Wednesday
Jun132012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill UEA death threats published
Jun 13, 2012 In the wake of the death threats that weren't at ANU, several people sent FOI requests to the University of East Anglia asking for copies of the death threats that they said Phil Jones had received. The relevant emails have now been released and can be seen here
Be warned, this is very, very ugly stuff, and there are several messages in there that seem to me to be criminal.
Colour me disgusted
Reader Comments (172)
This is typical denialist stuff and you can see more of it in these comments here. And we have all of you folks repeatedly insisting that climate scientists were lying about receiving this stuff. Rather, it is Delingpole and the rest of you who lie every third word.
" I think there is a touch of the beast in all of us and it shows itself in frustration. Those that write hate mail probably do not know how to better articulate their frustration. "
Over and over here one can see this rationalization ... hateful ignorant dishonest deniers were *frustrated*, poor things. Completely lacking in genuine skepticism, so many of you are motivated by views like johanna's: "Of course they are vile, but once again I am amazed at the preciousness of people who want to drive major changes in the way we live without any consequences." Totally beyond you is the possibility that you might be wrong, or that Phil Jones might be as convinced of his views of AGW as you are of yours and that he is genuinely presenting the science as he sees it, not wanting to drive major changes and all that hoohaw which has nothing to do with science but everything to do with your political ideology.
When I want to show people what the global warming denialist mentality is like, I don't point them to death threats, I point them to pages like this where they can see just how thick the intellectual dishonesty is.
Thanks, Simon, for clarifying the issues around your FOI request. It is indeed remarkable how the speed and alacrity with which this request was processed contrasts with the treatment of other FOI requests!
But, almost all of them were not death threats in any sense, just abuse, as with the ANU "death threats" that turned out to be nothing of the kind. It raises the question (as the ANU case did) - if they really thought they were death threats, why did they not contact the police, or even do their own investigation? Calling them 'death threats' after the event, having done nothing about them at the time, seems to be a recurring pattern here.
That's a rather remarkable bit of illogic coming from someone claiming to be a "ThinkingScientist". How could instances of condemnation of the emails possibly refute an assertion about "the more demented amongst you"? Unless you are claiming that those who are condemning the emails are the more demented ones here? ZDB's assertion is confirmed, and your ridiculous blather utterly refuted, by statements such as that by Mark F: "Um, Phil wrote most of them? The language and mood suggest a lame attempt at sympathy-getting."
The lack of rationality in some of these comments is stunning. Of course you can have it both ways ... unassuming scientists, quietly beavering away, get heard about all the time when their work has significant consequences.
mk, you're coming over as exactly the sort of chap, or chaps, who would send abusive emails, you're certainly sending abusive posts, which isn't common on this site. You're also setting up strawmen, the vast majority of posts, and the site owner, have unequivocally condemned the emails.
"When I want to show people what the global warming denialist mentality is like, I don't point them to death threats, I point them to pages like this where they can see just how thick the intellectual dishonesty is."
Nicely put.
Your point about Jones not being politically motivated, but I have to tell you that his first comment about CA was that it seemed "right wing". I'd have thought a scientist would have commented on the audits rather than the politics of the site, which, by the way, are politically neutral.
I don't know what anyone else thinks but I believe you're lowering the tone of the site with your foam flecked rantings.
geronimo, you're exactly the sort of dishonest person I refer to. This thread is full of abusive claims about Phil Jones, and your own ad hominem claim that I'm "exactly the sort of chap" is quite in contradiction with many of the statements here about the sort of people who sent these emails and the sort of language that was used in them. One of the most radically intellectually dishonest assertions here is that they mostly read like they are from the same person.
"the politics of the site, which, by the way, are politically neutral."
Oh, but that tops it. I quoted johanna's ideological, not scientific, opposition to AGW claims, and the posts at this site are thick with that sort of thing.
