Oil Companys are run by short-sighted greedy motherfuckers who probably knew the terrible things their products were doing to the environment and didn't give a flying fuck. They crushed alternative energy resource research because it was a threat to their energy monopoly. They denied the effects of their product for years and years for the same reasons the tabacco companies did. Now, as the results of their practices are being made public and they can't keep down the green movement any longer, they have to a.) be seen trying to “help” (BP execs saying “we're doing all we can to help”? Suck my ass, you disingenious fuck), and b.) trying to, as was and is always their plan, make money from whatever is going on at the moment. They don't need machiavellian machinations to make their product scarce, that is already taken care of. They don't need schemes to make their product more expensive, there are a hundred ways to do that already. There is a green market that they have to deal with at some point (oil won't last forever) so they may as well get on the wagon already and start making money on the next big thing.

            My scenario is far not only far cheaper, and far easier, and more fitting with the nature of these sorts of companies, it also does not credit them with some sort of preternatural foresight. Which of these two do you honestly see as more likely? Which is cheaper? Which is more fitting with the past behavior of these companies and organizations?

          • Yeah, hilarious right. 3 scientists gripe to each other at a tiny college in England about the corporate disinfo campaign, but somehow that invalidates all the research from thousands of universities and research labs in 120 countries gathered over the past 100 years, all of which points in the same friggin direction.

            It's like goobers who want to sell creationism. Sorry, but all the evidence points in the direction of evolution, sport.

            Climate change denial, creationism… same aggressive ignorance, different day.

          • emperorreagan | Jul 7, 2010 at 8:43 am |

            I'm particularly amused that it's completely blind aggression. The article this message was posted on really doesn't have much to do with climate change research. It's about death threats being sent to scientists by people who object to the findings of their research.

            Climate change in an article title? Time to post a prepared bullshit message out of the handbook!

        • Actually, I put my money where my mouth is buying not only a hybrid to try to protect YOUR ignorant ass (and the morons you'll no doubt spawn) from catastrophic climate disruption, but also bought a Ford hybrid to support American workers too.

          It's called CONSCIENTIOUS decision-making.

          • Rupert Screwduck | Jul 8, 2010 at 8:22 pm |

            You sound like one of those christans you saved us now bless Gia. Ever heard of the Midevil warm period research it but bewarned you may start to not believe AGW.

        • So you find someone who doesn't agree with you and start insulting them? That really, really doesn't bring people over to your side.


      • “Whoever released those files is the greatest hero in history”

        What cracks me up is how many morons who fantasize that global climate change isn't real, who also haven't even read those email files. Oh sure, they've read plenty of conservative commentary ABOUT those emails, but virtually none of those goobers have actually bothered to read them.

        Because if they had, they'd see that there's actually ZERO evidence in them of scientists doing ANYTHING like “admitting that climate change isn't real” or any other bullshite, but rather, all there is are a few scientists talking to each other about how to communicate the urgency of the problem in simple layman's terms to the general public in order to counter the intentional MISinformation being spread by oil industry lobbyists who were hired to create a disinfo campaign specifically modeled on the tobacco industry's disinfo campaign — which said lobbyists and pseudo-scientists ALSO participated in.

        • emperorreagan | Jul 7, 2010 at 8:53 am |

          You mean zero evidence like an independent review finding no evidence of wrongdoing by the scientists involved in “climategate?”

          • Rupert Screwduck | Jul 8, 2010 at 3:12 pm |

            Yea cough independent LOL

          • emperorreagan | Jul 8, 2010 at 4:15 pm |

            Right, because the only way a report could reeeeeeeally be independent is if some dipshit reporter at the National Review can pull a few snippets to support the truth that global warming is a fraud created by communist homosexual scientists to destroy our economy and the baby Jesus.

    • Cool story bro, but why would oil companies back global warming? Are you one of the people who thinks lizards run the planet?

      Seriously, look at your position. Oil companies, who stand to lose the most from alternative energy sources, are first in line to say that global warming is happening? They may be set up to make money off of something, but I don't think they do. Their execs are probably just as worried about it as all of us, but when it comes down to it, its all about money.

