Australian Climate Scientists Get Death Threats.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Thu Jun 09, 2011 16:25

All you have to do is ask who drives the carbon-rich economy squanderlust. BIG OIL/COAL.

Queensland is China's coal bunker, and the extractors cant be pleased with the El Nino/La Nina driven violence of recent events and the growing awareness something is askew.

Then recall Ken Saro Wiwa, and what he endured before he was finally fitted up for the swingboat with his fellow objectors to the pollution of the Niger Delta in Ogoniland.

Warning shots. SOP. Standard Operating Procedure, from Latin American union intimidation to South African anti-apartheid campaigners to journalists who resist embedding.

by kill them all and let G*d sort them out? Thu Jun 09, 2011 19:25

Richard Glover, a columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald, voices the hate many AGW hysterics feel for those that dare disagree with them when it comes to their almost-religious-like devotion to the theory that a rise in CO2 causes a predictable & measurable rise in Temperature - http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/boneh....html

Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.

There is no actual scientific debate you see. There are just left-wingers and right-wingers following their different natures, according to the delightfully totalitarian-like Mr Glover “People on the left instinctively believe in communal action,” says Glover, so they were instinctively receptive when the science claimed immediate communal action to be vitally necessary. to "save the PLANET!!!!" from dastardly CO2.

He even compares 'CO2=AGW' skepticism with what he calls the left's decades long whitewashing of communist regimes.

However in his long smear/argument from intimidation, he never once provides any evidence to support his position. He never counters any of the arguments made by critics.

apparently for Mr Glover asking for proof for the theories favoured by AGW-hysterics is morally equivalent to covering up mass genocide.

AGW-hysterics like Mr Glover no longer have science on their side, all they have left is threats and smugly self satisfied arguments from authority.

by Speranza Fri Jun 10, 2011 00:05

Don t see any death threats against the deniers or against the big Oil or Mineral companies. But across the world you see plenty of environmental activists murdered by the companies and their lackeys. From Brazil to Nigeria to Indonesia to the Phillipines activists and ordinary workers and peasants are slaughtered. In Nigeria they got the state to do the dirty deed but they often set up their own fascist murder gangs recruiting any loons they can find. Plenty of loons who hate environmentalists.

In Ireland we get Shell in action as well. They haven't killed anyone yet but they've come close. They've got the state and their own private militia, which included Hungarian fascists as well as Irish fascists.

Know people by who they defend. The deniers are part of the Big Oils arsenal.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Fri Jun 10, 2011 13:09

Indeed, but then wikileaks revealed the extent to which Shell IS the Nigerian state.

but they wouldn't attempt that here where we have such bastions of the peoples interests and democracy as CJH, Ray Burke, etc. and the Shannon collaborations with the resource warriors.

by yeah but . . . Sat Jun 11, 2011 03:13

Don t see any death threats against the deniers

Nor do I see any death threats against AGW alarmist scientists getting mainstream media approval by being printed in National Newspapers, do you?

I did however see threats of physical violence ('forcibly tattooing') AGW skeptics getting mainstream media approval by being printed in an Australian national newspaper.

For some reason this doesn't appear to bother you, yet you find anonymous death-threats to be worthy of comparison to 'fascists' (which they are), while completely ignoring the the very obvious fascist undertones present in Mr Glovers article proposing acts of violence be carried out against AGW skeptics.(undeniably fascist also)

Your very selective abhorrence is rather one-sided, to put it mildly

by Speranza Sat Jun 11, 2011 13:31

"I did however see threats of physical violence ('forcibly tattooing') AGW skeptics getting mainstream media approval by being printed in an Australian national newspaper."

No one has been forcibly tattooed, just silly hyperbole by a journalist. But people have been hanged in Nigeria by the state on Shells orders. Peasants, workers and activists have been murdered in Brazil, Indonesia, Columbia, Phillipines etc by armed fascist gangs financed by Oil and Mineral companies.

In Ireland Shell have the Gardai and a private security militia to attack local farmers and activists. This security militia has employed Hungarian fascists as well as the native variety.

