Thursday
Dec162010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill A timeline
Dec 16, 2010 Media 15 December 13:05 GMT: Media Matters publishes its Foxleaks story.
15 December ~21:00 GMT: Largest sceptic blog, WUWT, publishes a response: Clueless bloggers attack Fox News..."
15 December 21:04 GMT: Largest UK sceptic blog publishes a response: Uncertainty? It's old hat.
15 December ~23:00 GMT: Guardian's Leo Hickman tweets: "And still the megaphone climate sceptics are ignoring the Fox memo"
16 December ~14:00 GMT Guardian's Damian Carrington retweets Leo Hickman.
Clueless indeed.
Reader Comments (44)
These crackpots think they can *create* their own email story
Follow the twit ters, it seems UEA has had serious computer problems, hope they haven't lost anything!
Martwine Right, apparently the core of machine room 1 is down. Unfortunately machine room 2 isn't a direct mirror of MR1... #ueatechpocalypse
Climategate v2? Please, no. RT @TyndallCentre Apologies our site is down, serious network issues at the University of East Anglia #eg
Martwine Just heard 3rd hand that the "mainframe" is "dead". "Could be next week before it's back up". #ueatechpocalypse
Don’t worry the Guardians management are just peed off that its full and blind support of AGW has left to looking a little stupid. They got an automatic hatred of Fox so this story has just feeds into that, there actual guilty of what they accuse Fox of , being partisan, but because they feel themselves to be on the side of good think it’s ok when they do it.
Has anyone noticed if the Graun has explained where their claim about demanding airtime for sceptics came from? It was reported in that same article on Media Matters.
the guardian appears to have turned OFF the recommend feature in the comments......
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/15/fox-news-climate-change-email
perhaps this was why. (now 1771 recommends !)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/dec/13/astroturf-libertarians-internet-democracy?showallcomments=true#comment-8795233
------------------------------------------
13 December 2010 8:36PM
Every day, I receive an email from the Campaign Against Climate Change, an organisation of which George Monbiot is honorary president. This email provides links to articles and blogposts sceptical about anthropogenic global warming, and encourages opponents to post critical comments.
The signup page for this astroturfing operation is here.
#
* Recommend? (1551) "
Dec 16, 2010 at 11:22 AM | Frosty
-------------------------
http://www.realclimategate.org/2010/12/george-monbiot-complains-about-astroturfing/#more-162
my mistake it is working now.. comments are on
Was it something in the trenches in WWI, some mutagen in the gas warfare vapours? Dichloroethyl sulphide, perhaps? But why would it affect mainly pols and journalists? Oh, yes, and scientists.
Barry - it seems to be working again.
I just made it 1772.
I cannot for the life of me see what there is to complain about in that Fox message. We have all learnt the hard way to be wary of everything stated as fact in the mainstream media, in particular in subjects of political advocacy, especially climate-related, by environmental propagandists.
"13 December 2010 8:36PM
Every day, I receive an email from the Campaign Against Climate Change, an organisation of which George Monbiot is honorary president. This email provides links to articles and blogposts sceptical about anthropogenic global warming, and encourages opponents to post critical comments.
The signup page for this astroturfing operation is here.
#
* Recommend? (1551) "
Well the comments button may be working now Barry but this comment has disappeared. It was by far the most highly voted comment yesterday. The Guardian is an absolute disgrace.
As is the Telegraph. Two articles giving Chris Huhne a hard time seem to have had their comments buttons disabled
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100068571/huhne-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-camerons-lousy-coalition/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/8205123/500-on-electricity-bills-to-pay-for-green-energy.html#dsq-content
It seems our shambles of a government don't want to know how unpopular they are!
Whoops, take that back, comment is still there in the Guardian and is now at 1794.
However criticism of the Telegraph still stands!!
5 December ~23:00 GMT: Guardian's Leo Hickman tweets: "And still the megaphone climate sceptics are ignoring the Fox memo"
It's all part of the lying narrative. They don't expect their readers to check up on them. They probably can get away with such lies with most of their readers. Anyone who assiduously reads the Grauniad and takes their opinions therefrom can be regarded as having implicitly accepted this form of brainwashing.
