Monday
Mar292010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Graun still deleting comments
Mar 29, 2010 Climate: Pachauri Media Not a comprehensive survey, but of the first 50 comments on Pachauri's article in the Guardian, 18 were deleted.
Criticism is forbidden.
Reader Comments (62)
Nothing unusual happening at the Grauniad then. I don't bother posting anymore. Interesting that the odd critical posts that slip through get good recommendations.
How do we know the deleted comments weren't just spam selling Nike (which appears on the Independent a lot for some reason) or wanton trolls ?
That's the problem - we don't know what was there.
It's the problem with all censorship, it leads to speculation about what's been deleted.
I don't understand why the G has to do it. Even places like the Daily Mail lets all comers in and, while the comments are sometimes outrageous, at least it's honest. Why does the G have to be so dishonest?
I have had several posts on the subject of global warming deleted by the Guardian. Some rather mysteriously and others almost certainly because I might have offended the delicate sensibilites of the moderators. I do not use foul language but I can sometimes be a little over emphatic about patent nonsense posted by others. Rabid warmists get their posts deleted as well. I think you might be being a little hard on the Groan here,much as I hate to defend them.
It seems to be OK to call those of us with contrary view points "deniers". That doesn't get you deleted. And I don't believe that it was spam that was deleted - as a few of the posts by the "deletees" were let through (and they weren't spam).
I don't often see the postings of the "pro" crowd, but it is quite an eye opener. Standard rebuttal seems to be a lot of name calling and "show me *your* peer reviewed paper" - without appreciating that maybe the onus is on them to show us "deniers" some high quality "proof" ie. not the output of a computer model or a hypertext link to RealClimate's denier rebuttal page.
Grauniad readers must be terribly enthusiastic about this sort of thing or alternatively, the vast majority of anti-views are deleted because, on the Times website, their comments section on any AGW topic seems to be about 99% sceptical.
It always amuses me that (especially in America) the Grauniad and their ilk are described as liberal, when they are anything but. When I was growing up, the right was authoritarian, and to believe in civil liberties and individual freedom put me on the left. Now the statist, illiberal left have come out in their true colours, but still lay claim to the tag "liberal". They even have the cheek to describe old-school liberals as right-wing.
O tempora, o mores!
David S - that's exactly right. My dad has read the G every day of his life. I was brought up to believe that this was the voice of reason, of fairness, of open-minded, intelligent and free thinking individuals.....
...and now I know that's just not true.
As I have mentioned here on previous threads, it appears that some of the Groan Mods mess about with the recommend feature by not adding a vote on a sceptic viewpoint and appearing to double a vote on an alarmist view. Other people I have spoken to have also noticed this happening, so it is not me being paranoid. I have also noticed some comments that have a high number of recommends have been removed after a couple of hours.
Personally any of my comments go for pre-moderation, and then generally do not appear, even though I have never been abusive apart from one thread when one of their usual suspects called me a muppet, and then went on to say that dinosaurs were wiped out by GW. I replied 'Hey Beeker, I think that you will find that it was a bloody big rock hitting the earth that caused that'. I don't know if it was the reference to Beeker or the 'bloody' which caused my pre-mods.
Dave S and Caroline, I agree. The Grauniad does pull offensive comments from both sides, but I reckon when Tamsin the Green Fairy mod is on duty she pulls even the most innocuous posts because she doesn't agree with them. (Could be Louie the Green Elf, but it's one of them).
I post there occasionally and haven't had a post pulled in a long time, but previously totally innnocuous posts arguing the science have been pulled.
Good evening
I just read the link to this site from the latest comment in the G (which I can assure everyone WILL be deleted).
I have reason to believe that I have had the greatest number of deletions on this article under the name I use here. From my own perspective it would seem that difficult to answer cristicism of Pachauri can often earn a deletion and any line of questioning of a rabid righteous that may prove the undoing of that righteous also earns a no-no.
I for my efforts have now been put on a 'naughty-boy pre-mod' step which is indistinguishable from censorship in practice. Slightly irritating but completely consistent with any ideological structure that has failed to get you to 'believe'. I have tried to post new comments since (all completely reasonable) but now it would seem I am verboten. My archive has remained in place but I have little doubt to only give the 'appearance' of providing free-speech. I know from others that an archive can also be removed ala-Stalin.