      • Rupert Screwduck | Jul 8, 2010 at 3:10 pm |

        here is why smart guy oil will cost more. BP is on of the largest investors in carbon firms. So now who is the conspiracy nut sit and take off that foil hat reptile nut the world a strange place. See did all that stupid talk at the end there really work or help in the discussion NO. Trying to make others look nuts 2 win an argument only makes an ass of you.

        • Oil will cost more, so people will buy less of it, so the oil companies will lose money.

          Next time you try to devise a conspiracy theory to throw doubt on science, try to think things through.

          • Rupert Screwduck | Jul 8, 2010 at 8:14 pm |

            Actually your wrong they will make more money for less product while making money off the carbon trade. Look it up BP is a mojor investor in carbon trading firms.

          • Rupert Screwduck | Jul 8, 2010 at 8:15 pm |

            Also people need oil hence you have 2 buy it.

          • Actually you're wrong. Research “Peak Oil.” As the supply of oil begins to decrease, most people won't be able to afford as much. They'll have to conserve and switch to alternative energies. Hopefully regulations will put Big Oil out of business for good, and the continual poisoning of our air and water will stop.

          • Rupert Screwduck | Jul 9, 2010 at 10:32 am |

            Peak oil is a lie plain and simple. Some of you people think oil is like gold not true gold there is only x amount of gold on earth as it cant form on earth. Oil is being formed each day just under and on the surface of this planet just part of the cycle of life or do you think dead don't decay. Seriously go 2 school and learn or don't pretend 2 know what your talking about.

          • That's ridiculous. Do you really think enough animals are decomposing daily to fuel the industrial world's energy “needs?” It's taken millions of years to create the oil we have. Not all decomposition results in oil. Can you dig up the oil “just under and on the surface” of your back yard and refine it? Of course not.

            Seriously, you might want to be less cavalier with your insults. So far it seems like you've been describing yourself almost exactly.

  3. Rupert Screwduck | Jul 9, 2010 at 10:44 am |

    Climategate Investigations Are Arrogant Insults

    Dr. Tim Ball
    Canada Free Press
    July 9, 2010

    There were two British investigations into the behavior of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) exposed in leaked emails. Both reports provide no answers, no explanations and are only telling for what they did not ask or do and how they were manipulated. The blatant level of cover up is frightening. These are acts by people who believe they are unaccountable because they have carried out the greatest scam in history with impunity. The degree of cover up in both cases is an arrogant in-your-face statement that we are the power and are not answerable to anyone. Their cover up almost belittles the ones they are investigating.

    Lord Oxburgh, a member of the House of Lords, chaired the first investigation. His bias and self-interest is barefaced and makes his appointment shameless in its temerity. He is chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, which believes carbon capture is potentially a trillion dollar industry. As James Delingpole reports “Oxburgh has paid directorships of two renewable energy companies, and is a paid advisor to Climate Change Capital, the Low Carbon Initiative, Evo-Electric, Fujitsu, and an environmental advisor to Deutsche Bank. Last month we revealed that Oxburgh had failed to declare his directorship of GLOBE, an international network of legislators with ties to the Club of Rome.” It’s as if they said who stands to gain the most by whitewashing what happened. The Club of Rome connection is most telling, because I have documented their role in initiating, identifying, and pursuing CO2 as the basis of capitalist destruction of the planet.

    Oxburgh was appointed by UEA whose Pro-Vice Chancellor Professor Trevor Davies said he believed he would lead the investigation “in an utterly objective way.” We now know this means the objectivity was to ensure the false science claiming CO2 was causing global warming would be objectively maintained.

