The dog ate my death threats

The ANU death threat story is going to keep giving for a long time. It now turns out that there never were any emailed death threats. Rosslyn Beeby originally broke the story and here she is updating events.

So it came as a surprise to learn last week that a Sydney climate blogger had made a freedom of information request to obtain examples of these emails from the Australian National University. The ANU initially refused to release the documents, and in response to a formal appeal by the blogger, the Privacy Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim was asked to a adjudicate. He is reported as ruling that 10 of the 11 emails sought under FoI ”do not contain threats to kill” and the other ”could be regarded as intimidating”. The emails in question pertain to one scientist, ANU Climate Change Institute director Professor Will Steffen. He was among the group of 30 contacted by The Canberra Times, and revealed the worst threat he received – and we will not divulge it – was made verbally to one of his staff. It was the chilling nature of that threat – and the casual way in which it was made – that prompted the ANU to question its security arrangements. If they had not, they would have been guilty of ignoring staff safety requirements.

So we were led to believe the threats came via email, but now we’re told the threats were verbal. In fact – chilling and casual. So what happened next? Graham Readfern picks up the story.

I understand there were several incidents at the ANU in early 2010. On two separate occasions, individuals had walked into institute premises demanding to see particular staff members. Both individuals were acting “aggressively” Professor Steffen said. The institute’s offices were on the ground floor with open access with no security restrictions.

Let’s be clear – most universities have open access to almost all areas and little security. But did these individuals make death threats? Was campus security notified? Did the police investigate?

Then we read of the chilling incident (emphasis added).

Shortly after ANU staff were moved, there was an incident at an ANU public engagement event where a climate sceptic who had been invited to attend had become frustrated. During an exchange, the individual had showed what he claimed was a gun licence to people sitting at the table, before claiming he was a “good shot”. The individual is understood to have left voluntarily.

Okay – sounds bad. Who is the person with the gun licence? Were the police notified? Has any one taken out a restraining order against the “climate sceptic”?

Then this instant classic comment.

Whether or not any of these incidents constitute a “death threat” is, to me at least, beside the point.

Actually no. The entire point about “these incidents” is that allegations of death threats have been made. That is fairly serious. It is abhorrent to those of us for favour open and robust debate that anyone should receive death threats.

(HT: Tim Blair)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

108 Responses to The dog ate my death threats

  1. Rabz

    During an exchange, the individual had showed what he claimed was a gun licence to people sitting at the table, before claiming he was a “good shot”.

    The horror.

  2. brc

    I consider myself to be a good driver. I also hold a drivers licence.

    Does this mean I’m threatening to run someone over?

  3. selen234

    repugnant

    there have been serious threats to uni staff namely scientists at their homes as well last year

  4. brc

    @selen234

    Evidence please.

  5. .

    Yes selen, but they all own starved dogs…

  6. JamesK

    Just because I haven’t dies a horrible violent death doesn’t mean I don’t feel theatened.

    And like aboriginality if I feel threatened…..

  7. Jarrah

    I guess Bird was innocent after all.

  8. C.L.

    During an exchange, the individual had showed what he claimed was a gun licence to people sitting at the table, before claiming he was a “good shot”.

    This was not only a stupid thing to say but was definitely threatening. Let’s not kid ourselves about that. Provided the context hasn’t been embellished, that man should be tracked down by police and his firearms licence should be taken away.

    However, the erstwhile reports of scientists being “rushed to a secure location” because of an onslaught of death threats was a lie.

    A complete fabrication.

  9. Sinclair Davidson

    Jarrah – Bird might be not-guilty. Innocent is something else.

  10. brc

    CL – for me, that quote has to be taken out of context. To me, it sounds like it wasn’t even part of the same conversation – if it was, then no doubt we’d have had the entire conversation quoted back at us.

    It’s just like the emails – at first they were allueded to, and then we find that they don’t exist. For all we know this conversation happened 45 minutes later and was centered around a discussion about roo shooting.