Your silly assertion about "foam flecked rantings" and lowering the tone of the site is as dishonest and selective as "ThinkingScientist" attempting to refute a point that no one here has withdrawn the claim that climate scientists made up the death threats by irrelevantly quoting people voicing disgust at the emails while at the same time ignoring the relevant comments that actually did reinforce the meme, and never quoting any comment that actually did withdraw the claim.
Sorry, but what you *claim* to believe means nothing to me because it's transparently false and so is your motivation. Again, I *will* point to this thread, and comments like yours, to illustrate the intellectual dishonesty of deniers. If you think that it does not illustrate that, then you have no beef.
Sorry, I misread that ... you're making a claim about CA, not this site; but your claim about CA is also false. And what you claim you would have thought a scientist would do is irrelevant. To someone as familiar with the climate science and with the sociology of the non-scientific discussion of it as Phil Jones is, what stands out and is relevant is the obvious political ideology that permeates the denier sites. It's like Richard Dawkins coming across an anti-evolution site and remarking that it seems religious ... in his experience, such sites are not the place to go for, or to expect, valid science.
"You're also setting up strawmen, the vast majority of posts, and the site owner, have unequivocally condemned the emails."
As I said, the irrationality is strong on this site. I never mentioned the site owner, so it is you who are attacking a strawman. As for what "the vast majority of posts" do, that's a point of dispute between us, so it would not be me setting up a strawman, at worst it would be me making a false claim. But I don't think my claim was false ... the posts are riddled with rationalizations like the one I quoted. And then there are the numerous people saying they have no sympathy for Jones and in various other ways weakening the condemnation, people disagreeing with Steve McIntyre that the emails are despicable, people questioning the authenticity of the emails, and people even accusing Phil Jones of writing them. No, it was no strawman, I told the truth, unlike you.
Goodbye and have a nice century, if you can.
We have a AAA grade troll on the loose.
Would commenters please calm down.
Troll comments and follow-ups have been removed. Please DNFTT.
"Goodbye and have a nice century, if you can."
Make sure the door won't hit you on the ass.
troll = ad hominem for someone you don't agree with or with an POV unpopular at the site. But that's ok, I've had my say.
mk, for all your apparent moral superiority, you seem to actually relish the fact that Phil Jones received these emails just so you can come on sites like these to express your moral indignation.
Sorry but forgive me if I do not bow down to your outrage. I think you are stretching your rhetorical abilities a bit too far in this instance. Probably best to try it on a more sympathetic site.
To paint every sceptic as the equivalent of flat earther-creationist-denier is not doing your "argument" any justice at all.
And another few thousand hungry people have died.
No one who works on, or comments on, climate should receive emails such as as these.
I am horrified that some commentators come close to condoning the actions of the trolls. To suggest, as some have done, that emails wishing Jones were dead or would commit suicide are not death threats, is sophistry of the worst kind.
mk,
Whilst a lot of us here disagree with the abuse of Phil Jones - perhaps you should take a look at his conduct.
Has he apologised to the family of John Daly for calling his death 'Cheering News' for example. Has he answered Doug Keenan's allegations of fraud which you can read about here: http://www.informath.org/pubs/EnE07a.pdf
Also your attitude and the use of the denier word makes you no better than the people who sent the abusive e-mails to Phil Jones. It really does not help if you cannot keep your cool or be at least civil.
Thank you anyway.
Jun 13, 2012 at 1:51 PM | johanna
With you Jo'.
On real and fantasy violence: The Guardian at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/14/alfredo-sirkis-rio-20-activist
is reporting on the founder of Brazil’s Green Party, Alfredo Sirkis
You heard that. Big Alfredo is feeling frustrated. He feels his ecosystems are threatened. Climate is the big absence. Have I made myself clear?
Are these the people Gleick and Jones are taking their orders from?
Sigh, the AGW true believer grasp of reality is feeble in all areas, not just their obsession on climate apocalypse. AGW fanatic need to grasp any straw to sustain their faith is on great display here.
