Yesterday we were promised that we could discover who is behind the abusive email campaign that so troubles some climate change scientists and journalists. But it’s a bad soap opera – all in the antipicipation and nothing in the delivery.
Without access to ISP logs, it is difficult to trace the emails to a source. However, it is clear that hard-line denialists congregate electronically at a number of internet nodes where they engage in mutual reinforcement of their opinions and stoke the rage that lies behind them.
So he doesn’t know who it is, but he does know where they hang out.
In Australia, a handful of denialist websites stand out. They include the blog of Herald-Sun commentator Andrew Bolt, Bolt’s stable mate Tim Blair at the Daily Telegraph, the website operated by sceptic Joanne Nova (a pseudonym for Joanne Codling), and the community forum site operated by the Queensland farmers’ organisation Agmates. Denialists also flock to the e-journal Online Opinion.
Hamilton is clearly still pissed off with Graham Young and doesn’t provide a link to his site, so here it is.
What evidence does Hamilton have to support his claim that these individuals or their regulars are sending abusive emails to people?
On these sites discussion of the “global warming conspiracy” seamlessly segues into a hodge-podge of right-wing populist grievances and causes, including defending rural property rights, the martyrdom of farming hunger-striker Peter Spencer, the errors of the Club of Rome, blood on the hands of Rachel Carson for causing DDT to be banned, the evils of Al Gore, the plan by the United Nations to dominate the world, and the need to defend freedom and democracy from these threats.
Sounds like gulit by association. In the old country there was substantial abuse of the common law crime of ‘common purpose‘. The state didn’t have to prove that individuals had conspired together to commit a crime or that they even knew each other, the state only had to prove that individuals acted as if they had conspired to act in concert. This is what Hamilton is doing here – people who hold views that he doesn’t like must also be people who would send abusive emails.
Not content with ripping into blogs, it seems the whole of the Australian newspaper is to blame too.
In truth, the most influential source of misrepresentation and ridicule resides in the “heritage media” in the form of the Murdoch broadsheet, The Australian. I will consider its long-running war on science later, but here it is important to draw attention to its role in identifying hate figures for deniers and fueling their aggression.
A newspaper reporting news and opinion that deviates from the government’s official policy? Shocking. What a delicious irony that the government owned and funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation should publish that view.
So why would people do such a thing? Hamilton has a long section but I think I can summarise it into a few phrases. ‘Right-wing’, ‘populist’, ‘Christian’, ‘Tony Abbott supporters’ are to blame. I’m wondering if all four criteria must apply or just a subset? The most high profile populist Christian I know of is Kevin Rudd – he probaby hasn’t sent abusive emails to anyone. He bawls them out in person or he has people who do that. More seriously, this piece is just a crock.
The overall bottom line?
I am not suggesting that the individuals and organisations I have mentioned are responsible for organising the cyber-bullying attacks on scientists and others.
So what actually is he saying? Well he is saying he doesn’t like open debate. We know he doesn’t like democracy.
This is because the implications of 3C, let alone 4C or 5C, are so horrible that we look to any possible scenario to head it off, including the canvassing of “emergency” responses such as the suspension of democratic processes.
If only these ‘Right-wing’, ‘populist’, ‘Christian’, ‘Tony Abbott supporters’ would STFU and pay their taxes then Hamilton and his mates could get on with their social engineering projects in the peace and quiet and with the respect that they so deserve.
Tomorrow we get to read about the Exxon funded think-tanks. I suspect after that it’ll be about smoking. Apparently this crap will go on all week.
Clive Hamilton should be funded by the CIS or the IPA. He is really counter-productive for the Left.
It is surely possible that he is an Ern Malley-esque caricature of a Green.
If there are illegal emails send them to the police. Emails can sometimes be traced. If they are not illegal they are merely unpleasant and stupid.
Trying to tie them in to people and sites he does’t like is childish.
But presumably it’s better than talking about the CRU emails or the myriad of problems in the WG2 report.