Marion,
The DT uses Disqus for comments, this has been unreliable, it can lose any or all of its functions at any time. That maybe the cause rather than the DT. But hey, nothing would surprise anymore!
Green Sand>
Disqus is so flaky that the chances of it being responsible for any given functionality failing as opposed to being deliberately removed are on a par with the chances that aerodynamics explaining why planes stay in the air, rather than the theory of invisible pink fairies holding them up being correct.
It really is quite astoundingly bad - but therein lies a lesson for us all, since it's actually worse work than much climate science, and yet there's no suspicion that there is malice involved. People really can be quite amazingly incompetent.
Similarly, the Grauniad tweeters aren't deliberately lying. They just don't understand the basics of fact checking.
Incidentally, Fox News may be 'skeptical' but they're no better than the Guardian. I'm under no illusions: Fox doesn't present a properly balanced view on anything ever.
Judging by the 49 responses to the, thus far, three day RC post,
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/responses-to-mcshane-and-wyner/
I doubt that uncertainty about the findings of professional Climate Scientists actually exists!
Despite the generous, other peoples money, funding of RC by "Big Politics", this particular Goliath is being annihilated by "tip-jarrers"
CA, the 21st Century equivalent of the coffee house, is now the regular hangout for some of the most brilliant and honest scientists and statisticians on the planet.
WUWT, the brainchild of a Californian meteorologist, continues to delight and surprise a huge audience of curious "citizen scientists"
BH, the UK's most popular climate blog, goes from strength to strength.
With no disrespect to other bloggers, these three alone continue to eviscerate, and with easily understood logic, the self-seeking hubris and downright evasion of the "non-citizen scientists" in this arena.
The numbers speak volumes, whatever the MSM models project, that the consensus of the funding community is no longer uncertain.
The mood is settled, the evidence unassailable and the verdict of the majority is rapidly approaching unanimous.
We don't trust you. We don't believe you. We won't support any political party that hides behind your curtain.
In other words folks, enjoy your Xmas meal. Next year it may be reheated quarter pounders!
Welcome to the greasy pole that connects the cellar of climate snake oilers with the basement of putrid politicians.
Caution. Consensus is a double edged sword.
Warning. Grant funding and patronage may go down as well as up.
Tip. Chew food carefully. You don't want to choke.
Merry Xmas all.
Why do I wonder if you are not lost in minutia?
RoyFOMR - you are being a bit harsh on RC. Of the 49 posts about the McShane and Wyner paper and especially the rejoinder, three are on the differences between criteria, criterium and criterion. Two others discuss the difference between millions and billions (US and UK style) and then there's this -
It's no wonder they see themselves as the premier climate science blog.
If that question was to me DP, then my immediate response would be to garble that "the devils in the minutia"
My next response would likely follow the path, "?"
If my understanding of the questioner/questioned sequence was incorrect then ignore my previous responses.
Given my history of reasoned interpretations, I apologise in advance!
Merry Xmas from Scotland.
Darn it, DP and Grant, you both got me there!!!
In my defence, and with a good Queens Counseller, I could have argued my corner but would still have lost.
My only defence witness was the trolley-dolly, himself.
Should I have pulled the tights-obsessed, obsessive before, or after, tiffin?
By pulled I mean into the dock, of course. Double entendres, however humourous at the time, have little leverage when confronted by more weighty matters. EG, saving the planet from the wickedness of Man/n and the evil imps from whom he gets succour!
dave:
"Fox News may be 'skeptical' but they're no better than the Guardian."
Completely agree, but that's not evident in the email. The email seems impeccably fair, which is why The Guardian's blindness and/or lying about it is so depressing. The Guardian should have had that email circulated to its own writers to remind them of what at least lip-service to impartiality looks like.
the MSM has 9,500+ stories on assange, who is not a whistleblower, but merely a representative of a website that coordinated release of cherry-picked info with the same MSM who barely reported the Climategate emails/computer code etc.
funny how the public still do not have a clue who or what websites exposed Climategate, an expose with costly implications for every human being on earth.
meanwhile bradley manning's leaks tell us nothing the public didn't know already.
the CAGW fanatics want 100% MSM submission, nothing less.
should have said 9.500 News results just for today on assange on google, tho no doubt some of the results will be for the past few days. if anything should ring alarm bells that there is something fishy about assange, it is the media's obsession with promoting him that tells the story.