The e-mails are rude. They are few. A couple even rise to the level threat. They should not have been sent. And they do not make climategate any less damning. Nor do they validate AGW hype and deception.
They are clearly great troll food.
Color me unsurprised over our troll's desperation.
If I were Phil Jones I would have just deleted these emails and advised my colleagues to do the same
Funny isn't it mk is just the proof you need that these e-mails sent to Jones where not sent by any rational level minded intelligent human being but the abusive rantngs of a lunatic.
@Ecclesiastical Uncle If your looking for Zed just head over to the Daily Wail for her trolling.
I must confess. I have said vile things about AGW worshippers - after Climategate and these 'friends' wouldn't even read a news story about them from the UK.
It is true, and I still won't apologize to Amit's brother (both from India): he's still an ignorant idiot.
By way of a quick follow-up, in my FOI to the UEA I had also requested some detail about consequent actions by UEA as a result of each of the threats they received. As Bish and others noted, some of these threats do appear to be criminal in nature. UEA did not respond with this particular detail.
In anticipation of this, I had also put in a FOI to Norfolk Constabulary:
They responded this morning:
Sorry, everyone, for being a little troll obsessed at the moment.
What is the evidence for the often touted claim that BH's troll-in-chief is indeed a female?
Contrary to many commenters here, I have always been under the impression that ZDB is male and not female.
Simply speaking, he writes as if he is a 'he'. Also, no woman would be as ugly as ZDB. From my experience, you tell a woman to p*** off and you are not likely to see her again (unless she is your wife), most unlike men who stay to soldier on.
I really would like to see some evidence that ZDB is female before I call her 'she'. Otherwise, charges of sexism would be perfectly warranted.
"... most unlike men who stay to soldier on".
Talk about sexism.
Will 'soldier on trolling' make it sound any better?
Simon
Presumably, UGLY and potentially criminal that they are, as lot of emails seemed to have come from the USA?
likelyness of being able to take action against them, or likeyness of emailer taking anyfurther steps than abusive emails, was small?
What is the evidence for the often touted claim that BH's troll-in-chief is indeed a female?
Contrary to many commenters here, I have always been under the impression that ZDB is male and not female.
Jun 14, 2012 at 11:14 AM sHx
I'd categorise Zed's behaviour as obviously male. However, long ago, Zed objected to the assumption that they were male. Some commenters then assumed Zed was female but I think the question was left undecided.
But who cares?
Barry, indeed. It was fair to wonder, if death threats had been received, why then were no arrests of perpetrators made? Moreover, did the lack of arrests mean that no death threats had been made? I thought it important to get clarity on this. Speculation is no substitute for examining hard evidence.
Now that we can see the threats, we can postulate our own hypothetical reaction. Had I been the UEA, I think I personally would have provided the police with the emails and let the police make the decision to pursue, or not, the originators of the threats. I'm a little surprised UEA didn't do this, but that was their call to make at that time. Perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight, they might have made a different call. On that, we'll probably have to continue to speculate. :)
One of Eli's commentators described what is happening here
1: Abuse.
2: Contemptuous denial that any abuse has occurred.
3: Grudging acknowledgement that abuse has occurred, but it's the abusee's own fault, combined with nit-picking about what constitutes a threat that would never be applied to verbal thrusts directed at the 'skeptic's own precious carcass.
4: Revisionist claims that any grudgingly acknowledged abuse is actually all a ploy anyway because we all know the abusees are actually the abusers.
Simon Hopkinton's "guess" that
is not even worthy of contempt, given the many sad examples we have of people who HAVE committed suicide when confronted with overwhelming hate
Sometimes being quiet is the best policy.
Jun 14, 2012 at 11:04 AM | Simon Hopkinson
This is somewhat at odds with:
[quoting part of your request to UEA:]In each instance, please also provide information regarding any action taken by the scientist, department or university in response to these messages (eg. informing the police, etc).