Karl Kessel
23 Feb 10 at 9:16 am
I do not consider myself on the skeptic side but Clive is just plain offensive and does no credit to the mainstream side of the debate.
jtfsoon
23 Feb 10 at 9:18 am
why don’t we just keep things simple and say these abusive emails are being facilitated by Tim Berners-Lee?
what a dishonest, intellectually excreable mountebanke
jtfsoon
23 Feb 10 at 9:27 am
Anonymous abusive email is gutless. If you want to give somebody a verbal spray then be up front about it. Better still don’t do it. However if AGW proponents are suffering blowback it is not without cause. The campaign to supress public debate of the science has backfired.
In terms of debate I think Barry Brook was very honourable in his debate with Monckton at the Brisbane Institute. He stuck to the substance and treated the debate with respect. I have plenty of time for Barry because he is respectful towards those that disagree.
In terms of mad conspiracy theories it was AGW proponents that started it. Not an excuse, just an observation.
TerjeP (say Tay-a)
23 Feb 10 at 9:33 am
“In terms of mad conspiracy theories it was AGW proponents that started it.”
Not entirely sure what you mean, TerjeP.
steve from brisbane
23 Feb 10 at 10:03 am
[...] Sinclair has posted below, our learned colleague Clive Hamilton has begun publishing a five part epic on the conspiracy of [...]
Clive and the art of irony at Catallaxy Files
23 Feb 10 at 10:07 am
he’s written yet another book called Requiem for a Species
http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/index.php
jtfsoon
23 Feb 10 at 10:13 am
Like Jason, I don’t consider myself to be on the doubter/skeptic side. I’m trying really hard to stay out of this whole mess as much as I can and not take a particular ‘side’.
However as pr my post, Clive’s post yesterday was just begging to be called out for what it is – hypocritical.
Hamilton is missing the irony that:
1. he doesn’t like people being called criminals or compared to dictators… despite his comparisons to holocaust denial.
2. his article today is essentially a conspiracy theory that accuses his opponents of supporting conspiracy theories.
HeathG
23 Feb 10 at 10:42 am
Hives is a pompous , self absorbed bald idiot. That’s all.
JC
23 Feb 10 at 10:51 am
I wanted to be agnostic but Wong pissed me off, mischaracterising the risks outlined in the IPCC TAR 4 and then calling people stupid etc when they didn’t supoort the ETS which is a dog of a policy.
Semi Regular Libertarian
23 Feb 10 at 10:56 am
That ABC comments thread is very hostile.
Sinclair Davidson
23 Feb 10 at 11:07 am
Re: the ABC comments thread. Bird actually looked like a reasoned voice in yesterdays thread…. now I know the apocalypse must be just around the corner
HeathG
23 Feb 10 at 11:13 am
20-Twenty cricket is over for another year.
Sinclair Davidson
23 Feb 10 at 11:14 am
So what? Just because Hamilton engages in passive aggressive debate by constantly insulting large swathes of the population – exploiting his privileged media access to do so – does not give him the right to expect that those he insults will restrict their responses to his exact methods.
He knows/knew what he was doing. The aggressive blowback is all his own fault.
Peter Patton
23 Feb 10 at 11:15 am
You know, you’re not exactly choosing tough targets going after Clive Hamilton.
conrad
23 Feb 10 at 11:21 am
agreed, Bird was surprisingly civil and coherent in that thread.
jtfsoon
23 Feb 10 at 11:21 am
What I find interesting in Hives actions is that the bald twerp is basically stumbling and bumbling his way into hard core totalitarianism.
We’ve had the need to suspend democracy, the letter to the kids asking them to dob in the parents, the stuff where he describes his hate for those that don’t agree with him and now the show trails by outing his enemies in public. All he needs now are the mass executions and that would more or less complete “his journey”.
What’s also interesting is that “scientists” like Waldo Karoly and Andy Pitman seem to be conversing with the bald twerp which, further suggests these dudes have crossed the Rubicon and into advocacy for hard line leftism.
After his letter to the kids shtick and the demand that democracy ought to be suspended the twerp lost any right to be treated decently and now only deserves scorn. Anyone associating with him is really no better especially the two “scientists”.