O/T
Millions facing fuel rationing over Christmas as heating oil runs low
The idiocy is obvious, not least that Huhne is involved, but let us tip a hat to the Met Office who now do not have the balls to provide seasonal forecasts. Weeks before Cancun? Press Releases galore. But a Met forecast of any ******* use?
If there is one thing stupider than a tweet, it has to be a Grauniad tweet.
Just skipped throught this, in rather festive mood. I especially liked (and will reuse, in the spirit of Oscar Wilde) "non-citizen scientists". That is great stuff Roy. I'm tempted to repeat the old joke: There are two kinds of people in the world, those that believe that the world can be divided into two kinds of people, and those that don't. Well I now have my two categories for those interested in climate. Citizen scientists and those that haven't yet achieved those heights. Very nice.
Hello Andrew. Sorry, I've been away so only just had a chance to see this post. By "megaphone climate sceptics" I actually meant the likes of Morano and Monckton, both of which I'm sure you and your diocese faithful would wish to distance yourselves given the contrasting calm and measured approach you adopt here.
I have just noticed that Morano did, in fact, end up responding with the rather hilarious comment that Fox News is "an inspiration for journalism". I fully appreciate that you don't see eye to eye with the Guardian, but surely it must be a concern to you that you find yourself defending Fox News of all media outlets?! Seriously, how can that do your cause any good? It is the home of Glenn Beck, after all.
More broadly, it has always remained a mystery to me that you don't say that the likes of Beck, Morano, Monckton et al do your cause real harm. You frequently see 'warmists' calling out the likes of the 10:10 video and the 'Bedtime Stories' advert as mistakes (I have stated that I didn't agree with either, for example), but when do you ever see 'sceptics' admonishing the likes of North, Delingpole, Beck, Morano, Monckton et al for their frequently ridiculous language and statements? Or am I being 'clueless' again? Are all 'sceptics', in fact, perfect?
Dear Leo,
By tradition, social background, area of birth, I was the archetypal Guardian reader. Living abroad I used to traipse out every afternoon in the hot afternoon sun, or biting cold, to buy the Guardian fresh off the plane from Frankfurt. As an expat it was one of the highlights of the day to open a fresh crisp copy, even appreciating the propensity to leave its ink everywhere. I was your core readership.
Today, I do not buy it because of the internet. Even now my wife says go and buy the Guardian - I was like a faithful dog with bone for a few hours, she misses that. But I will not. The Guardian has betrayed many of its readers. Some still buy it, I choose not to. It has betrayed my view of what the Guardian should be.
Combining something that your colleague Damien posted, the Guardian regards my opinion as "fringe". The Guardian's editorial policy is to support CAGW (or change, or disruption).
When I see that written. When I see that you criticise Fox News-et al, it reminds of Lenin. He was trying to save people, the peasants, the proles, even though he had total contempt for them. You do realise that the Guardian does come across as the green equivalent of Pravda?
However, things are now different. The current peasants are educated, have free time and free access to information and communication channels.
My instinctive contempt for Fox News is there. I wince when Monckton gratuitously uses the word "communism" when really it is not required. Dellingpole? I actually find him funny, but then luckily I am not the subject of his wit. His world view is based on old school Conservatism, and that is not my background.
However, CAGW is not like football or traditional politics. The sceptic position is fringe (or at least publicly so) within the top-level political and media classes. Within the population? With the peasants? It is most certainly not.
Of course they are just peasants, not scientists, or advisor's, or environmental journalists. Their opinion is invalid. Yet here I am. I am by background an engineer, specialising in IT. I was a Partner at one major Consultant Firm, and a Director at another. Even for argument's sake ignoring my viewpoint of the science, I look at the quality of the environmental journalism and find "Pravda" - not balanced or questioning debate.