    I agree that if a person used ‘I’m a good shot’ as part of an argument about climate science, then there’s a case to answer. But the police, or at least security, should have been involved. It doesn’t appear this was the case so the safe assumption is that the two aren’t even related.

  11. Jc?

    S

    Ian chubby never mentioned home abuse.

    The chubster always made the comment that the political science advocates were getting the threats at uni

  12. selen234

    ask malcolm turnball

    google june july period of 2011 for articles on this

  13. Jc?

    I guess Bird was innocent after all.

    That’s the thing though

    Bird threats dont really count

    You’re a nobody if bird hasn’t abused or threatened you

  14. Infidel Tiger

    All climate scientists will die! It’s a fact.

  15. cohenite

    Graham Readfern picks up the story.

    Good man, is our Graham.

    And why would a man with a gun licence and a good shot to boot, leave voluntarily?

    That doesn’t make sense; has this story been verified about this man with a bulge in his pants going around terrifying climate scientists?

  16. Rabz

    Graham Readfern picks up the story turd…

  17. Zatara

    selen234, not to belabor the point but have you found that evidence for your claim yet?

    As to ‘I’m a good shot’ being a case to answer I’m afraid I’m going to have to call BS on that one. Had he said “I shoot people” that would have been closer to a threat, but still no cigar. “I shoot people like you”, closer yet, but still not a threat. “I’m going to shoot you”, is a threat.

    Let’s not play their game for them.

  18. An important part of Readfearn’s post which was not extracted here:

    But let’s go back to the The Australian and its original claim, repeated at popular sceptic blogs around the world, that the claims of death threats had been “debunked”. The report in The Australian claimed that Privacy Commissioner had been called in to “adjudicate” on FOI in relation to reports of the campaign which had led to staff being moved to more secure premises.

    Professor Will Steffen, the director of the ANU Climate Change Institute, has now told me staff were moved to a more secure area in April 2010, well before the period covered by the Privacy Commissioners report.

    He said: “I and my Climate Change Institute staff were moved to more secure quarters around March/April 2010 because of concerns my staff had about the very open and accessible premises we had at that time. I had a duty of care to my staff to respond to these concerns. The move was taken in consultation with the Vice-Chancellor and with the ANU security office. This, of course, is well before the Jan-Jun 2011 period that the FOI request is concerned with.

    So, as it turns out, we don’t know the full extent of emails at all – the FOI request for a tiny, tiny portion of emails that have been sent to climate scientists in the last couple of years.

    If I were an academic who had been on the receiving end of hundreds, or thousands, of emails, most of which would (we can safely assume) at least be insulting; and some of which (alluding to the hope the recipient dies) many people would take as intimidating and upsetting, I would be furious with this campaign of downplaying, if not ridiculing, their concerns, and ignoring the fundamental point that they do not deserve to be treated this way, and had genuine reason to be moved to a “safer” location.

    As Readfern is arguing, it is obvious that there is a degree of subjectivity in whether words or behaviour amount to a “death threat”.

    What is 100% clear is that PR campaigns against climate scientists run by politically motivated climate change deniers been highly personal and a disgrace (look at Marc Morano being proud on the ABC doco last week that he had published email addresses for climate scientists so his right wingnut audience could barrage them with direct communications.)

    But no, Sinclair would rather not talk about that behaviour: he would rather (as with the statistically significant warming posts) prefer to encouraging people not to see wood for the trees.

    I would invite Sinclair to answer clearly: are you suggesting in this post that Steffen did not have good reason for moving his staff?

    Does Sinclair think it takes a clear and unequivocal death threat to justify moving staff?

  19. C.L.

    Steve fails to explain why the threatened academics don’t release these ‘hundreds or thousands of emails.’

    Or why the police aren’t interested in ANY of them.

    Go!

    and

    Go!

  20. brc

    are you suggesting in this post that Steffen did not have good reason for moving his staff?