I have not used any abuse whatsoever (not my style anyway) and have tried to demonstrate a willingness to engage on a reasonable level.
Just for the hallibut I'd like to post here (with permission) what was removed and one or two that I have tried to submit since the naughty-boy step was initiated.
This first one was to answer a couple of my critics earlier on. You can get from my reply who they were.
johntherock
27 Mar 2010, 5:15PM
To "theoriginaljones",
Do you understand Peak Oil at all?
If you do, then presumably you are content with civilisation ending (presumably, somehow you'd get away with it) - if you don't then I'd recommend you do a bit of research before firing off again. Go on - you know it makes sense!
Yes I think I do. No, I am not 'content' with civilisation ending but I'm not sure what your point is as I wasn't addressing either of those issues.
edwardrice edwardrice
27 Mar 2010, 5:24PM
theoriginaljones
With respect Mr Pachauri it is most difficult to have any credibility in someone who swans around the world first-class and generally living a lifestyle far in excess of your stated means/income
You say Pachauri is "generally living a lifestyle far in excess of ...stated means/income"
What is Mr Pachauri's "stated means/income"?
I refer you to the quote below and it's link.
'He rejected claims that he had personally profited from the many contracts he has to advise companies on climate change. All the money went to the charitable research institute which he heads, he said. He gave The Times a copy of his 2008-09 income tax return which showed earnings of £44,600. '
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7078140.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093
I apologise for treading on sensitivities.
This next one also removed but oddly enough was left up in Timesonline.
theoriginaljones
27 Mar 2010, 1:21AM
With respect Mr Pachauri it is most difficult to have any credibility in someone who swans around the world first-class and generally living a lifestyle far in excess of your stated means/income who then exhorts the rest of the world to start living a more austere existence.
You would (possibly) salvage a degree of your wrecked credibility if you were to, say, simply come clean about your own finances and prove that you and all the ideological caste that you represent ARE actually operating from a higher priciple.
So Mr Pachauri, just open up your books and prove me wrong.Please. I want to believe in your message, I really do, but the rational part of my mind keeps saying 'nah, summat stinks in all this'.
If such a move on your part survived scrutiny I will be the first to apologise and donate a four figure sum in US dollars to ANY charity of your choice by means of paying penance. I would send the receipt to the G to prove it AND my tax return to show I'm not claiming it back from the poor taxpayer whom YOU wish to squeeze even further?
This one was to try to clarify the thought disorder that seemed to emit from 'robur'. I did go to his archive and read almost every word. I've concluded there is something not quite right with him. However.
theoriginaljones
27 Mar 2010, 4:11AM
robur
Yeah, Churchill used a bicycle for the entire WWII duration. He went to Yalta and Cairo by donkey and rowboat. Winston ate only bread for the entire war effort; well, bread and turnips. He supported the war effort 110%, using no gasoline and barely subsisting. Smoked only one cigar, on Victory in Europe Day.
My apologies, I'm truly not sure what kind of comparison you are making here. There may be nuances that I'm not recognising but it seems to be a non-sequitur response.
Please believe me when I say I'm trying to clarify.
(This really was an effort on my part to understand what he was saying.
This next one didn't get thru and a couple of others I tried.
KingInYellow
Indeed and in my view you are quite correct to request any evidence to support a view. My original position was based on a current scepticism on what is going on and a wish to know more with grave doubts as to the probity of the current system ref Pachauri/IPCC.
Please go through my archive and you will see where I'm coming from.
My original request was that you don't tint your requests for evidence with the rider that the providers of the evidence be 'shamed' or whatever sanction enters the head.That is not proper.
Again, I am not attacking, I'm simply asking you to be civil. I do not pick up that you are a nasty piece of work .
In my experience it is problematic to elevate any endeavour to the staus of a faith. Always have a small boubt at least.
If you reply please just focus on the implied threat and the consequences not the subject matter, that is already clear.
I will politely reply in gratitude if you do. I promise I won't task you again if you don't.