Let's ignore the Guardian, and look at the Telegraph. Louise Gray? What value does she add to the debate? Cutting and pasting any press release that comes into her inbox from a "green" organisation with vested interests. Vested interests on the green side? How could that be? We are trying to save the planet. Well I as said I worked in senior positions and I know exactly how the system works.
It always strikes me the difference between political and environmental journalists. Even in the"left leaning" Guardian if there a story to be had on the political side against the "left", or a something that did not "add-up" your politcal correspondent would question or investigate (Rawnsley for example.) Where is the Rawnsley on the environmental side? Nowhere.
You have Poltical Kommisar Bob Ward. Pravda.
You own pet subject, carbon footprints. Sometimes I wonder whether you do it to make fun, but I am guessing "fun" and "environment" in the Guardian are not common bedfellows. Now this may play well with a certain part of the readership, and make the other part go and out and buy a hair shirt. However, as someone who understands cause and effect and the supply chain, it is just total nonsense for having an effect on the future of the planet. It just comes across as ideology and penitence to this ex-Guardian reader.
So there is fault-line between the Political and Media classes. So if we have the education to understand and filter, the ability to access why would'nt we look at and appreciate selected pieces by "right-wingers"? Both my parents, socialists, fought a war in active service against Hitler, yet they always bought the Telegraph, the establishment paper.
You want Fox and the like to be less regarded by sceptics? The solution is simple, start questioning. Start giving a consistent viewpoint to alternate ideas. It will not happen because those views are "fringe" in your world, but until they do, your readership will be without me.
Maybe not important, but I think there are quite a few "me"s out there, who are not finding a channel for there views. There is fault-line and I believe that some point there will be an earthquake. And it will come very suddenly.
Regards, JC
Leo Hickman
The Guardian and its environmental team, of which you are part , fully backed 10:10 video until ,ironically, it blow up in their face , it was only after that they started to question if it was a good idea. Meanwhile your tweet has proven to be bull, but of course you can’t admit to it as you can’t admit to any mistakes, the fact you attack others for the same thing just goes to show the level of hypocrisy CIF shows.
And you see sceptics disagree with their own side all the time, it’s the AGW supporters that show a large degree of blind faith , much encourage by CIF environmental journalists whom shown their happy to attack anyone that does not both above and below the line . I suggest you clean your house before you call others names for being ‘dirty’ .
Leo
My post on the subject was on the subject of the Fox climate email, which you portrayed as biased, when it clearly wasn't. Surely Fox's hosting of Beck is not a good reason to allow that to pass? (I haven't seen enough of Beck's show - just a couple of YouTube excerpts - to offer an opinion on whether the man himself is worth supporting or not).
Our object here is to get to the truth, not to "win" for a cause. Right?
Andrew,
Thanks for the response. I read this post to be a sneer at the timing of my tweet. Hence, my clarification that I was referring to the likes of Morano and Monckton as 'megaphone sceptics'. (It is interesting to me, though, that you read that to mean you.) I guess we're not going to agree on the meaning/intention of that Fox email. You've done well for yourself if you haven't seen much of Glenn Beck, but Fox News are (in)famous for being one of the most biased, politicised news orgs in the world so, again, I would repeat my surprise that you are positioning yourself as one of their defenders. 'Seekers of truth' they most certainly are not. (I presume you will retort that the Guardian is the same but by any fair metric there is simply no comparison.)
But, more importantly, I note that you didn't address the point I was making in my comment about why you don't distance yourself from the 'sceptics' I listed. I read from that you are, indeed, comfortable with being associated with these people. It's certainly handy to know that for future reference. But if I'm wrong about this, please do clarify.
You: "Our object here is to get to the truth, not to "win" for a cause. Right?"