    I’ll answer that : no, on the provided evidence, he didn’t.

    Why shouldn’t the public, who have been fleeced ten ways blind, be able to directly communicate with those that are either making off with the loot themselves, or directly aiding those who do?

    Either there is evidence of threats, or there isn’t. So far, not a shred of evidence except for some lame attempts of ‘we were really scared’. Maybe if they stopped jumping at shadows, stopped calling people ‘deniers’ and, you know, actually had the debate that was supposedly over, they wouldn’t reap a whirlwind of ill feeling towards them.

  21. Sinclair Davidson

    are you suggesting in this post that Steffen did not have good reason for moving his staff?

    I don’t know if he had good reason or not – I have yet to see evidence supporting the stated reason.

    Does Sinclair think it takes a clear and unequivocal death threat to justify moving staff?

    Staff may be moved for various reasons, including death threats.

  22. C.L.

    Does Sinclair think it takes a clear and unequivocal death threat to justify moving staff?

    Yes.

    Gillard’s Australia Day death threat to Tony Abbott resulted in Tony Hodges being relocated to England.

  23. cohenite

    What is 100% clear is that PR campaigns against climate scientists run by politically motivated climate change deniers been highly personal and a disgrace

    You’re full of shit steve. The ad homs and personal nature of the alarmists has been present since day one; every stinking trick in the book has been dredged up to support AGW; and yet it still sinks and is believed by ever shrinking groups of gullible wankers.

    Steffan is an advocate, a political animal; in Richardson’s words, he will do what is necessary to achieve his goal.

    I don’t believe threats have been made; if they had Steffan and the rest of this crew would have plastered them everywhere. Do you think they’re not because they have a sense of fair play? Or decorum? Or reserve? How stupid! Don’t you know the existence of the world is at stake! Whatever has to be done will be done. Steffan understands that steve, why don’t you?

  24. Abu Chowdah

    The gun licence threat should be investigated.

    However, considering the exposure of the rest of the threats against scientists issue as a total fabrication, what are the chances that it also is totally made up?

  25. Gab

    Hey Sinclair, I’ve got a gun license and I’m a good shot too.

    I will now leave voluntarily to another thread.

    p.s. hope the uni doesn’t rush you away to a secret location. 🙂

  26. Sinclair Davidson

    Alas, no. I have a gun licence too. 🙂

  27. Gab

    I’m feeling very threatened now.

  28. Sinclair Davidson

    Tremble before the Doomlord 🙂

  29. Jc?

    Step

    Answer cl please, or do you have ironing to do?

  30. I don’t know if he had good reason or not

    yet your tone of ridicule, from the heading and further down, invites exactly the type of response from Abu.

  31. Gab

    It your tone. Off to Judge Mordy with you. Now !

  32. Sinclair Davidson

    steve – you ignored the second part of my comment.

    I have yet to see evidence supporting the stated reason.

  33. Harrys on the Boat

    Graham Readfern picks up the story turd…

    and gives it a polish

  34. Poor Old Rafe

    A few years ago a mental patient in South Australia fatally shot a medical officer (a psychiatrist) on his way into the main office of the SA Health Dept. I think the psychiatrist was previously employed in NSW and there was a period after that when senior staff here did not have names on their office doors.

    I don’t know what they did in SA.

  35. cohenite

    I don’t know what they did in SA.

    I don’t either, but the moral of the story is people who are going to do bad things usally don’t publicise it.

    This crap about threats is just that: crap.

  36. Matt

    As I am sure Steve knows, the whole “death threat” claim was an attempt to discredit anyone who objects to the CAGW hypothesis through guilt-by-association. Even asking for evidence of such threats now is somehow “ridiculing” or “downplaying” the concerns of the claimants.

    Short of actual evidence to support the claims – and none has been forthcoming to date – the honourable thing would to be to withdraw them. Instead, Readfern et al appear to be doubling down.