In short I have the suspicion that the G doesn't like those who don't have the 'truth' but to be (as said above) fair to the G at least they give you the chance to prove you're not 'one of them' before they fist you up the shitter which, in some respects can be considered worse as it gives the facade of free-speech where at least the reat are more open and honest by saying 'if we don't like you straight off the bat we aint interested. Most other journals I've tried routinely pre-mod (which, to be perfectly consistent and fair, I can also understand. It's the deletion of legitimacy that gets my goat.
Thank for the rant. I feel better now.
The comments have stopped on the G. Somebody's asked 'What's the point of Cif?'
I think that's stumped them.
Best comment on there.... from Latimer Alder I think..
And merely loudly shouting 'darling you were wonderful' at each other..and then claiming 'there is a consensus' isn't much more than mutual masturbation.
Shortly after Climategate broke, I wrote a comment on the Guardian site saying that I thought the emails showed the science was broken. In my view it was perfectly fair and polite. It was deleted. Later the same day Monbiot wrote his column dissociating himself from CRU saying the exact same thing.
Strangely, also from the Guardian but O/T slightly but related... Swine-flue scare mongering and conflicts of interest...
Some members of its advisory groups are flu experts who have also received funding, especially for research projects, from pharmaceutical companies making drugs and vaccines against flu.
"The neutrality of their advice could be contested," says the report. "To date, WHO has failed to provide convincing evidence to counter these allegations and the organisation has not published the relevant declarations of interest. Taking such a reserved position, the organisation has joined other bodies, such as the European Medicines Agency, which likewise, have still not published such documents."
So conflict of interest is not important? But as we always hear, Climate 'Science' is different.
The similarities between WHO and IPCC are there for all to see, it just depends what you want to see.
Though a life-long reader of Guardian/Observer, my comments are often deleted simply for being 'unliked'. I'm never rude, and try to keep to the point and comment on the article as much as possible. I once specifically asked why a comment was deleted, and the reply from the moderator said I was 'trolling', which was simply untrue. In contrast, pro-AGW commenters are often trolling - making very critical comments against sceptic commenters.
A very amusing development is the evolution of The Guardian's relationship with Real Climate. RC has been very unhappy with G's 'balanced' response to Climategate. As in this posting:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/the-guardian-responds/
I left a comment on RC to say: "I find the posting and many of the comments a pleasure to read". Needless to say, it did not pass moderation.
The conservatives are just as bad:
Tried this on the blue blog: (tory official)
It might be a bit harsh..
But I've had stuff posted in the past, that subsequently disappeared a few hour later..
Nothing I put now appears.
Of course the politicians are very slow on consequences of their behaviour.
If I had posted it there.. Very few people would have seen it. ;)
Now I have posted it here, many more will.
I could quite happily, pop it into the guardian, telegraph, times and daily mail, and a dozen sceptical blogs.. (all around the world , extra 10 minutes)
Then many more people would see it...
Missing blue blog comment:
http://blog.conservatives.com/index.php/2010/03/19/our-radical-overhaul-of-energy-policy/
"Start up a few new coal fired power stations.
State to the EU, their is no proof of any human signature due to man made CO2 in the climate.
Let the Eu take the UK to court to prove the science...
You may find that they are unwilling to do this...
After all the current scientific position, is we cannot explain what is going on, it MUST be humans influence..
That is a position of scientific ignorance...
We might as well be saying, the crops are failing, we can't explain it, it must be witches, burn the witches.
Must is a hypothesis, science says do some experimenation to prove it...
China is NOTgoing to stop building coal fired power stations, neither is India.
Why damage the UK."
Combined with this headline link (a bit damaging)
David Cameron's father-in-law is among rich landowners cashing in on Labour's green subsidies, with a wind farm generating an estimated £3.5million a year on his country estate.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1261389/SamCams-father-exploits-Labours-green-subsidy-wind-farm-nets-3-5m-year.html#ixzz0jYvVDasT
"A very amusing development is the evolution of The Guardian's relationship with Real Climate. RC has been very unhappy with G's 'balanced' response to Climategate. As in this posting:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/the-guardian-responds/"
You must have missed Jo Abbess (she who got BBC roger Harabin in trouble - for changing the heading of his article she took exception to, then she boasted about it on her blog - a bit dim)
She is comment number 2:
Watch as they bite the hands of the most pro AGW journalists that feeds them.