But it would seem to be consistent with (from Palmer's June 8 response):
I'm sure both are being truthful in their own carefully bureaucratic way, which might explain the contradiction. So, reading between the lines, so to speak, my guess would be that UEA sent Norfolk Constabulary pretty much the same as we have now seen (thereby making them "aware"). But with senders' names and E-mail addresses not redacted, one would hope!
In which case, Norfolk's finest would have said, well, if you want us to investigate, we need the full headers. And - for whatever reason - UEA could not (or would not!) deliver.
So, while there is no dispute that the emails were foul-mouthed and abusive, neither UEA nor the Norfolk Constabulary have given any indication of "awareness" of any "death threat".
Oh, well ... Perhaps Neil Wallis arranged for one or more of his unsavoury contacts to send the emails, just so the claim of "death threats" could be made, but never have to be proven!
Declaration:
I deprecate the sending of abusive or threatening emails.
However, despite the rude words, I don't find them specially shocking. It's the everyday vocabulary of the US underclass - I lived in the USA for a while and met people who expressed similar sentiments in similar language.. I certainly find them no more shocking than some of the sentiments of violence in the climategate emails.
However, some things don't add up 100%.
.
.
1. Did the UEA consider them to be threats to kill UEA staff?
The UEA has described the emails as "death threats", yet does not seem to have treated them as such.
In their response to the FOI request, they say "A tranche of abusive emails was sent to the Norfolk Constabulary on 23 November 2009..." (Only seven of the 27 emails had been received by 23 November.) "There is evidence Mr Mosley forwarded further emails on 2 December 2009." Clearly they were treated as evidence of a serious crime against UEA staff by neither the UEA nor by the Norfolk Police.
My conclusion.
UEA considered the emails as abusive, not as death threats. So announcing that Phil Jones had received "death threats" was playing the "Poor Phil" card.
.
.
.
.
2. Was the report that Phil Jones received two death threats after the FOI "verdict" correct?
On 7 February 2010, the Telegraph said "...he is still receiving death threats, with two more arriving last week after the deputy information commissioner delivered his verdict".
The deputy information commissioner, on 29 January 2010, "delivered his verdict".
So two "death threats" were said by the Telegraph, to have been delivered after 29 January 2010 and before 7 February 2010.
None of the emails released have a date in this range, although there are two emails with no dates given.
My conclusion:
The statement that Phil Jones received two death threats after the deputy information commissioner "delivered his verdict" has not been confirmed and there seems reason to doubt it.
Eli, repugnant as they are, these emails are not remotely equivalent to a prolonged academic mobbing or to any other kind of mobbing.
Presumably Eli knows about suicide, of the nerve-cells massive-die-off variety. That'd explain a lot of his odd behavior.
Anyway, all virginal souls wanting to know what kind of comfy environment the average CAGWer sets up for people of a different opinion, I compiled a list some time ago of what came up my way on a single blog site.
Enjoy!
Woodentop,
Thanks for that. Sounds like a legal minefield.
Simon Hopkins,
Thanks for taking the time to make the requests and in providing additional thoughts here.
To speculate: UEA wouldn't want to go anywhere near a court if there was a chance that Jones or others could be questioned under oath or the CRU emails used as evidence for the defence. Though more likely is that they didn't view them as bad enough to warrant the hassle of making a complaint.
Sorry, Simon Hopkinson.
Harry the Programmer did it.
Motive, means, method, all there.
Sorry Harry, just jyoking. Your speling is beter.
Can we also see the CRU-emails that put certain climategate emails (for example "warming periods are only significant locally at between 10-20% of grid boxes") into "context"?
I think there was a 60/40 split in the posts on this thread, 60% unequivocally condemned abusive emails whereas 40% were willing to weigh the actions of the recipient against that abuse.
That suggests that somehow the corruption revealed by the climategate emails weighs less heavilly than verbal abuse. I fail to understand this.
The regular posters on this blog believe that there is no empirical evidence to support the AGW argument.