In the real world those who stand up against the companies have a lot to fear. They even risk their lives.

by Speranza Sat Jun 11, 2011 13:43

Shell Mercenary, IRMS, Paul Arkins who recently punched a female protester is a former member of the PSNI who was thrown out for brutality.

Thrown out of the PSNI? No trouble, Shell/IRMS will hire you.

by know them by their comparisons Sat Jun 11, 2011 13:50

No one has been forcibly tattooed, just silly hyperbole by a journalist

equally no AGW alarmist scientist has been killed - just hyperbole from nutters.

Yet it is undeniable that printing such fascistic sentiments is certainly going to lend such ideas credibility in the eyes of nutters everywhere.

But people have been hanged in Nigeria by the state on Shells orders. Peasants, workers and activists have been murdered in Brazil, Indonesia, Columbia, Phillipines etc by armed fascist gangs financed by Oil and Mineral companies.

as usual you are deliberately confusing things in an attempt to bolster your weak argument - Global Warming scientists allegedly receiving death threats in Australia does not equal " Peasants, workers and activists have been murdered in Brazil, Indonesia, Columbia, Phillipines etc by armed fascist gangs financed by Oil and Mineral companies."

Are you really claiming that 'Oil and Mineral Companies' are financing people to go out and make death threats against Australian proponents of the CO2 hypothesis?

Seriously?

by Speranza Sat Jun 11, 2011 14:07

"Are you really claiming that 'Oil and Mineral Companies' are financing people to go out and make death threats against Australian proponents of the CO2 hypothesis?"

Who do you think is financing these killer gangs across the world? Shell directly intervened with the Nigerian government to get activists hanged.

In Australia, Oil & Mineral Companies will have to pay big carbon taxes. If they finance mercenaries to kill people in Africa, Latin America, Asia then I believe they are capable of funding nuts th threaten and do even worse in Australia.

In Ireland Shell are able to mobilise the state and mercenaries to physically attack activists. No point in denying that.

Why do you feel a need to defend the Oil and Mineral Companies?

by yeah but Sat Jun 11, 2011 14:23

more apples and oranges comparisons from Speranza

you seem to be trying to claim that shell to Sea's campaign against the Rossport gas installation is primarily about Global Warming.

this is quite clearly an erroneous - and apparently deliberately so on your part

a quick look at 'Campaign Aims' page at the Shell to Sea website - http://www.shelltosea.com/content/campaign-aims - proves it to be so

Campaign Aims:

The Shell to Sea Campaign has three main aims:

1)Any exploitation of the Corrib gas field be done in a safe way that will not expose the local community in Erris to unnecessary health, safety and environmental risks.

This point is clearly concerned with the health and safety implications of the proposed pipeline

2) To renegotiate the terms of the Great Oil and Gas Giveaway, which sees Ireland’s 10 billion barrels of oil equivalent* off the West Coast go directly to the oil companies, with the Irish State retaining a 0% share, no energy security of supply and only 25% tax on profits against which all costs can be deducted.

*This figure is based on the estimate, issued by the Department of Communications, Energy & Natural Resources (DCENR) in 2006, that the amount of recoverable oil and gas in the Rockall and Porcupine basins, off Ireland’s west coast, is 10 BBOE (billion barrels of oil equivalent). Based on the average price of a barrel of oil for 2010 of $79, this works out at $790 billion, or €580 billion. This does not take account of further oil and gas reserves off Ireland’s south & east coasts or inland. The total volume of oil and gas which rightfully belongs to Ireland could be significantly higher. Also, as the global price of oil rises in the coming years, the value of these Irish natural resources will rise further.

This point is clearly concerned with the implications of what the Shell-to-Sea organisation view as an 'economic giveaway' of what they clearly view as a resource for economic exploitation

.

3) To seek justice for the human rights abuses suffered by Shell to Sea campaigners due to their opposition to Shell’s proposed inland refinery. .

