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)
If the abusers actually carried out their threats then everything changes obviously.
The language of the emails give some hints as to the nationality of their senders. Here is a quick (unchecked) look. Most seem to be US in origin, one Canadian, four Australian or UK. The remainder, no obvious (to me) clue as to nationality.
US
23-Nov-09 "kick the shit out of you" US?
24-Nov-09 "Faggots" US?
24-Nov-09 "asshole" US?
25-Nov-09 "-0800 (PST)" US?
25-Nov-09 "POS" US?
25-Nov-09 "boundaries of the U.S." US
26-Nov-09 "gun" US?
27-Nov-09 "came to your resscue in WW1..." US
16-Feb-10 "better yet" US? [Brit would be "better still"]
29-Jan-10 "scumbag" US?
07-Feb-10 "asshole" US?
23-Nov-09 "I do believe" US? (sounds American to me. Brit would be "I think")
Canadian
23-Nov-09 "canadian 1 man swat team" Canadian
Australian
23-Nov-09 "backside" Aus. [see Crocodile Dundee]
UK/Australian
23-Nov-09 "humour" UK? Aus? (not US spelling)
(no date) "wanking" UK? Aus?
28-Nov-09 "wanker" UK? Aus?
The last two are not US, unless the vocabulary of the US underclass has expanded recently - which, with the internet, is not impossible. The word was not in the US vocabulary at least until the 1980's.
In the 1970's, the CEO of the Wang (US) computer company took some convincing that "Wang Care" would not be a good choice of name for its customer support organisation.
How strange MikeHaseler that the last uptick so neatly coincides with the PR company's strategy.
Eli Rabett
(I apologize for misspelling your name before)
I noted while visiting you own thread on this thread that the commenter you quoted above so approvingly ended with an important line which you omitted. After the obligatory swipe at Delingpole your commenter ended with,
"There are plenty of historical precedents of this kind of hateful targetting of outgroups. None of them are pretty..."
You seem to be an intelligent guy, so I am puzzled by your inability to understand why it is the diverse band of "skeptics" on climate issues who are the endangered, menaced "outgroup" here, in every relevant way. We are bullied, harassed, menaced, defiled all over the place. The "messages" which pour out continually in the media and policy worlds from abusive activists, academics, policy officials, and many activist-scientists like Mann and friends are extreme in their attempts to deprive us of any legitimacy or place in democratic politics.
On the one hand, we have a bunch of nutty abusive emails, nearly all (likely) sent from thousands of miles away, few with any hint of a credible threat. Reasonable, decent people condemn these types of messages but ALSO condemn your dishonest attempts to smear all "CAGW skeptics" with bad words from a few anonymous fools.
There is a great asymmetry of faux concern from you and your disciples.
For on the other hand, we have the real and continual, massive verbal abuses (and worse) of "skeptics" of whatever ilk in the climate debates. You and your disciples habitually invoke the (holocaust) "denier" meme to smear everyone in your way. You strive to discredit and demoralize us, to deprive us of any legitimate say in these public policy matters. Huge numbers of people are bullied, abused, and menaced into silence or web anonymity with threats to our jobs, our well-being, our livelihoods.
WE (varied as we are, the dissenters from climate orthodoxy) are the threatened "outgroup" here. Do you ever raise your voice against the countless abuses of "skeptics"?? From what I have seen you are instead a prominent malevolent conductor of such abuses on the web.
.
Three emails are dated 7 Feb 2010 - the same date that the "Phil considered topping himself" piece was put out by the Telegraph. It had the appearance of a piece aimed at the sympathy vote.
The Guardian reported:"I asked UEA to clarify what period the Outside Organisation was employed. It (...) did confirm that its first meeting with the company was on 4 February, 2010".
Jun 14, 2012 at 4:23 PM | Martin A
Jun 14, 2012 at 4:15 PM | MikeHaseler
- - - - - - -
Martin A & MikeHaseler,
The graph of time and the language tabulation are interesting.