IF the Guardian ever turned, it woulfd be nasty>
Oh they have ( a bit) - the guardian responds to Real Climate:
"The other side of the story
The RealClimate commentary reads like a distorted fairground mirror of the Guardian investigation – one that highlights the uncomfortable bits but blurs the rest."
Barry Woods - Re the Blue Blog.
In one of the posts on TBB shortly after Climategate, there was an avalanche of comments telling Cameron to dump his AGW agenda.
All later postings were censored to such a degree that almost all responses mentioning AGW were deleted immediately. One or two token comments (very gentle ones) seemed to get through. I contacted the Conservative Party to complain about this, but surprisingly received no reply.
Clearly, the boy wonder told his minions to remove any comments about AGW.
Is this the political party that you would vote for?
Apolgies, one of the above IS still in the comment thread. The one requesting clarification of the evident thought disorder/non-sequitur (robur)
The Telegraph (2 Apr 2007) has noted that:
"A private equity house backed by Paul Myners, the Guardian Media Group chairman, and Sir David Frost, the broadcaster, is about to turn wind into money . . . ".
The piece describes eye-watering sums of money being made by the organisation from the "renewables" sector. See: www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/migrationtemp/4657888/Sale-of-stake-in-Zephyr-turns-wind-into-money.html
On October 2008, Myners left the Guardian Group and took a seat in the House of Lords, a precondition for serving in Gordon Brown's government as Financial Services Secretary to The Treasury.
It wasn't, of course, an easy time to assume such a role. Some criticised his apparent approval of the awfully big pension awarded to disgraced Royal Bank of Scotland top Sir Fred (The Shred) Godwin in the aftermath of the bank's crash. Opponents dubbed him "Minister for Major Banking Disasters".
There is of course absolutely no suggestion that the militant stance of The Guardian on AGW issues is in any way related to the financial and other interests of senior staff and/or former staff.
The same goes for links between aggressively-pursued government policies (such as the desire to cover every spare corner of Britain and all its surrounding seas with windmills) and ministers and former ministers such as Myners, Lord (George) Robertson and Brian Wilson, who all have strong connections with the "reneweables" industry.
The very idea is offensive to those of us who insist that the recent scandal involving former ministers Stephen Byers, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon cannot be compared to the conduct of the politicians I name. Even if there do seem to be points in common.
In short, I cannot explain why it seems mostly to be comments critical of the AGW agenda that incur the censor's wrath in The Guardian comment columns. Perhaps it's just one of those things . . .
RE: barry woods. Having gone back to read Jo Abbess's comment (2), this is in fact one of the most amusing. Of James Randerson (G's Environment editor and one of the biggest promoters of RC til now), she says:
"I note with a chuckle that James Randerson and David Adam are now “Dr.” What brought that on ? And what are they “Dr.” in, pray ?"
She also has a go at George Monbiot (again, one of AGW's biggest journalistic cheerboys): Monbiot "has bought into the sceptic fiction, or should I say “The Saga of Steve McIntyre’s Fantasy To Slay Disturbing Data”." I have never seen Monbiot even mentioning McIntyre (he who shall not be named), let alone having sympathy for his views.
And Abbess include futher wisdom:
"What we need now is trust"
"We also need productive dialogue" (such as the above mentioned examples?)
"we need to know that we can have faith in the data, faith in the analysis..."
The posting and comments are a relish to read. And ultimately can only help the Guardian's move towards reason and balance - now hopefully seeing RC for what it really is.
I recieved a reply from my MP about blue blog censorship...
A little bit contradictory, as I pointed out in my reply (no response yet)
"The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SW1A 0AA
14th January 2010
Dear Mr Woods,
Thank you for your email of 12th January.
I am sorry to hear that you have had some problems with the Conservative Party website. As you will appreciate, I am not involved in this area but I will forward your email to our web team and ask them to look at what you say.
On a general note, we are very keen to have people commenting on the website and even a cursory glance will show that negative comments are by no means censored. Nevertheless, I appreciate your concern about your own comments being removed.