This point is clearly concerned with the social justice and Human rights implications of the heavy-handed and sometimes violent response by both Shell and the Irish authorities against the campaigners

I for one completely support the aims and objectives of the Shell-to-Sea campaign..

But any rational person, with any respect for 'logic' and honesty, would fail to see how one could honestly attempt to claim that it is connected to any alleged death threats against AGW alarmist scientists in Australia, other than the threat of violence present in both situations.

ANd if it is the threat of violence which connects them, then there is no difference between the threats of violence in those instances and the very clear and obvious threat of violence against AGW skeptics published in that Australian National Newspaper

Personally I consider the threats of violence to be abhorrent in all three cases mentioned, and you obviously do not. In this instance it seems obvious that you only find abhorrent threats of violence against people whose political agenda you support.

The violent activities of Shell in Nigeria, Ireland and elsewhere are abhorrent to most, if not all, people that i've ever heard speak on the subject. The same goes for alleged death threats against AGW alarmist Scientists. I personally have never met anyone that would fail to condemn the threat of violence in such instances

And yet for some reason, despite having 2 opportunities to condemn the threat of violence against AGW skeptics, people you disagree with, YOU seem to be completely unable to condemn similar threats of violence against those that do not share your views on Global Warming.

It appears that for you, Speranza, threats of violence are fine as long as they are made against people who disagree with you on certain subjects you obviously have strong, if IMHO completely misinformed or misguided, opinions.

by yeah but Sat Jun 11, 2011 14:34

Who do you think is financing these killer gangs across the world?

that;s not what I asked

I asked, in plain enough english

"Are you really claiming that 'Oil and Mineral Companies' are financing people to go out and make death threats against Australian proponents of the CO2 hypothesis?"

you seem to be attempting to answer a different question, one that I did not ask.

"In Australia, Oil & Mineral Companies will have to pay big carbon taxes. If they finance mercenaries to kill people in Africa, Latin America, Asia then I believe they are capable of funding nuts th threaten and do even worse in Australia."

SO you are claiming then that the alleged death threats sent to Austrailian AGW alarmist scientists were sent by individuals financed by Oil & Mineral Companies - or at least that certainly is what it looks like Speranza

Pure 100% unadulterated speculation by you.

A purer example of a non sequitur would be hard to find.

It has no more foundation in reality than if one were to make the claim that the AGW Scientists or their supporters are themselves responsible for the death threats, in order to make themselves appear like victims and win sympathy and public support for what has clearly become a politicized issue

Both claims are without any evidence to support them.

by Speranza Sat Jun 11, 2011 14:34

As usual you try to drown out the truth by posting large amounts of material which are not relevant to the issue.

Where have I supported the tattooing of any denier? I said it was silly. It hasn;t happened.

Again: no denier has been tattooed but the oil companies have used the state and fascist gangs to murder and intimidate activists across the world.

Seeing as they are happy to murder activists it would be childs play for these companies to pay a few nuts out of petty cash to threaten the scientists. The scientists threaten their profits just as the activists in Nigeria and Brazil did. Just as the activists at Rossport do.

Why do you think the oil companies wouldn't do this given their record?

by Speranza Sat Jun 11, 2011 14:38

I have posted the evidence of the track record of the comppanies. They loot murder and pillage their way around the globe.

The profits of these oil and mineral companies are directly threatened by the findings of the Australian scientists. Are you seriously suggesting they wouldn't have a few scientists threatened?

by Speranza Sat Jun 11, 2011 14:38

I have posted the evidence of the track record of the comppanies. They loot murder and pillage their way around the globe.

The profits of these oil and mineral companies are directly threatened by the findings of the Australian scientists. Are you seriously suggesting they wouldn't have a few scientists threatened?

by Shell Out Sat Jun 11, 2011 14:51

-Rossport is not about Global Warming

True but it does show how they operate. Get in their way and they will crush you. If you cause them trouble by suggesting their operation is causing global warming then they would stop at nothing.

by yeah but Sat Jun 11, 2011 14:57

Why do you think the oil companies wouldn't do this given their record?