A couple of years ago, perhaps, I would probably have agreed with your protestation that you are merely 'seeking the truth' rather than trying to 'win a cause'. But I have noticed an increasing politicisation of your posts in recent times (and your hook up with GWPF does little to dispel this view). There was a time when it seemed your goal was largely about being a 'climate auditor' (which, as a pursuit, is commendable as I think keeping scientists 'on their toes' is a good thing - who wouldn't, if it isn't based on any other motive than to produce the best science?), but this veneer seems to be rapidly unpeeling which, to me at least, is a shame. To suggest your sole mission is about 'seeking the truth' is a tad disingenuous, I feel. You have political/ideological motivations which are obvious for all to see. Fine, interrogate climate science. As I mentioned, it's a worthy goal. But when it becomes obvious that it's actually your opposition to suggested climate policy that is your prime motivation, then you shouldn't be surprised when your conclusions are not accepted as rapidly as you might hope. After all, isn't that exactly what you are arguing when you hit out at so-called politicised scientists? They've just made up AGW to tax us all more, no?
For what it's worth, my motivation is that, unlike you, I do think the evidence to date suggests that climate change presents a major problem for humanity and it seems a mighty risk to hope/assume otherwise. I would love for it to be proved not to be the case (who wouldn't?!), but I just don't see that case having been made yet, despite your best efforts. So rather than moving on to have that urgent debate about what constitutes the best policy response (yes, let's argue the toss over the merits or otherwise of nuclear, carbon taxes, wind turbines, adaption, ignoring it altogether etc) we seem to be held back from that debate by a period of what I would call "manufactured doubt" - a skilful art long practiced by thinktanks and others in the US, in particular. I go back to my earlier point: I would have thought you would be especially keen to distance yourself from those that practice such dark arts.
But, more importantly, I note that you didn't address the point I was making in my comment about why you don't distance yourself from the 'sceptics' I listed. I read from that you are, indeed, comfortable with being associated with these people. It's certainly handy to know that for future reference. But if I'm wrong about this, please do clarify.
And the question we would all ask is: would it make any difference to the Guardian's treatment if BH felt the need to distance himself in the way you feel is required?
(I presume you will retort that the Guardian is the same but by any fair metric there is simply no comparison.)
Well yes, that strange world where the Guardian is these days. The saviour of the world, the arbiter of truth. The use of term Pravda, is not an exaggeration to many.
such dark arts
Well they are a function of democracy. The same arts that many on your side of the debate employ with relish.
You really do believe you are different. That somehow your world view is more valid. It does not mean it is. Here is an example, you carried a story about the Sudanese president pilfering 9 billion dollars. Yet you would be happy to give this gentlemen a few billion more in the name of AGW?
If governments had got together and said we are going to tackle agriculture and fresh water in Africa. We need 100 Billion dollars, I doubt many would oppose. Why aren't you pushing that. isn't that an equally valid cause? Equally valid world view? Would not that further the lives of people in Africa.
Why is that world view less valid than yours?
Just convincing yourself that you are in the right, does not make it so...
I forgot to mention Bob Ward... Megaphone Warmist?... ahhh, but this is different because he is telling the "truth"? Sorry, I did forget...
When the Guardian starts showing some balance, then perhaps that is the time you can come on here and start trying to influence who should distance themselves from who.
The reality to many is that the Guardian has little or no credibility. That may be important to you or it may not. Only the future will decide.
Hello Jiminy,
You really do believe you are different. That somehow your world view is more valid. It does not mean it is. Here is an example, you carried a story about the Sudanese president pilfering 9 billion dollars. Yet you would be happy to give this gentlemen a few billion more in the name of AGW?
No, this is exactly my point in a way. I'm arguing above to say, yes, I wish we could have just this sort of debate. Is giving a corrupt Sudanese president $9bn to tackle AGW a good thing? Yes? No? Let's have that debate. This is exactly where I would expect a healthy debate along traditional political lines and 'world views' to take place. What I object to is when climate science is attacked by those with a nakedly political agenda. Sure, let's examine the science - of course, we should - but I would like to see that done in an environment free of ideological interference. Let's leave that to the policy debate.
If governments had got together and said we are going to tackle agriculture and fresh water in Africa. We need 100 Billion dollars, I doubt many would oppose. Why aren't you pushing that. isn't that an equally valid cause? Equally valid world view? Would not that further the lives of people in Africa.
Er, yes. But I wasn't aware that I had made such a distinction. Of course, I think water is a massive issue too (one not unconnected to AGW!) as are education, agriculture etc.