Thank you again for writing to me on this matter.
Yours sincerely,
The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
----------------------------------
So
"Not censored"
"Appreciate concerns you comments removed. "
?!? Which is it Teresa?
I had sent her screen capshots of the comments I put on, which was initially approved by the mods (ie followed house rules)
Which just showed they did not like anything sceptical, and were prepared to censor.
Oakwood : FYI
You must have missed comment 34 then, even funnier
"34. PS
Jo Abbess, comment #2
From the “Meet the Guardian’s Environment Team”:
David Adam has a PhD in chemical engineering.
James Randerson has a PhD in evolutionary genetics.
Comment by Andy Russell — 25 March 2010 @ 4:47 AM
I edit the Guardian's environment website. It is not correct to say that "criticism is forbidden" in the comments on our articles about climate change.
Comments which do not abide by our community standards are removed by our team of moderators (not journalists or editors). I have asked them about the particular reasons for removal in this case and they are various. Some posts were personally abusive, some were off topic and some were potentially libelous. And incidentally some posts were abusive about climate sceptics and were removed for that reason.
This links sets out our community standards:
www.guardian.co.uk/community-standards
James
The Guardian are shooting themselves in the foot, well argued comments get deleted regularly if they do not conform to Guardian ethos. The Guardian is no longer a main stream newspaper, just a hangout for only the extremist of liberals.
I've had all of my comments on the conservative blog deleted.
I wonder if James Randerson could ask them why
BBCBias (me) had trouble posting this: (on the 2nd march)
May I ask what was wrong with this that prevented it from being posted?
I even criticised the tories!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/01/solar-panel-feed-in-tariff?showallcomments=true#comment-51
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBCBias:
How can i possibly agree with George on this.
I do 100%
But I'm a AGW sceptic!!!
Afterall, this sort of green (agw driven) lunacy, is they type that has the EU redefining rainforests, so the can be chopped down, and replaced by palm oil bio fuel plantations, so that big oil companies, eu make tonnes of money and taxes..
I believe AGW theory is an overhyped discredited scientific theory, any effect of swamped by natural climate change/variation. so much noise, impossible to find any human signature..
BUT I also belive in being properly green, joined up sensible scientific thinking.. not solar panels on Dave Cameron's/Zac Goldsmith's palaces.
Reduce, reuse, recycle is still cool, my 2 year old loves bob the builder now.
Simple things, like this would improve the environment, not grandiose political scams.
Even though I don't believe in man made climate change, my carbon footprint is tiny, I haven't even been on an airplane anywhere, for 9 years..
Yet George (and the Guardian) has accused me (or anyone that is sceptical)in the past of being worse than a holocaust deniar!!!!!.
Ignoring the huge big business (including oil) carbon vested interests, the hundreds of billions 'big' government have thrown at 'climate change', as us sceptics have been pointing out for YEARS.
Whilst, supposedly 'big oil' funded websites, climate audit, bishop hill, watts, up, jo nova, are rattling their tip jars on their websites, to try and pay for massively increased bandwidth, due to climategate.
I have friends in the IPCC, working group 1(the science!!) and 2, a close friend even edited the synthesis report, and relatives, running for office in the green party and involved in PR. We can talk, be friends, be polite, discuss this. Yet the Guardian would shout 'deniar' at me, and talk about crimes against humanity.
wake up!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This response (held for moderation for days - then vanished- I should have a screen capture somewhere, learnt that from the blue blog - back in jan))
Was it just the D word? (
I called myself a sceptic, and said that the guardian would have called me a deniar in thepast) - (others in the comments have used it and worse)
The guardian would "shout deniar at me comment", was a response to George Monbiot, who used these term in the Guardian in the past (so in context)
"Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial."
George Monbiot, The Guardian, 21 September 2006
So why did that not appear...
I know, I must be not allowed to criticise chief tory 'green' boy Zav Goldsmith, must be that!
Thank you Mr Randerson for that effort but having read the above what pre-text (or even reason) can you provide for the deletion of some of the comments that I submitted and many of others that I have myself seen removed which did not, to my own naieve mind constitute anything more than questions or requests for clarification? I may be prepared to accept the line that you might have been concerned at potential legalities but I have trouble seeing where by and large.
