[LINK] Death threats to Australian climate scientists

[Kim Holburn]

I take it back it was in the Australian, just not very obvious.

On 2011/Jun/05, at 2:08 PM, Kim Holburn wrote:

> 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 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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