I never said they wouldn't - this is just another invention by you. I said you were making pretty wild allegations about the alleged death threats in Australia without a sliver of evidence.

As usual you try to drown out the truth by posting large amounts of material which are not relevant to the issue.

Speranza - let me explain this to you sloooooooooooowly

YOU posted a story about alleged death threats in Australia, against AGW alarmist scientists

I posted a story about threats of violence, also in Australia, published in a National Newspaper and obviously endorsed by the Editors and publishers of that paper, against AGW skeptics.

You then went on a rant about Shell and Rossport, appearing to imply that the Shell-to-Sea campaign is about Global Warming and that the threat of violence against Shell-to-Sea is exactly the same as that against Aussie AGW alarmist scientists and is financed by the same companies.

I pointed out that Shell-To-Sea is not primarily about AGW, and that the threats of violence in both Australian case were similar and both should be abhorrent to any thinking person, and should both be condemned.

You explicitly disrupted that, spurning opportunities to offer you own condemnation of such threats - and re-iterated that Oil companies were paying people to make threats against the Australian Scientists, completely without any evidence.

Since the thread started off with the story of violent threats in Australia, dragging rossport and Nigeria into it appears to be your own attempt to go off topic by trying to make the thread morph into one a cut&paste hodge-podge running the gamut of Shell, Nigeria, Rossport , Australia, Global warming, Mining and fascist deatrh squads

so as far as I can see the only person posting stuff not relevant to the issue is you.

by yeah but Sat Jun 11, 2011 15:02

Rossport is not about Global Warming

True

thank you for confirming that, shell out

So speranza - threats of violence to be condemned when made by shell or when made against people whose opinions you support

But threats of violence to be dismissed immediately as mere 'hyperbole', even though they gain legitimacy by being published in a National Newspaper, when the target is a group whom you disagree with over a political point.

Just wanted to clear that up

by Speranza Sat Jun 11, 2011 15:07

You can't seem to differentiate between different situations.

The suggest of tattooing deniers comes in a newspaper article by a named jourmalist. It hasnt happenerd.

The threats against the scientists are threats against their life. These are anonymous.

The profits and even existence in Australia of some companies are threatened by the scientists reports.

These same companies have had their profits threatened in other countries, They responded by setting up fascist gangs to murder their opponents and even got the state to judicially murder people in Nigeria.

In Ireland Shell has used the State and mercenaries to attack people.

On the basis of the above I believe that it is reasonable to suggest that Oil & Mineral companies would stoop to hiring loons to threaten scientists.

by yeah but Sat Jun 11, 2011 15:11

http://www.businessday.com.au/business/cfd/shell-calls-....html

actually contrary to what both Speranza and Shell out have implied Shell stands to make quite a LOT of money from new emerging Global Warming inspired Carbon Markets.

Attacking the AGW Scientists would obviously hurt those investments.

The market for oil is however quite secure, and any extra taxes can and will simply be passed onto consumers. And consumers will have little choice but to poay the asking price because they have as yet few alternatives to Hydro-carbons as a source of energy.

AND Shell are also heavily investing in new emerging 'alternative' energy technologies and markets - so no matter what happens - Shell wins - so they really don't need to pay people to make death threats against AGW scientists in order to make money - no matter what happens regarding the future of Energy sources, Shell is well poised to make a lot of money -

I'm not defending Shell here, though I'm pretty sure me saying that won't stop you falsely claim that I am -

I'm just pointing out the glaring holes in your 'logic', such as it is

by yeah but Sat Jun 11, 2011 15:19

The suggest of tattooing deniers comes in a newspaper article by a named jourmalist. It hasnt happenerd.

Speranza the threat appeared in a national newspaper, you admit it yourself - so the THREAT has happened.

The threats against the scientists are threats against their life.

YES they are THREATS - and they too happened. - see the similarity?

But no Australian scientist has been killed as yet. THAT has not happened - see the difference?

These are anonymous. -

My point EXACTLY - the ARE anonymous - yet you claim quite strongly that YOU know who responsible - YOU claim that you know that someone is financing these threats and you have even pointed a finger at who. Without any evidence at all.