    UEA consulted the Royal Society in selecting Oxburgh. They blithely ignored the fact he is a Fellow of the Society and that it had a track record heavily biased to supporting the false science of the CRU and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (IPCC). The Society also ‘recommended’ the eleven academic papers to be considered. When Steve McIntyre, who was instrumental in exposing some of the major scientific falsehoods and deceptions exposed by the emails, asked Oxburgh, “a few simple questions about the terms of reference and documentation of this “inquiry”” he received remarkable answers that he summarized as follows; “The net result, as you will see, is that Oxburgh says that they have no documents evidencing the terms of reference of the inquiry or the selection of the eleven papers, no notes, transcripts or other documentation of the interviews with CRU employees and Oxburgh refused consent for panelists to directly provide me with any notes that they might have taken.”
    Brazenness of the entire exercise

    Oxburgh brushes off the entire set of problems and in doing so exposes the brazenness of the entire exercise. “Given the seriousness of the allegations they wanted our inquiry to be completed as quickly as possible both for the benefit of the individuals concerned and for the University’s internal concerns as well as for their wider concerns about the science. The intention was to supplement the wider and more formal Muir Russell review that was already underway and which I believe will report later this year.” His report was simply to stanch the bleeding while the larger whitewash was underway. Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics, expressed the concern about the projected spring 2010 publication date. “This is probably necessary to allow a thorough investigation, but it does mean that those who are using ‘climategate’ as a propaganda tool for their own political ends might be able to enjoy many more weeks of mischief-making.”

    Yes, they might start asking questions and putting doubt in the public’s mind. It might jeopardize the entire global climate scam that is designed to undermine capitalism and replace it with one-world government and total control over everyone in the world.

    Sir Muir Russell was chosen chief investigator of the second committee because as a career bureaucrat he had established a reputation of finding what was required. True, he had no connection to the university or the climate science community, but all that meant was he was easily manipulated and controlled. Evidence of his naiveté appeared quickly with the first people chosen to help the investigation? One was the editor of the journal Nature with disturbing connections to CRU and Climategate who sensibly withdrew. The other was Geoffrey Boulton who failed to disclose connections to the UEA. Despite this, Russell kept him on the committee. As Bishop Hill reports, Boulton said, in effect, that he had tricked poor Muir Russell. While Russell may have intended to “select” Team members on “the basis they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science”, Boulton had a different idea.

    It is no surprise the final report is a complete whitewash. As McIntyre notes, “They adopted a unique inquiry process in which they interviewed only one side – CRU. As a result, the report is heavily weighted towards CRU apologia – a not unexpected result given that the writing team came from Geoffrey Boulton’s Royal Society of Edinburgh.” There’s that Royal Society connection again. The report exploits lack of knowledge or understanding of climate science just like the CRU and IPCC. They couldn’t allow involvement of experts who knew the science and how it was manipulated.

    But the omissions are more basic and ones everyone can understand. For example, why didn’t they trace the source of the leaks? Why were only some of the emails leaked? Russell’s report chastises CRU for failing to provide data on request and for being secretive or refusing Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. What drove them to do this with information obtained and produced by public funding? It doesn’t matter how much climate science you understand, the level and extent of avoidance goes beyond laziness, time consumption as they tried to claim or any other excuse. Ironically, Phil Jones, Director of the CRU, provides the answer in his email response to Warwick Hughes request for information on how he produced the claim that global temperatures had risen 0.6°C since the end of the 19th century. This claim, with the falsified hockey stick, was central to the 2001 IPCC Report used as the scientific basis for global warming. Jones replied on 21st February 2005, “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” Jones never disclosed the information and then said it was lost. These actions were symptomatic of the entire activities at the CRU and then the IPCC. Those using human induced global warming for political and economic ends could not allow anyone to find there was something wrong with the data or the method. Instead they laugh in our faces with the most transparent, manipulated brazen cover up possible.

  4. That’s ridiculous. Do you really think enough animals are decomposing daily to fuel the industrial world’s energy “needs?” It’s taken millions of years to create the oil we have. Not all decomposition results in oil. Can you dig up the oil “just under and on the surface” of your back yard and refine it? Of course not.

    Seriously, you might want to be less cavalier with your insults. So far it seems like you’ve been describing yourself almost exactly.

Comments are closed.