The members of "The Team" are highly qualified scientists and aware of the need for empirical evidence to support their claims, they must know it does not exist but continue to make their claims and drive global policy on climate. These people know exactly what they are doing as is evidenced by the Climategate emails, so why the sympathy?
They should expect politeness from those who question them but sympathy if some are driven to abuse by their actions, they do not deserve it. Deal with the abusers by all means but no sympathy is due to these people.
Dung by name, dung by nature.
@Michael
I cant say I appreciate that Michael ole buddy ole bean ^.^
Eli
Spot on. Go for it!Your link leads to Google with the first link on that page being to a paper by Pompili et al, Suicide risk and exposure to mobbing which defines mobbing as "systematic psychological harassment in the workplace" (My emphasis)
I doubt that a handful of emails, admittedly highly offensive but apparently the work of a small number of nutters, could reasonably be defined as "systematic".
Simon Hopkinson's argument is correct. Whatever may be the result of persistent and systematic mobbing on adolescents or those identified as being ripe candidates for bullying (which is what it is) in the workplace, the reaction of normal, reasonable well-balanced individuals to this sort of abuse is shock followed by anger.
"One of Eli's commentators described what is happening here"
Eli Rabbet, you and your disciple "mk" have proved yourselves wildly incompetent at summarizing, understanding, or analyzing this thread. While neither of you shows evident incapacity with the English language per se, it appears that neither of you is capable of conducting an honest and civilized discussion of these matters. Your puerile attempts at analysis have not touched my position or the views of many on this thread. You know how to construct a 'strawman" but you merely display your own feeble powers of reasoning.
btw, mk's abusive misuse of the word "denier" ("denialist") with all its intended overtones of "Holocaust denier" is one of the vilest epithets in the contemporary political lexicon. I despise anyone who throws that term around recklessly and dishonestly. Abuse of that word by people who should know better is far more contemptible than nutty abusive emails from mentally infirm nonentities.
Ask Eli Rabbit about Elsevier and the systematic harassment of Ed Wegman.
It is a miracle no one has yet committed suicide I guess.
... because Dung you are only a few steps away from terrorism... justification is a very slippery slop and unless you have a framework, a marker in the sand, then anarchy will ensue...
I accept the "standard" Sceptic Distribution curb, but it does not mean I have to accept its shifting to the extremes...
And my parents were working class communists in their courting days, so my opinion is not based on some middle-England repulsion of bad manners.
On this thread there have been some useful forensic insights wrt the emails released by UEA due to the FOI request. Based on past blog investigations, I expect and look forward to ongoing insights about the email sources and authors motives.
The lack of full public disclosure of the email metadata and author identification is an insurmountable barrier to resolving all questions about the emails.
As has consistently been the case, in situations involving UEA/CRU and Jones, the info needed to resolve questions must be fought for tooth and nail. OK, I think the fight for info will persist for a long, long time.
I thank Bishop Hill for providing this venue.
John
Bish!
It's back!
Zed: "The only people who make the link [denier] with the holocaust is people like you".
No, Zed, see for example:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Suche?search=leugner&sourceid=Mozilla-search
There's an analysis of the timing of these emails here. This shows that they came in two batches. The first started on the day the UEA issued their denial that they had done anything wrong (they broke FOI law) and "the trick was just being clever". The second lot came after the PR consultant suggested they play the "Phil Jones felt suicidal" card to get pity.
Obviously, no one condones the emails ... but at least this appears not to have been instigated by sceptics as it appears the obnoxious minority were responding to the UEA.
@Jiminy Cricket
I am a million miles from terrorism, however I may not be a million miles from beleiving that change is needed and revolution would be one possibility since all of us in the UK are currently disenfranchised.
Writing abusive emails is not something I would get involved in but I can see how some people would see it as the only way to right a wrong.
What I do not understand is that the behaviour of "the team" is seen as acceptable but the behaviour of the abusers is totally unacceptable?