The comments are always great when the Hives posts a thread as they’re so nasty towards him. He really is one of the unpopular people in the country.
JC
23 Feb 10 at 12:48 pm
In case Clive is interested in anything as boring as details, let’s have a look at the “hodge-podge of right-wing populist grievances and causes”.
Taking them from the top, what is the problem with defending rural property rights? The market value of rural properties depends on their productivity which in turn depends on good (conservationist) management. There is evidence that green-driven regulations frustrate good farmers in making the best use of their property. The Club of Rome rapidly became a laughing stock. Many Africans died as a result of restrictions on the use of DDT to control malaria. I don’t know if Al Gore is evil but he is also a laughing stock, however he can laugh all the way to the bank. There is always a need to defend freedom and democracy from coercive utopians like Clive.
Rafe
23 Feb 10 at 1:09 pm
Pretty fricking lame stuff from the bald paranoiac. This is the best he can come up with:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2828195.htm
The CIS projects itself as a more moderate conservative think tank, but has not been able to resist promoting climate scepticism. After struggling in its early years, it was reprieved by a major funding boost from six mining companies, a rescue facilitated by Hugh Morgan. Among its board members is Sir Rod Eddington, a senior business adviser to the Labor Government. It has hosted a string of climate sceptics from overseas and Australia.
jtfsoon
24 Feb 10 at 9:13 am
BTW the so-called ‘reprieve’ by the mining companies that the bald hysteric is talking about would’ve been 20+ years ago. The CIS was founded in 1976.
jtfsoon
24 Feb 10 at 9:24 am
Y’know Hamilton and others paint some of these think tanks the way the Masons used to be described. Strange rituals, deep conspiracies…
It’s not something I recognise. Greg is a nice thoughtful bloke. And even the Friday lunches in Balmain don’t involve any plotting that I have seen, except perhaps on which wine the surplus will be spent on at the end of the year.
Hamilton should get out more.
ken n
24 Feb 10 at 9:29 am
“BTW the so-called ‘reprieve’ by the mining companies that the bald hysteric is talking about would’ve been 20+ years ago. ”
According to Hamilton’s own link it was in 1979 – 30+ years ago.
Steve Edney
24 Feb 10 at 9:36 am
yep sorry, typo.
jtfsoon
24 Feb 10 at 9:38 am
damned I was never employed at the CIS long enough to be listed on that Sourcewatch article. I really wanted to be part of the vast conspiracy.
jtfsoon
24 Feb 10 at 9:41 am
Yeah, a pity you missed out Jason on the badge of honour. Sourcewatch is a lot of fun. The conspiracy ramblings of Monckton and the wilder fringes of the AGW sceptics are limp and unimaginative compared to Sourcewatch.
ken n
24 Feb 10 at 9:46 am
BTW I’ve been in contact with Greg Lindsay and he basically says the CIS link with Atlas Foundation is that it won a prize from Atlas for its work on Aboriginal issues.
So here’s the bald galoot’s expose of the CIS:
1) 30+ years ago, Hugh Morgan arranged to give Greg’s outfit the grand total of $5000 a year for 5 years
2) one of its board members is a business adviser to the climate denialist anti-ETS Rudd government
3) it won a prize from one of the evil Exxon funded think tanks for writing about Aboriginal policy
jtfsoon
24 Feb 10 at 9:46 am
hahahahahahhaaha
What a pathetic , bald , dishonest little sack of … he is.
We should really draft him and send the bald galoot to Afghanistan and let him choose sides.
JC
24 Feb 10 at 10:09 am
Yes it was clive’s own party that aligned with the climate change deniers to vote down the ETS. He might need to write an expose on that.
Steve Edney
24 Feb 10 at 10:31 am
I want Hamilton to explain why if I follow the “30 years of global warming timeline” at Jo Nova’s, why I am a bloodsucking oil and coal man?
Semi Regular Libertarian
24 Feb 10 at 10:48 am
The next installment in Clive’s saga will be interesting
tal
24 Feb 10 at 11:28 am