    Extraordinary claims (i.e. scepticism re: CAGW leads to death threats) require extraordinary evidence. So, where is it?

  37. Matt

    What is 100% clear is that PR campaigns against climate scientists run by politically motivated climate change deniers been highly personal and a disgrace

    But smearing non-adherants to CAGW theory as in the pay of Big Oil, Big Mining etc. is A-OK?

    Motes and splinters come to mind.

  38. Splatacrobat

    Are the new premises anymore secure or do they still have signs up outside the old premises saying ” We have moved to XYZ building on level 3 come and join us for a cup of coffee in our bomb proof caffeteria”?

  39. Infidel Tiger

    I think we can all agree that Steve should be shot.

  40. dover_beach

    I wonder if their new premises has a ‘panic room’? That would be delicious irony.

  41. Pedro the Ignorant

    Bullshit artists like these precious little petals always think they get away with it. It always comes back to bite them on the bum.

    Fascinating that it took a blogger to unearth their crapola. The highly trained professional journalists employed in the media must have been busy polishing their Walkleys.

  42. manalive

    Threats to harm or kill are serious criminal offences yet apparently none of these alleged threats were referred to the police.

  43. One other issue – there seems to be an assumption that is not actually contained in Readfern’s post that the “man with a gun licence” incident is the same one that Beeby calls the “chilling and casual” one.

    Blair seems to have made the connection, and Sinclair has followed the lead. But where is the evidence that Readfern and Beeby are talking of the same incident?

  44. brc

    where is the evidence that Readfern and Beeby are talking of the same incident?

    When the evidence for any of the so-called incidents comes to light, then we can get right onto deciding whether they’re talking about the same thing.

  45. Matt wrote:

    Short of actual evidence to support the claims – and none has been forthcoming to date – the honourable thing would to be to withdraw them. Instead, Readfern et al appear to be doubling down.

    Yes, and look what happens when there is a report of a guy turning up and saying what a good shot he is – about the strongest thing anyone has said at this blog is “well, yes that would be a threat, but it probably didn’t happen.”

    Frankly, climate scientists have better things to do than engage in attempting to convince a bunch of ridiculing jerks who don’t believe anything a climate scientist says that their (the jerks’) mates have been running a harassing campaign of vilification and intimidation (including material some would interpret as a “death threat” colloquially, if not legally, speaking).

  46. Sinclair Davidson

    steve – a bit late for you to be calling for evidence. There is no evidence – it never happened, just another dirty little lie.

  47. Gab

    Yes, and look what happens when there is a report of a guy turning up and saying what a good shot he is – about the strongest thing anyone has said at this blog is “well, yes that would be a threat, but it probably didn’t happen.”

    No context was given on this alleged conversation and yet you jump to conclusions that readily serve your “fair game” modus operandi against anyone who doesn’t believe in AGW.

    Frankly, climate scientists have better things to do than engage in attempting to blah blah blah

    Yes like play hide the decline and scrub modeling free of any actual data.

    Your posturing is banal, btw.

  48. So, are you saying the “man with a licence who’s a good shot” incident didn’t happen?

  49. Sinclair Davidson

    Is there independent evidence? Unless you were there you can’t know that it happened either.

  50. Infidel Tiger

    Where’s the fucking evidence, Steve? There will be no hiding the decline on this blog.

  51. Sean

    Get Ian ‘Chubby’ checker on the case.

  52. What an weasel.

    Which is your modus operandi, as has been noted at Harry Clarke’s place.

  53. Infidel Tiger

    Harry Clarke’s place? That’s 3 grumpy old men and a cask of sherry arguing about cow farts.

  54. Sinclair Davidson

    steve – if you don’t like it here, fuck off.

  55. Tal

    Jesus, mullah Omar is in a bad mood this evening 🙂

  56. Matt

    Steve – you, Readfern, Beeby, Steffen et al are making the claims here.

    1. That serious threats against the life and safety of climate scientists were made, and
    2. These threats were made as a result of a ” highly personal” campaign opposing the CAGW hypothesis.