Do I think that some climate policy proposals are mistaken/expensive/a waste of time? Yes, of course I do. I'm no fan of biofuels, for example. And I do think that a system of cap-and-trade/carbon credits is flawed and liable to corruption. I'm also pretty agnostic about nuclear and see a future where we will have to rely on an energy mix that includes a hefty proportion of next-generation reactors. I'm not a slave to wind turbines either - rather I see them as just one component of the energy mix. To solely rely on them would clearly be folly.
I would love for us to concentrate on this debate about the best policy routes, but, no, we find ourselves locked (to the joy of some, no doubt - see my comment on 'manufactured doubt' above) in a perpetual debate about the veracity of the "science". I'm not - and have never done so - arguing that the science should no longer be interrogated. That would be foolish. But, given the high stakes and risks should we chose not to act in any way, we need to keep a sense of perspective about both where the uncertainties lay and how many people working in the field have viable, peer-reviewed alternative opinions - and be especially vigilant when someone with a clear political agenda comes along and claims they have knocked over the whole climate science canon with a single blow and therefore we can all just get back to normal and ignore the AGW 'hoax'.
I think we got caught in a crosspost there, Jiminy.
I'm sorry you feel like that about the Guardian, but I imagine I could probably give you 10,000 words in response and not convince you otherwise. Despite your protestations, we do publish lots of contrasting voices at the Guardian - and, I would argue, covered your beloved Climategate in more detail than any other newspaper in the world. That we didn't reach the same conclusion about whether the emails "destroyed" the entire canon of climate science shouldn't distract us from this.
To address KNr's point: "The Guardian and its environmental team, of which you are part , fully backed 10:10 video until ,ironically, it blow up in their face , it was only after that they started to question if it was a good idea."
Personally, I didn't even know about that video until a day or so after it had been made public on the Guardian website. (I was away at the time.) And I tweeted immediately that I thought it was a mistake when I saw it for the first time. If I had been around I would have happily written an article making that exact point. I know many here like to think the Guardian is Pravda in disguise, but freedom of expression and alternative views are permitted.
Dear Leo,
As it is Christmas, perhaps we could have a a game of football in no man's land whilst Monbiot and Dellingpole play silent night from their respective trenches?
I appreciate your efforts to show shades of grey. For whatever reason those shades of grey do not appear to many of us who still follow the output of the Guardian.
I never believed the emails destroyed Climate Science. What they did confirm to me is that the people involved showed the same traits as many people I have to had to deal with my lifetime of business. They were no different, and from that I joined the dots to paint a less then pleasant picture. Different from yours, but my background is different.
I understand your desires about policy. However, there is one inescapable paradox. Doubt. As you say you want to move beyond doubt. You want to solve a problem, perhaps not just a problem of AGW, but a problem that encompasses many aspects.
But for that to happen, you have move beyond doubt. And that is a problem. For, to some degree, you have to suppress doubt. For as you say, if we never get beyond the doubt we will never get anywhere,
However, I have lived for many a year in ex-communist countries. Doubt was not allowed there either. There were some true believers, but those worlds were primarily full of "good communists" who the moment the edifice crumbled suddenly because "good capitalists".
The difference between capitalism and communism. Not a great deal to the average person. However, with capitalism you know what you are getting on the tin. Communism was just one big lie. The higher you climbed in the system the bigger the lie you knew it to be. But there was no doubt.
I am not a idealist. I am a realist. Big business, vested interests, corruption are part of the CAGW solution. I do not expect you to admit that, but why would this solution be any different to any other? If you do not have the foundation of truth, real truth, not artificially manufactured truth, then the solution may not be better than the problem. Power corrupts, the upholding of truth is the only weapon that mitigates that corruption.
Our Sudanese President is just one small example.
Here is a non-political example: Microsoft. That whole empire is based on a lie. The debate would be has it benefited society or not. Microsoft created a whole supply chain where everyone takes their cut. Who pays in the end? The end consumer? Everyone jumped on the wagon, innovation was stifled. Competition crushed. The internet happened despite Microsoft, not because of it.