It is very gratifying to have an actual person (I will take your introduction on faith) who DOES have moderator authority. I am therefore assuming that you were responsible for the slaughter of some of my own contributions (and yet left untouched all of the imbecilic responses which were seriously 'off-topic'). You have all the power where this is concerned so, humbly, I request some explanation please.
It is the case that given a certain kind of 'thought' will be considered haram one naturally asks the question 'just what are we not being told'? Do you see what I'm getting at?
Yes, all institutions have an ideological line in the sand and most of us generally try keep to it. I will myself confess to being surprised at not being banned sooner ('pre-moderated') and do thank you for allowing that but also have little doubt it was because I happened to be marching to the same editorial drumbeat at that time (unaware). However, tis the nature of things.
Criticism is indeed permitted, within a certain boundary of debate.
Thank you kindly.(I mean that).
Add people who are permanently/temporarilybarred/held for inspection & whose posts therefore are never written & we can be pretty sure the majority of opinion is now censored from their site.
Indeed.
A frank and honest statement of the ideological line would have greater 'moral fibre' but in a correctly operating system of opinion formation this could never be admitted or allowed.
I suspect it will always be this way. We ALL have built-in biases (truths) with very few indeed aknowledging them even when aware of them. I have the feeling that therein lies the problem for self-proclaimed 'guardians' of other 'truths'. 'Truth' is self-sustaining and resistant to heroic efforts to dislodge (by another 'truth' I suppose?! My own included). My own view at this point is that I simply do not know what to accept in the AGW 'debate' and I need more than is being allowed to go on display in the MSM. I have no expertise in climate science and can only hope to form an opinion on the issue from what I hear/read/see and the outright abuse and evasion generally for any contrary view does not endear me to the proponents of AGW. Yes yes yes I know that there will be examples of it being on both sides but my overall impression is that the AGW side seems most resistant to meaningful debate. Just an opinion I now hold.
I suppose 'vested-interests play a big part (cui bono?)
Constant self-vigilance is required to try to remain 'balanced'.
I dunno, I suppose a psychologist could put it more coherently.
Ah well.
Nothing new with the Guardian.
In november a made a brief and very polite comment regarding the overestimation of ice loss by GRACE, with a reference to a published article. My post lasted about 3 minutes and then it was removed.
I wrote to the editor, complained about their censorship. It is easy to guess that I had no answer.
This was my letter
Recently I was shocked by the censorship at your newspaper regarding
environmental news.
I made a comment to your article about East Antarctica ice loss. This comment
was a direct quotation of a paper published in a very respectable,
peer-reviewed, AGU journal: Geochemistry, Geophysics & Geosystems,
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GC002642.shtml
This study shows some errors in the postglacial rebound models used by GRACE
which results in an overestimation of ice loss.
My comment said that your data were old and suggested you to check that recent study, nothing else. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw that comment removed by a moderator. For many years I have read the Guardian trusting its information. I really expect that this is not your general policy on disinformation by a genuine isolated incident.
The comment removed:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/22/east-antarctic-ice-sheet-nasa?showallcomments=true#comment-51 under the username of "Patagon"
Yours sincerely,
James Randerson
I left a comment on an article in which Monbiot called for Phil Jones to resign. I said that Monbiot should resign.
I was put on moderation for being abusive.
George still seems to be writing for the Guardian though.
Their censorship is worse than it appears. Usually when a comment is deleted by the thought police at the Gaurdian the entry complete with commentors name and avatar remains diisplayed with "This comment was deleted... blah, blah, blah" inserted by the censor.
My comment placed on this Pachauri thread was deleted in its entirity. It's as if nothing from me had ever been posted.
What might prove confusing to any casual reader, and confirms the new Gaurdian total deletion policy, is that further down the comments section is a reply to my deleted post which the thought police have forgotten to delete.
yes my pending moderation post in the Guardian, just vanished as if it was never there as well... (just looked back at the article)
I have even tried a few totally innocent ones since, - no chance, my user name must be on a list. (hopefully not the EU one , for environment crimes.)