As to where the initial set and subsequent set of emails came from, I found interesting the following comment by Steve McIntyre at WUWT: {all emphasis by JW}
John
In the good old days the team would have lived in France, their lies would have been discovered, they would have been manacled, led through a crowd of abusers who would not only throw profanities but also rotten fruit. Then they would have been decapitated, now that was real justice ^.^
WUWT:
Carbon Corruption
Iran, North Korea, Sudan rack up millions by trading U.N. carbon credits
The U.N. is funneling millions of dollars worth of tradable carbon credits to corrupt nations worldwide, including Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Uzbekistan in an attempt to encourage clean energy projects in the developing world.
The U.N. Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is defined in Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol. Western European countries fund energy projects in the developing world in order to obtain Certified Emission Reduction credits (CERs), tradable credits that enable Europeans to count foreign emission reductions towards their own domestic emission reduction targets.
All credit to Phil and the boys, keep up the good work folks.
Dung. Something gives me the impression you have been somewhat incensed by the wrongdoings of "The Team".
Jun 14, 2012 at 4:24 PM | omnologos
I thought so, too! Perhaps my Jun 14, 2012 at 12:55 PM (mostly) tongue-in-cheek speculation:
might have some merit, after all. Particularly when one considers Wallis' known "connections" (not to mention his "unknown" connections!)
You could be right Splitpin hehe
Since the CRU unit seems to no longer have a problem with FOI releases, I urge the whistler blower to release the password to the encrypted portion of the 2nd ClimateGate release.
Pretty please :)
Jun 14, 2012 at 12:59 PM on this thread, I posted:
The UEA has now responded to another FOI request for death threat emails, including the two referred to in the Telegraph.
The response includes the following:
...Additionally, pursuant to your rights under section 1(1)(a) of Freedom of Information Act 2000 to be informed whether information is held, we do not hold some of the requested information. Specifically, we do not hold any recorded information that identifies the two death threats "... that arrived after the information commissioner delivered his "verdict"" We certainly received abusive email directed at Prof. Jones during the relevant timeframe but we do not have any recorded information that identifies exactly what Prof. Jones was referring to in his statement quoted in the Telegraph of 7 February 2010.
Evidence for these two "death threats" mentioned in the Telegraph is evidently nonexistent. It seems certain that their existence was not verified by the Telegraph reporter. In view of recent history, it seems reasonable to conclude that this was a fabrication, aimed gaining the "Poor Phil" sympathy vote.
They should have thought of that before they decided to use Mikes Trick to Hide the Decline
If they hadnt of got caught no one would have ever heard of the UEA
Play it up as much they like .They are all still Guilty
Those naughty Emails cant be me theres no spelling mistakes
"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." - Dung.
Maybe not quite.
Taking the first page it was more like 30/70 and some of those weren't quite 'unequivocal'.
Dung's own contribution was firmly part of the latter;
" I am glad Jones got these emails..."
and that after comparing Jones to Adolf Hitler.
Plenty of apologetics here for extremism and violent rhetoric.
But, but... but, but, but... but...but...
Is this all you see, J Bowers?
.
When did Gleick find the time to write all of these emails?
I have no doubt there are enough raving nutters out there that these are probably almost all real, though I do not discount the possibility that some could be false flag ops.
What about you, Mr. Montford? Surely, you have received some vile ramblings on occasion? I would suspect that the number of death threats one receives is directly proportional to one's impact on the discussion.
Michael
I would not write hatemail to Phil Jones and nor would I call you a piece of shit which is the compliment you paid to me earlier. However yes I am glad Phil Jones had his cage rattled for a change since reasoned argument, FOI requests and politeness do not seem to have any effect.
[Snip - Godwin]
"Is this all you see, J Bowers?"
You mean like the second comment after yours (Jun 16, 2012 at 12:01 AM Sean ), which goes...
"When did Gleick find the time to write all of these emails?"
Good that the Bish condems the hate mails. A pity about a number of his followers.