[LINK] Death threats to Australian climate scientists

[Kim Holburn]

Strangely I don't see this news item on news.com.au!  I wonder why?  

It's unusual that we get death threats in Australian politics, (isn't it? I hope it is.).  Deniers must be getting desperate.

On 2011/Jun/05, at 11:28 AM, David Boxall wrote:

> This started out as one thing and developed into something else. I hope 
> the climate science and media angles keep it relevant for Link.
> 
> <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/05/3235810.htm?section=justin>
> ...
>> A number of the country's top climate change scientists, including several at the Australian National University (ANU), have been targeted by death threats and abusive phone calls for months.
>> 
>> But the situation has now worsened, and ANU has moved its scientists to a more secure location and introduced other security measures.
>> 
>> Professor David Koroly from the University of Melbourne says he receives threats every time he is interviewed by the media.
>> 
>> "It is clear that there is a campaign in terms of either organised or disorganised threats to discourage scientists from presenting the best available climate science on television or radio," he said.
> ...
> 
> In January, congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot. Thirteen other 
> people were wounded and six died. Before the March NSW elections, the 
> lives of the children of the Labor candidate in my seat were reportedly 
> threatened <http://wollombi.nsw.au/news/display/2177>. An alarmingly 
> hysterical rally against carbon pricing was held in Canberra shortly 
> after. Now this.
> 
> The common factor? Feeble minds, inflamed by intemperate rhetoric.
> 
> Sarah Palin infamously targeted Giffords 
> <http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-01-09/news/27086902_1_gun-ban-sarah-palin-gun-incident>. 
> Commentators like Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt benefit handsomely by 
> promoting extremist views. They commonly employ inflammatory rhetoric to 
> do so. The threats to climate scientists are probably consequential.
> 
> When the worst happens, shouldn't the intemperate be held to account? 
> When inflammatory rhetoric incites feeble minds to violence, who is most 
> culpable? To me, the incited are less responsible than the inciters. 
> Much as the weapon is less to blame than the one who uses it.
> 
> We have a right to voice our views. Our exercise of that right carries 
> responsibility for the consequences. Is it time to legislate that 
> responsibility?
> 
> -- 
> David Boxall                    |  All that is required
>                                |  for evil to prevail is
> http://david.boxall.id.au       |  for good men to do nothing.
>                                |     -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

-- 
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
T: +61 2 61402408  M: +61 404072753
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request