We find ourselves on two sides of the debate. Forgive me if I believe that the Guardian cannot entertain doubt. Doubt dilutes the message, dilutes the mission. However, you have walked out of the trench into no man's land. Which at least makes the "enemy" human. The Bishop Hill blog is a good blog. Whatever you think of the subjects covered or how. Comments are focused, signal to noise ratio is good. And anyone can contribute, though I wish more "positive minded" AGW proponents would, if only to stop group think, something if I am honest we believe the Guardian to be guilty of.
Anyway the whizzbangs and howitzers will shortly be falling, so it was a pleasure to play football. I do not see how you can overcome the "doubt" issue if you want to remain true to your goals, but any progress by the Guardian will certainly be noticed, if not immediately appreciated.
Regards, JC
Leo
I don't particularly feel the need to associate or disassociate myself from anyone. Like I said, I'm after the truth, and I take input from all sides and from all kinds of people. I judge them on how reliable they turn out to be.
Jiminy,
I like your notion of a Christmas Day football match in No Man's Land. (Even if I was always the last one to be picked for the team at school - very much an armchair fan these days.) Maybe there's something in that? An annual day called 'Climate Armistice Day' whereby we all down our 'weapons of war' and share a beer? Too much water under the bridge? Perhaps, but seemingly intractable sides have been brought together in the past. Adams/Paisley. De Clerk/Mandela. Barlow/Williams.
I'm not too sure where you think that I believe that doubt is not allowed or tolerated - a 'doubt denier', if you like. Personally, I don't think the comparison with Communist-era Eastern Europe is that apt or helpful. The Guardian is not a homogeneous blob of groupthink, as you seem to think. I'm just one of hundreds of journalists who write for the paper. I have never received a memo ordering me to tow a certain editorial line, or been asked to change something to better fit the 'party line'. Many journalists I know want to write for the Guardian precisely because of this freedom (in stark contrast, it has to be said, to some other papers that shall remain nameless).
All I seek really is that those presenting the case for their scepticism about what the climate scientists are overwhelmingly telling us do so on a politics-free, evidence-rich platform. I have yet to see this happen, so please forgive me if I continue to be swayed by the multi-layered evidence put forward by the scientists who are studying this issue day in, day out. Surely, we would all demand the same when talking about any other area of highly specialised, high-stakes science, say, oncology? Why so different for climate scientists? (Other than, of course, you don't like the whiff of the policy implications - but, on the same measure, how long would you continue to resist the evidence if repeatedly told by successive oncologists that you had cancer?) Yes, the Climategate emails showed some ill-chosen words, ill-judged decision-making and sloppy practice - we've exhaustively discussed this for months on the Guardian website. I would suspect any private emails from any organisation in the world would show this was the case - as you say, we are all human. But, sorry, I just didn't see any evidence in those emails that said we should no longer view AGW as a big problem coming down the track for humanity. What I did see, though, was the grotesque spectacle of the usual suspects using and abusing those emails to make all sorts of politicised claims against climate science.
Thanks for clarifying your position, Andrew.
I judge them on how reliable they turn out to be.
I'll assume that means you don't hold a candle to Monckton, then.
Jiminy
I really appreciated your string of comments, and the last one of yours in particular was outstanding.
The only conspiracy in this whole business is the conspiracy of Fox News, Exon-Mobil, Phillip Morris, the Heartland Institute, the Marshall Institute, the Cato Institute and a whole rabble of right-wing crazies against Scientific Truth and the lives of billions of people in the Third World.
You thought communists did genocide well.
Wait till you see what these urbane, softly-spoken monsters can do.
Thank goodness for this leak that put Murdoch duplicity out in the open.
What we really need is a Fairness Doctrine to put this wicked and unscrupulous man out of business.
Leo Hickman
Your analogy doesn''t stand up to scrutiny. Oncologists do not implement drastic treatment for what might be cancer until they are sure of the diagnosis. They do not say " although we do not understand what is happening, we must act, and you must undergo the most radical therapy we can devise", while ignoring numerous other possibilities, including natural ones, some of which are being suggested to them by other equally well-qualifed oncologists and intelligent observers.