The profits and even existence in Australia of some companies are threatened by the scientists reports.

equally future profits of some those same companies , from their heavy investments in emerging markets of alternative technologies and Carbon trading, are actually dependent on the scientists reports being accepted as 'fact'

by Speranza Sat Jun 11, 2011 20:32

The big difference is that Shell have had people killed. No amount of misdirection on your part will change that. The scientists have every reason to fear for their life. The journalist in question has never forcibly tattooed anyone.

You mention of Shell crbon trading is another red herring.

Shell and other companies face a an immediate and serious threat to their profits in Australia. They have a reason to have the scientists threatened. Having killed their opponents in the past having someone threatened would be nothing to Shell.

Shell doesn't start by killing people, thats how they end things.

by yeah but Sat Jun 11, 2011 22:24

Shell have had people killed

someone somewhere in Australia allegedly sent death threats to Aussie AGW Alarmist scientists

AGW Scientists say CO2 causes AGW

Shell does business in Australia
Shell's business apparently causes the release of CO2

The carbon tax will hit Shells business hard (even though it will all probably be passed directly onto the consumer)

THEREFORE, according to Speranza's rather convoluted 'reasoning', the ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION is that in order to protect their profits, Shell simply MUST have paid someone (Austra-Hungarian Fascists?) to send death threats to the AGW Scientists

Q.E.D.?

by yeah but Sat Jun 11, 2011 22:33

You mention of Shell crbon trading is another red herring.

no it ain't - Shell has invested heavily in Carbon trading markets. I posted some evidence of that earlier.

The success of those market investments is DIRECTLY reliant on CO2 continuing to be seen as the MAIN cause of temperature rise. Otherwise the flimsy logic used to justify Carbon Trading becomes even more flimsy. If people suddenly wised up to the fact that CO2 is not a primary driver of temperature, then those investments would probably in all likelihood become worthless.

Without the supposedly 'expert' AGW scientists continuing to demonise CO2 in the manner that they have done until now, support for the need to institute a Carbon Tax might wane considerably

So Shell certainly stands to benefit from continued demonisation of CO2 by the very AGW alarmist Scientists you claim they are sending death threats too.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sun Jun 12, 2011 05:36

'Those investments would probably in all liklihood dry up'

Not by the looks of market behaviour. If you turn on the radio you'll hear the eulogies to Brian the Bold, who, apparently, would have been our great lost leader to extricate us from the mess he and his accomplices dropped us into.

Meantime,despite the part the PD neo-con philosophy played in our bubble-worship the same cheerleaders are all in place and resurrecting the tiger-skin to push a dead economic model even further into cripple creek.

You are presuming that the corporate entities have a longer attention span than other dinosaurs, not an apparent liklihood. They are far from rational in their behaviour, like all herds(see lemmings et al).All that drives them is the search for more fodder. And as the Africans will tell you, when the elephants dance, the ants get crushed.

'Shell certainly stands to benefit from continued demonisation of CO2 by the very AGW alarmist....'

Several suppositions there, adding up to that 'certainty'.

(1) benefit. Thats dubious. That Shell is hedging its bets is obvious, that the greater benefit is restriction of carbon output, is less so. The market in split derivatives was long transparent as fraudulent; those who said so were ridiculed and invited to join the suicide squad. Their voices are still suppressed.

(2) demonisation. There is a difference between demonisation and applying a cautionary principle. Emotive language does not promote rational responses. There is no surplus of rationality at the best of times. These are not the best of times.

(3)AGW alarmist. That, in itself, smacks of alarmism. See (2).

by me Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:57

me: 'Those investments would probably in all likelihood dry up'

Opie: "Not by the looks of market behaviour."

This is just an opinion of yours and means little. The next two or 3 sentences following it are just off-topic nonsense, rambling about Lenihan and the PD's which has nothing to do with the matters under discussion.