    If you are making the claims, provide the evidence to support the claims. Until such time as evidence of credible threats is produced, the whole affair is simply nothing more than another attempt to smear your opponents.

  57. Gab

    It’s the budget, Tal, tests everyone.

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen Doomlord cuss. What a treat, like the Supermoon we just experienced.

  58. Tal

    I know Gab, God help any leftist that turn up tonight

  59. Infidel Tiger

    At least he didn’t say fuck off and die. That would have been a death threat.

  60. Tiny Dancer

    FMD Steve. You are one dumb drown go. Go back to your stupid blog and write some more sift about the beauty of hospitals and how you eavesdrop on the conversations of drug addicts and the mentally ill.

    You take stupid to a new level

  61. Gab

    That would have been a death threat.

    Doomlord does have a gun license….

  62. manalive

    WTF is a “colloquial” death threat (as opposed to a “legal” death threat)?

  63. Harrys on the Boat

    Put 2 + 2 together Gab, Sinc was obviously the good shot, gun licensee, climate sceptic at the ANU shindig – with the lead piping in the dining room.

  64. Gab

    Silly Harry. Why on earth would Sinclair ever go to ANU? (Unless he was being taken as a hostage).

  65. Winston Smith

    Kept on tellin’ ya – the Doomlord has teeth.
    And they’re sharp.
    And they’re in the bucket of denture cleaner beside the bed.
    Don’t piss him off.

  66. dover_beach

    I’m surprised that no one has asked who person X (the person making this allegation) met with before approaching the ABC. I have heard that he sought the advice of (Flim) Flannery. I even think that the latter asked for person X’s mobile number/ email address after having met them. It all sounds rather sinister to me.

  67. Poor Old Rafe

    All South Africans are deadly shooters, like Tasmanians, growing up on the wild frontier with an axe in one hand, a rifle in the other, if it grows cut it down, if it mooves shoot it. In South Africa it is the high veldt, tracking wilderbeests and gazelle and other cute creatures like tapirs.

  68. Poor Old Rafe

    All South Africans are deadly shooters, like Tasmanians, growing up on the wild frontier with an axe in one hand, a rifle in the other, if it grows cut it down, if it mooves shoot it. In South Africa it is the high veldt, tracking wilderbeests and gazelle and other cute creatures like tapirs.

  69. Poor Old Rafe

    Whoops, missed the link to tapirs.

  70. Infidel Tiger

    All those Tasmanians must have died in shooting and axe accidents.

  71. JC

    Frankly, climate scientists have better things to do than engage in attempting to convince a bunch of ridiculing jerks who don’t believe anything a climate scientist says that their (the jerks’) mates have been running a harassing campaign of vilification and intimidation (including material some would interpret as a “death threat” colloquially, if not legally, speaking).

    It may be because some of these people who claim to be scientists really aren’t scientists at all, but just hard left wing advocates posing as “shientists”.

    Frankly dickhead, I’ve never really heard a group of docs getting angry because people seek alternative methods to cure illnesses.

    I’ve never seen say geologists get upset when when people argue about the earth being 6,000 years old.

    They don’t make ghetto like vids and call people who don’t believe in something arseholes like these pieces of politicized shit.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiYZxOlCN10&feature=player_embedded

    These people are scientists. They just simply advocates for the nature worshiping religion.

  72. cohenite

    Frankly, climate scientists have better things to do

    Complete and utter bullshit; and yes that is both a riposte to steve’s risible naivety and a fair description of what climate scientists produce when they are doing “better things”.

    The nub of all this crap is that a man said he had a gun licence and was a good shot. Were the police invited to search for this person or have they been too busy with Thomson?

  73. Helen Armstrong

    How do we know that the gun and license incident (if at all real) was not at a different part of the conversation and cut and pasted for sinister effect into a different part of the conversation?