There have been quite a few glimpses in recent weeks of the fear and loathing the liberal elite have for the plebs, the unwashed; those 'below the line' and beyond the pale.
They really don't like our opinions - they think they should be in charge of all that thinking lark.
Criticism may have hit home - recent interview with James Lovelock - no obvious censorship. Although they could, as mentioned above, have deleted comments without trace.
Obviously Lovelock is not such a shibboleth as Pachauri.
Despite the above they have just posted this interview with james Lovelock on which the Lord Bishop might like to comment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock
Apologies to Caroline, your post wasn't there when I created mine. Two people with the same thought....
I have a PhD (Hon.) in Comparative Basket Weaving from the University Of East Cockatoo...
Mojo, with those qualifications shouldn't you be posting on CiF and not here?
The sad fact is people are still buying the paper, so it will continue.
Only economic pressure works. That is why angry groups form boycotts of companies they disagree with.
James Randerson
The reason why there is so much censorship on cif green is that you and your pals were sponsored by Royal Dutch Shell and a plethora of other fossil fuel related companies, leading up to Copenhagen. The collapse of Copenhagen cost your sponsors a fortune when the carbon trading market collapsed.
Emisions Trading
The speed of that growth will depend on whether the Copenhagen summit gives a go-ahead for a low-carbon economy, but Ager says whatever happens schemes such as the ETS will expand around the globe.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/carbon-trading-market-copenhagen-summit
One of the 18 posts deleted was mine.
It was not spam, abusive or in any way in breach of the site's 'community standards'. It was, however, critical of Pachuari and the way in which he has enriched himself through climate panic and his position at the IPCC (with a link to a article in the Telegraph saying pretty much the same thing) and pointed out that AR4 contained material from decidedly non-neutral and unscientific sources (with supporting link), that the comments of off-message AR4 reviewers were ignored (with link to CA article) and that Pachuari was not a scientist but an economist with a background in railway engineering (with link to his Wiki bio). The post lasted about a day and gained quite a number of recommends before vanishing, so I presume when a particular mod came on duty (well after the comment was posted) they spotted my 'byline' on an MMGW thread and pop, I was gone.
A month or so ago I posted here about my entirely fruitless attempt to complain to Matt Seaton about censorship and bias on Cif threads related to COP15 and Climategate. Seaton's replies left me wondering if he was aware Cif appeared to have at least one green activist on their moderation team who censored comments for political reasons but didn't care.
Having failed with Seaton I complained to Alan Rusbridger by snail mail, simply asking him to pass my letter to someone with the authority to investigate and make some sort of official report. Nothing. Reminder sent. Nothing.
So last week I wrote direct to Dame Liz Forgan DBE, Chair of the Scott Trust, to complain about Rusbridger ignoring me and Seaton refusing to deal with my complaint as well as the standard of moderation on MMGW threads.
I quoted from the Scott Trust's own website, which grandly claims:
'The essential qualities that Scott believed should form the character of a newspaper are reflected in the contemporary values of the Scott Trust and GMG.
The qualities he described are:
* honesty
* cleanness (today interpreted as integrity)
* courage
* fairness
* a sense of duty to the reader and the community
Part of the Trust’s present-day role is to ensure that these values are upheld throughout Guardian Media Group.'
I pointed out that some people might consider Seaton and Rusbridger's actions inconsistent with these aspirations and asked her to look into it. I doubt if I'll get anywhere but if you don't ask, the answer's always 'no', eh?
But I wonder if any of the more right wing MSM would be interested in the story. Could be a good way to attack the Guardian in the run up to the election. After all, the expression 'hostage to fortune' could have been coined to describe the way the paper so publicly lays claim to the ethical standards of the sainted Scott.
Caroline
I expect your Dad started with the MANCHESTER Guardian. The Grauniad has been going downhill ever since they started printing the racing results.
Dreadnought
Never been the same since those southerners got their hands on it.
The grauniad has a most bizarre policy on moderation.
A while back I was put on the naughty step for using the word 'gink' (OED : Slang, derogatory - Fellow, man), in which they detected unintended racism (go figure??).
And yet my comment today about mutual masturbation among the Climatologits in the peer-review process remains untouched.