"You are presuming that the corporate entities have a longer attention span "

Some of them such as Oil CO's most definitely do - due to the nature of their business these corporate entities have to take a long-term view - they invest massive amounts of capital into long-term project on a regular basis - therefore they have to take a long-term view and plan way ahead. You simply stating that they don't won't make it true, Opie.

Several suppositions there, adding up to that 'certainty'.

(1) benefit. Thats dubious.

NO, it isn't - I posted some evidence of their heavy investment and it's just be silly to deny it - but go ahead and keep doing that if it turns you on

That Shell is hedging its bets is obvious,

no it isn't - you'd have to actually post some evidence to support your supposition - and I notice you failed to do that - so it really is just your opinion, Opie, but you've shown no evidence as to why your opinion is worth anything when commenting on this matter since you posted nothing that supported that opinion.
that the greater benefit is restriction of carbon output,

No one ever said it was - as usual that's just something you made up out of thin air - reading what I wrote it should be obvious to any thinking person that I see the new Carbon Markets as just a money-making scam, and for that the Carbon-marketers need the help of the AGW alarmist CO2 demonisers to keep demonising

2) demonisation. There is a difference between demonisation and applying a cautionary principle.

there sure is, but what the AGW alarmists are doing is pure demonisation. For example they have managed to convince the US EPA to classify CO2 as 'a poison'. This is just nonsense - essentially it now seems that according to the EPA all humans on the planet are emitters of poison. Technically that may be somewhat factual but in practical terms is in effect alarmist hysterical nonsense

emotive language does not promote rational responses.

I agree totally - that's why I think the hysterical AGW alarmists should stop using alarmist hysterical language - for example 'Ocean Acidification' is a fine example of AGW hysterical alarmist nonsense since the oceans are not acidic and cannot 'become acidic' just because the alkalinity level changes slightly

(3)AGW alarmist. That, in itself, smacks of alarmism. See (2).

No - IMHO it's a very accurate description of the language they use and their overall behaviour - they constantly use hysterical language, and make grandiose pronouncements regarding future climate changes and it's possible consequences, with loaded and often incorrect, alarmist conclusions.

Many of them are clearly operating to some political agenda rather than having any concern with scientific matters.

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Mon Jun 13, 2011 14:57

'Many of them are clearly operating to some political agenda rather than having any concern with scientific matters'.

that cuts both ways, and your polemical spleen and shifting abuse of any who dont comply with and conform to your monopolistic claim to scientific infallibility betrays your own political methodology.

You present liklihoods as certainties and expect opinionated conviction to persuade, wheras it merely tends to invoke distrust and suspicion of your intent. Since when was that conducive to scientific exploration of areas that have political implications?Or is your case that only those in white-coat uniform are qualified to comment on issues that affect non-technical citizens?That resembles a dictation of druidic priestcraft rather than democratic acceptance of the mutablity of consquences of applied scientific analysis.

You comment on the market liklihood, but when the vagaries of the market are addressed you dismiss valid comment because it challenges your already concluded argument with yourself, and you project views that are neither held or expressed onto comments you fail to consider. And, again, you do it with abuse and condescension. Science?Or an attempt to elicit similar for some Myeresque ego-burnish?you resemble an infalted Krauthammer more than a tentative analyst. So who is indulging in politics?

Science is a means to an end, and does not obviate political concerns. Browbeating those who fail to roll over before your dictation is mere polemical bullying, and smacks of an inflated impression of how much effect or weight your foregone conclusions carry.

Your methodology is that of a marketeer, rather than a COLLABORATIVE and open-minded scientist who recognises thats sets of evidence can conflict, without negating each other. I make no claims to professional scientific training, but neither do I surrender my capacity to detect unscientific certainty where none has been reached.

Anyone confused by these exchanges and wishing to unscramble the polemics and reach an idea of what is afoot could do worse than getting their hands on a wee book the NO-NONSENSE guide to SCIENCE by Jerome Ravetz. It will assist orientation, and provide some immunisation from such one-sided claims and political mendacity as ego-centric me is delivering. You can make up your own mind as to which 'me' is the more (me)ndacious.