    Say an icebreaker at the beginning

    ‘it’s duck season – really want to get out amongst them – do you shoot? No? I do. Oh it’s pretty hard to get a licence these days. I have one from years ago’

    Followed by impassioned argument about whatever…?

  74. Gab

    There was no mention of a gun, Helen. Agree with the rest of your comment.

  75. JC

    Cohenite.

    The evidence they purported to have doesn’t exist. Now they attempt to go with the impossible to prove ” evidence” which any reasonable person would take to mean it’s really bullshit.

    Andrew Bolt gets death threats and ugly emails. Even the former owner of this blog received several abusive and frankly disturbing emails from Tim Lambert referring to him as a piece of shit and similar stuff like that.

  76. dover_beach

    I’m with Helen and Gab. Given that alarmists go from zero to eleventy at the drop of a hat, I wouldn’t be surprised that the conversation was actually about darts and bull’s eyes, and he left early because they were bridge players.

  77. Helen Armstrong

    Yes you are right, Gab.

  78. Tom

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen Doomlord cuss.

    I’m frightened, too. Could get uglier around 9pm tonight if the communists attempt to abolish capitalism.

  79. JC

    Is it a composite. We’ve had composite Julia. Perhaps the glimate scientists created a composite gun owner.

  80. brc

    This is my point exactly. If the gun licence comment came in the same conversation with regards to climate science, then we would have been told, verbatim (with embellishment, probably) exactly what was said.

    Instead, what we have is a purported conversation at the same event where somebody is a good shot and owns a gun licence. It may have been about duck season, target practice, or antique firearms. We don’t know.

    But if they could link the two together, then they would have, and have shouted it from the rooftops.

    Seeing as this little factoid was unable to be embellished simple logic would say it was unrelated to a discussion on climate science.

    The original point still stands – zero evidence has been produced for any threat of any kind. Zero police involvement, and maximum PR shouting across the world by activist media.

    It doesn’t even get close to passing the sniff test.

  81. cohenite

    Bloody Tim Lambert; now there is an ambush merchant; he attempted to bushwhack poor old Christopher Monckton with someone impersonating a real climate scientist, one professor RT Pinker, during his debate with Monckton; and all he proved is that Monckton thought Pinker was a man.

    So what, Monckton is British.

    The point is with all this crap about threats and guns who would you rather see with a Glock: Nick Minchin or Anna Rose?

  82. Just Another bloody Lawyer

    A little late to the conversation however my two cents for what it is worth (likely to be less than $0.02)is:

    If the gun license/good shot comment was uttered as a threat then it should have been reported and investigated. At the very least someone who likes to go around settling arguments in such a fashion deserves to have the local sergeant pop around for a chat.

    However if the comment was made, a likely scenario is that the maker was responding to either a “come the revolution” or a “what will you do when climate refugees come to your door?” comment.

    Absent the context the safe conclusion is that the story is bull or that the relevant context has been suppressed. Afterall which side of this debate has form for suppressing inconvenient facts (Hide the decline anyone?)

  83. JC

    Bloody Tim Lambert; now there is an ambush merchant;

    Oh yea, remember the Lord and the dwarf debate. Lambert had someone with a Canadian accent on a tape reciting what Pinker had written, but he left the last bit out, as we later found out from reading the file. It was basically a lie by omission.

    When I heard the voice on the tape over the web telecast (of the Lord and the Dwarf) debate I sort of half suspected something shifty. I checked Pinker’s credentials at the time as the voice sounded distinctly Canadian to me and Pinker’s background was American. Lambert of course has a close tie who is Canadian.

  84. Poor Old Rafe

    On a slight tangent, we need to appreciate the number of meal tickets that are on the line here. You can understand a certain amount of paranoia about job security when the wheels fall off the alarmist bandwagon.
    Does anyone have an estimate of the jobs that have been generated by the climate scam?
    Subtotals for scientists, science administrators and the new breed of climate regulators.
    And how many journalists and commentators have got the scientific training to get to first base in understanding the issues?