The first was meant to show mild disapproval...and gained the full force of their moderator. The second was meant more seriously..and has passed the censor in a day of extreme censorship.
Ho Hum
HowSoonIsNow
You can say (almost) whatever you want, but they don't like links to any authority that disagrees with the corporate position on AGW. Namely that without a multi trillion dollar carbon trading scam, we are all going to die.
Delingpole nailed them here
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019523/climategate-george-monbiot-is-in-the-pay-of-big-oil/
Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil
But who is it that sponsors the Guardian?s Environment pages and eco conferences? Why, only that famous non-fossil-fuel company Shell. (Though I notice their logo no longer appears on top of the Guardian?s eco pages: has the Guardian decided the relationship was just too embarrassing to be, er, sustainable?)
And which company has one of the largest carbon trading desks in London, cashing in on industry currently worth around $120 billion ? an industry which could not possibly exist without pan-global governmental CO2 emissions laws ? BP (which stands for British Petroleum)
And how much has Indian steel king Lakshmi Mittal made from carbon credits thanks to Europe?s Emissions Trading Scheme? £1 billion.
And which companies were the CRU scientists revealed cosying up to as early as 2000 in the Climategate emails? There's a clue in this line here: 'Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday' (to discuss the promotion of carbon trading - Mick Kelly).
Where has James Randerson got to:
I was defending him from Jo Abbess 20 comments ago at Real Climate:
ie Jo Abbess said at Real Climate:
Comment 2: I note with a chuckle that James Randerson and David Adam are now “Dr.” What brought that on ? And what are they “Dr.” in, pray ?
I pointed out how ridiculous she is,
by someone putting this on the RC comments section in response.
"James Randerson has a PhD in evolutionary genetics"
I was going to ask James where my other comment disappeared to:
"The ridiculousness of the 'debate'
So Prince Charles said: Sea level have risen 6 inches in a century FACT:
I say to Prince Charles, some of your subjects ancestors walked over from France 14,000 years ago.
6 inches a century - and a bit more (it took 6,000 years to fill up) might just explain the ENGLISH CHANNEL..."
less than 1 minutes thought and a pocket calculator (45 metres at the shallowest)
OK, it was a bit flippant, but it made the point..
Never appeared, compared to some of the believers bile that is allowed to appear, it was saintly...
I guess the James Lovelock interview is going to keep the mods at the Guardian very busy..
We operate a blog call RCRejects, the sole purpose of which is to provide a place for commenters to put up posts that are rejected at Real Climate, Tamino's Open Mind, Comment Is Free or any other site with a climate angle.
The link is http://rcrejects.wordpress.com/
We have put up a post referencing The Bishop's thread on censorship at The Grauniad pointing our readers to this thread.
However, the nature of blogs is that this thread will soon enough disappear into the world of blog posts past. We invite commenters who have had their posts rejected at Comment Is Free to put their posts up at RCRejects.
A good 70% of my climate related posts are deleted on CIF. None are extreme or rude, just a tad contrarian.
Monbiot seems to be the most sensitive, I think he's suffering a bit of an identity crisis at the moment.
E Smith - On the COP15 and Climategate threads I had posts deleted which did not include any such links, merely dismissive criticism of the Copenhagen bunfight and warnings about the perils of the 'carbon' (dioxide) 'trading' (indulgences) scam activists were trying to push for. Anyway, even if what you suggest turns out to be the case, if information I use in my posts is publicly available on the net it seems perverse to the point of idiocy for Cif to think they can conceal the fact.
My suspicion is still that one or two of the anonymous, unaccountable 'moderators' has a hit list of commenters (I have been posting on Cif almost since its inception 4 years ago) who regularly post off-message stuff on MMGW and remove their posts from related threads as a matter of course on the very slightest of pretexts, and certainly not for any breach of 'community standards'.
I could put up with this - indeed, I would expect no more - from most of the newspaper websites but the Guardian makes such a fuss about fairness, honesty, engaging with their readership etc. that when they apparently fall a long way short of that standard they deserve to be taken to task for it, and by their apparent unwillingness to investigate what are potentially serious lapses they run the risk of making themselves look like pious hypocrites.