Bishop Hill The poisonous influence of GuardianEco
Nov 29, 2010 Interesting fact 1: when Bob Ward wrote his hit piece about me at the Guardian, the libellous bits - saying that I had a "history of making misleading statements" or whatever it was - were not written by Ward but were added by James Randerson, the editor at GuardianEco.
Interesting fact 2: when the Guardian wrote up the press conference for the GWPF report, the bit at the top saying the report would be "rejected for its hypocrisy" were not written by the author, Fred Pearce, but were added by the GuardianEco editors.
Interesting fact 3: on Friday, I linked to Andrew Holding's thoughtful piece in the Guardian on sceptics. Several people, including Judith Curry, noted that the title didn't seem to have the same considered tone as the rest of the article. In the title bar, it reads "Opening up climate science can cut off the denialists" (Denialists appears as sceptics in the article title". The standfirst reads "Equipping the public with the tools and knowledge to understand complex issues like global warming can help them avoid the rhetorical tricks of climate 'skeptics'".
So I emailed Andrew Holding and asked whether these were his work, and of course he said "no". The original title was "The importance of minority viewpoints".
What a poisonous publication the Guardian is.
Reader Comments (63)
Although some here have been moderated and even banned at CiF, I've never had any problem getting my posts accepted. Poor spelling, punctuation and grammar are not an issue. Write any old drivel you like as long as you adhere to the Guardian guidelines on CAGW. I post under Yeltnarg, for it is I backwards. Here's my latest on the Cancun climate change extravaganza -
I wonder if I will get banned if Dr Randerson or any of his friends read this.
The Guardian currently has a editorial on asking questions to Huhne about Cancun (Can'tcon). I asked a very polite question, something to the effect:
Mr. Huhne,
Why do you feel that a treaty is justified, considering that the IPCC prediction models neither can be validated nor conform to the scientific methods of forecasting?
below which I listed the following reference without any further comment:
http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/research/AGW%20analogies66JSA.pdf
I said nothing else ... yet my question was felt to be too poisonous for "el bigshot" to address, and it was deleted "by a moderator". I think they should consider a name change from 'The Guardian' to 'The Propagandist'.
I am also considering changing my namesake to 'The Grand Inquisitor' since obviously I must be regarded as an atheist by the Believers at The Guardian.
GrantB
Some of us denailers do useful work. I suppose you think nail free wood simply grows on trees or something
GrantB
Amusing.
Freeze in the dark? Hell, no, I'm going to BURN something!
geoffchambers "Do you have a link or approximate date for Randerson’s comment on global warming being Guardian “policy”? "
Fortunately, yes. One commenter on a Guardian article by Fred Pearce asked the question "What is the purpose for publishing all these articles by Fred Pearce?". This was replied to by staff writer James Randerson, who inter alia replied:
[JRanderson, 3 Feb 2010, 9:30PM, Staff]
"The Guardian's editorial line is that global warming is happening and caused by human actions...
Is there evidence in the emails of data manipulation? Is there evidence of abuse of peer review and FOI? Is there evidence of "hiding" temperature declines? Is there evidence of fraud and conspiracy? etc etc
The answer to most of these questions turned out to be no...significantly, the science of global warming has not been seriously challenged.
James"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/03/yamal-data-climate-change-hacked-email
(scroll down for Randerson's intervention in the comments)
So there you have it: anthropogenic global warming is the Guardian's editorial line. Note: 'global warming', not 'climate change'.
ScientistforTruth
Many thanks. My rationale for keeping up the barrage of scepticism at CiF was always to try and drive a wedge between the ecoloons at Guardian Environment and what I imagined to be the sensible majority elsewhere on the paper.
Since editor Rusbridger has come out in support of “the environment” as the most important problem facing the world, I don’t think there’s much hope of sanity raising it’s head, at least until the paper is facing closure, and a potential new owner is informed that 80% of the readers of its environment page are opposed to the paper’s policies. In the meantime, my friend sisterdingo will be asking Randerson at every opportunity how a scientific hypothesis can become editorial policy.
The Guardian CiF moderation standards regarding AGW are now more relaxed compared to this time last year. One can even swear occasionally in a comment and get away with it.
To compare and contrast, see the comments in this piece from Nov 25 2009:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/24/climate-professor-leaked-emails-uea?#start-of-comments
The first 50 comments were subjected to a 'ideological cleansing' and many comments were airbrushed. Every single one of the deleted comments was from a CAGW sceptic and none of them warranted censorship. I remember it well because that was the day I finally got off the climate fence and thus became a target for censorship. You'll see me whinging about it later in the thread under the user name "shexmus".
BTW, later in the same thread, a CAGW cultist revealed one of the tactics they'd been using as though it was a legitimate thing to do in a debate (that revelation too was later deleted). If you don't like a comment, all you have to do is click on "Report Abuse" button just under "Recommend" and enter an excuse. Once a few people have done so the moderators will move to delete the 'abusive' comment, probably without even reading it.
With such mendacity, a dozen committed people from across the world working together and using multiple usernames can easily tilt the balance of opinion in comments section.
GrantB...you are a very naughty boy...but I like you!
To all of those scared off by the warmist shooters from the hip in the comments section of the Grun...please don't be. That is exactly what they want.
The nastiness of some commentators shows their fundamental inhumanity and intolerance. GIve them plenty of opportunity. It does not go unnoticed. It may not be a scientific approach,but in this war of propaganda as well as science, it is a valid one. This is no time to be thin skinned when the opposition is on the run.
sHx and all those who think that commenting at the Graun is a waste of time because of the moderation / censorship, please see the account of my “report abuse” experiment at
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=337
A single press of the “report abuse” button can wipe out a comment if justified. A friend got rid of a comment by Graun journalist Adam Corner the other day for using the term “tinfoil hat”.
"even Scotland could not guarantee bad winter weather in this age of global warming (to assist the Scottish Rugby team against NZ's All Blacks)"
Ha, the All Blacks play in freezing gale force winds pushing rain horizontally on a regular basis here in NZ.
Our fullbacks can kick a ball from the sideline between the posts in a blustery cross-wind. The Scots need more than bad weather to get an edge.
We breed them tough (and make our own vodka) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNDIbBpxoBA
The Guardian does do some good journalism like focusing on the Ian Thomlinson manslaughter by the City of London police and fighting super injunctions in the high court. It has a very good record on this sort of action and deserves credit.
However, I agree that their ecology reporting is train wreck.
About two years ago they reported that the Arctic ice was now only 20% of the average over the last 30 years , instead of 20% LESS than the average.
They steadfastly refused to correct this when informed and moderators removed comments on CiF pointing out the error.
George Monbiot has spouted some amazingly silly stuff in the past but did have a reality moment when he read the CRU emails. He said he was "gutted".
Despite all he has said in the past I think he deserves enormous credit for a) realising he had been conned and b) having the integrity to admit it publicly and change his position. He has been a lot less visible on the subject since.
Despite this, the G-Eco train wreck rolls on , just this week quoting the curator of some science museum in London saying "upto 6C warming by 2100" .
They are all true believers and they aren't going to let Lucifer (or facts) get in their way on mann made global warming.
The Guardian - Guardian of what?