  85. JC

    Just another bloody L.

    Dude,
    Bolt receives death threats every day. Leftwingers are even sticking pins in voodoo dolls hoping he gets an illness and dies.

    Who cares about these drama queens at the ANU. They just appear to be leftie dickheads and Ian Chubby is enabling them for political purposes.

    Take look at the ghetto vid they made and that’s what you’re dealing with.

    Here’s the thing. The carbonic price has been set at 23 bucks a ton, which is almost four times over the world’s offered price. How the fuck is industry able to absorb this increase at the margin? This is what the ghetto blaster, Ian Chubby and leftwing wing economist Garnaut have to explain.

  86. entropy

    What JABL said. Anyway, wasn’t this story originally about death threats in emails? Once this was found to not be true, the story has shifted across to a dinner conversation, the context of which was not supplied.

    Regardless, there is a case for better security at the workplace in the post 9/11 world that does not need, long after the event, making up stories to suit current political purposes.

  87. Splatacrobat

    I take climate alarmists exagerated claims of floods, droughts, starvation,depravation and other general life threatening statements to be explicit death threats to me, my family, and my property.

    In fact their threats are tandamount to blackmail because what they are really saying is unless I contribute to their warmist fantasies I will surely die.

  88. JC

    On a slight tangent, we need to appreciate the number of meal tickets that are on the line here.

    Rafe, I reckon if you take all the Green worshiping stuff that is embedded in policy, the direct cost of these taxeaters, the overhead of others and the time and effort that goes into nature worshiping in this country, it produces a headwind of around 3% of GDP.

    There’s a growth trajectory for a political party that promises to undo all this crap.

  89. Poor Old Rafe

    Yes, just considering the Climate Police, the cost of the intrusion of the police into a private sector and other victims of the carbon tax will far exceed the salary and on costs of the police. The beauty of complex regulations from the economic wreckers point of view is that the deadweight cost far exceeds the cost of the regulatory apparatus (and that applies to taxation as well). Not that the cost of the regulatory bureaucracies (at three levels of government) is trivial, but it is only the tip of the iceberg of cost on the economy.

  90. kae

    Poor Old Rafe, it’s wildebeest, singular or plural.
    Or was that fat fingers?

  91. manalive

    I can’t answer Poor Old Rafe’s question, “does anyone have an estimate of the jobs that have been generated by the climate scam?” but they’re percolating down to local government level e.g.:

    Community Climate Change Officer – view or apply Yarra Ranges Shire Council:
    Position Number: OEN033 / Jof Ref 927 Permanent Full Time Salary from $52,708 (Band 5) + superannuation 9 day fortnight available Are you an energetic, outcome focussed person committed to environmental management? Does working collaboratively in a supportive team of dedicated environmental professionals appeal to you? Do you have what it takes to lead, inspire and motivate people to engage and deliver on actions for a sustainable future? If this is you, the Shire of Yarra Ranges Environment Dep.

  92. Tom

    Rafe, in the 1990s, Fairfax in general and The Age in particular was fiscally ravaged by an asset-stripper named Ron Brierley, of Brierley Investments, the same man who went on to destroy Ansett Airlines. Brierley thought there were too many “content providers” on the editorial floor at The Age and profit could be maximised in the short term by getting rid of as many as possible. Many of The Age’s senior staff – its intellectual capital – left between the mid 1990s and the early 2000s. Among the many who took the package were one of Australia’s best science journalists, Graeme O’Neill. Brierley came and went and left the organisation demoralised and decimated in terms of editorial staff numbers. Had people like O’Neill stayed, there would not have been a ‘zombieisation’ of The Age’s editorial standards, under which young ideologues were left to report the climate debate and (leftwing) opinionisation of news replaced the primacy of facts (because it was cheaper). Just like the climate scam, what has happened to The Age was only ever about money. In my opinion, it’s the great untold story of the Australian media’s recent history.

  93. boy on a bike

    “Threatened with a gun license”

    What did he do – threaten to saw his head off with the sharp edge of the plastic license? Decapitate him with an Oddjob ninja bowler hat throw? How the hell do you threaten someone with a bit of credit card sized plastic?

    By the way, I have some lovely sharp knives in my kitchen. I think I’ll go and chop a tomato in half. Don’t anyone wet themself.

  94. Poor Old Rafe

    Great clip. My favorite Bond enforcer was the guy with steel teeth who bit a shark to death. I think Bond got over him with a giant magnet that picked him up by the teeth.

  95. Poor Old Rafe

    No it was electricity again.

    In addition to having steel teeth, Jaws was also gigantic and extremely strong, which forced Bond to be especially inventive while fighting him. In combat during The Spy Who Loved Me, Bond found himself caught in an unbreakable death grip by Jaws, who was about to fatally bite him; Bond only escaped by using a broken electric lamp to send an electric shock through the assassin’s teeth to stun him.

    Jaws also has an uncanny ability to survive any misfortune seemingly unscathed and come back to challenge Bond again. In The Spy Who Loved Me, Jaws survives an Egyptian structure’s collapse on top of him, being hit by a van, being thrown from a rapidly-moving train, sitting in the passenger seat of a car which veers off a cliff in Sardinia and explodes (landing in a hut below, to the owner’s dismay), a battle underwater with a shark, and the destruction of Stromberg’s lair. In Moonraker, he survives falling several thousand feet after accidentally disabling his own parachute (he falls through a circus tent and lands in the trapeze net), a crash through a building inside a runaway cable car, and going over Iguazu Falls. After each of these incidents, he always picks himself up, dusts off his jacket, straightens his tie and nonchalantly walks away. After the destruction of Drax’s space station, a throw-away line near the end is made that the American shuttle rescued him and his girlfriend.

  96. Winston Smith

    Rafe, why didn’t Bond just shoot the dill?
    Surely no one can survive a clip of 9mm to the chest?

    And no, I have never been to uni, or have a license to carry a pistol.
    I am also a crook shot.

  97. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    Supposedly flashing a gun licence, muttering darkly; discussion about calling building security, plod, mummy; positions adopted here on the law … what’s the law got to do with it?

    Is there not one of these scientist blokes capable of standing up and inviting, in a loud voice, the mythical threatener out into the stairwell for a bloody good hiding?

    They’re a mob of fools (and dead set liars) deserving of all the ridicule invited in their direction.

  98. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    Supposedly flashing a gun licence, muttering darkly; discussion about calling building security, plod, mummy; positions adopted here on the law … what’s the law got to do with it?

    Is there not one of these scientist blokes capable of standing up and inviting, in a loud voice, the mythical threatener out into the stairwell for a bloody good hiding?

    They’re a mob of fools (and dead set liars) deserving of all the ridicule invited in their direction.

  99. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    I stutter in real life 🙂

  100. dover_beach

    Well, if it was worth saying once, it was worth saying again.

  101. Gab

    Well, if it was worth saying once, it was worth saying again.

    :mrgreen:

  102. C.L.

    Great clip. My favorite Bond enforcer was the guy with steel teeth who bit a shark to death. I think Bond got over him with a giant magnet that picked him up by the teeth.

    No no. Jaws never died. In Moonraker, he saves Bond when he realises that Drax plans to eliminate the physically abnormal. We last see him with a pigtailed blonde and the two of them escape the exploding death satellite in an escape pod.

  103. Gab

    I’m kinda sad you know that, CL.

  104. Sinclair Davidson

    Yep – loved moonraker. Saw it on the big screen.

    Mr Bond, I’m going to put you out of my misery

  105. Myrddin Seren

    James Bond: Do you expect me to talk?
    Goldfinger: No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die.

    Now THAT’s a threat !!

  106. Sinclair Davidson

    selen – that link is in the post. Do try to keep up.

Comments are closed.