Bishop Hill Has the Graun backed down?
Jul 29, 2010 Climate: WG2 Greens Media Richard North is given space at Comment is Free to vent his spleen at George Monbiot.
An honest commentator would be joining us to ensure that the unsubstantiated claim by the IPCC is removed. But Mr Monbiot has instead resorted to ad hominem abuse which he – or his employers – justify as "fair comment".
Rather, he should be concerned, even if for entirely different reasons, that the response of the IPCC to a proven and egregious error has not been healthy. And an organisation which cannot admit error and deal with it is one that cannot be trusted.
The same might also be said of its supporters who, instead of dealing with the entirely justified criticisms, seek to attack the critics. By their deeds shall we know them and, in respect of his particular deeds in relation to "Amazongate", we have come to know Monbiot quite well.
Do we gather that Dr North's complaint to the PCC has been successful?
Reader Comments (98)
"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves are helpless."
My word, that's an excoriation and a half. How embarrassing for the Moonbat to be shafted by his own organ, so to speak.
The right to reply I think was part of a deal between the Guardian lawyers and North.
The Guardian readership will choking on their caffè mochas.
I wish I could post things on 'Comment is Free - if you happen to agree with Moonbat or have good lawyers'.
I must have upset a moderator once - I think for asking if anyone actually noticed when the sealevel rose by a catastrophic twelve inches in the last 100 years (heresy) After a spell on the naughty step I was excommunicated from the Land of the True Faith.
But, with no actual charges ever made, and hence no ability to defend myself, I can never be admitted to the Shining Host Upon the Hill again. Sob!
Mac
I have asked if Dr North is no longer seeking redress from Moonbat, but no reply yet! I was rather looking forward to it...
Latimer
Could you not get yourself a new email address? I use Gmail as a second line and it works well.
With CiF I did my own experiment by setting up two accounts, one sceptical, one warmist. After a couple of posts my sceptical account was stopped, but no so with posts from the warmist account.
So the commentary at CiF is censored and skewed towards the editorial stance.
You should repeat the experiment to see if that it is still the case.
"Could you not get yourself a new email address? I use Gmail as a second line and it works well."
You don't have to have a real email address, they don't check it. You can literally make up anything. I change my id every day.
“The Guardian readership will choking on their caffè mochas”
Surely Mac you mean choking on their Kopi Luwak, or in Vietnam it is called “caphe Chon” which loosley translates to weasel coffee.
Actually, if you look at the comments section on the Guardian article, quite a bit of support for North has come forward, something unexpected for the Guardian's Environmental Section (look at the recommendation numbers). Normally there are a dozen or so environmental zealots who dominate the comments associated with the Guardian's environmental articles; the latter are very rude and try to drive away "skeptical" commentators. I have guessed that some of these zealots are actually employed by environmental wacko organizations like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and WWF. Anyway, it looks like a good number of skeptics have decided to make a stand for North.
the Gods themselves are helpless."
"contend in vain."
Thanks for all your support on the Guardian forum ... the warmists squawk even as we speak.
The piece itself is part of ongoing negotiations with The Guardian, and they have agreed to a right of reply ... initially offered at 600 words but now upped to 1000. Leaving the comments open was also done by agreement.
This does not affect the PCC complaint - the submission is HERE if anyone is interested (42 pages, Pdf). So far, that complaint has been formally entertained and is currently under investigation. This does not affect my right to seek legal redress, if appropriate, and I am keeping my powder dry on this.
It was always my intent to go for a layered approach, with the initial attempt being to reach an informal settlement with The Guardian. So far, though, they have stopped short of an apology for Monbiot's piece, claiming "fair comment".
However, the PCC complaint is two-part. The main complaint is against The Sunday Times, where I am formally seeking the retraction of the retraction of Leake's article. It is relatively rare, I think, for a newspaper to remove a story that is correct, then to remove it and replace it with an article which is incorrect - all under the aegis of the PCC. The outcome should be interesting.
Richard North
"It was always my intent to go for a layered approach, with the initial attempt being to reach an informal settlement with The Guardian. So far, though, they have stopped short of an apology for Monbiot's piece, claiming "fair comment".
I did follow all the exchanges about the piece writen by Dr North on "Amazongate", and found his article easy to follow, easy to understand and cogently if robustly described. It was meticulously researched.
I found Mr Monbiot's comments seething with hatred and malice, and I was staggered that it could be published under the name of one of our great national newspapers.
More than 40 years ago, I worked as a volunteer in Africa, a time when UK daily papers were unavailable, and so I arranged to have the Observer by post, often arriving a week behind the issue date, but you could always guarantee a week's good reading from knowledgeable journalists, whe were accurate, well researched and authoritative. It is now of course part of The Guardian, another paper I have used since my return to UK.
I am staggered that The Guardian needs a lawyer to negotiate with Dr North. Frankly, if the editors of The Guardian cannot see how offensive and malicious Mr Monbiot's comments were, then they need to go to school to learn some manners.
If The Guardian does not unreservedly apologise, on the front page, and make a fullsome donation to Dr North's charity (Haiiti wasn't it?), I for one will never buy the paper again. Perhaps Mr Monbiot would like to put his hand in his pocket also.
Dr Crinum, you have to extremely naive to believe that the number of recommends in any way reflects the impression the public has gained from either his article or the posts he places under the avatar name of spacedout. Take a look at the offensive post he made including the "Holy Fart" theme !
A little further interest taken in his blog site will demonstrate the gleeclub mentality and activities. This whole amazon theme is a politically motivated scam for publicty and the only success that can be claimed is that the guardians moderation has reduced the impact of this reality being as clear as it might be.
As penned by Richard North under his spacedout name :-
Yeah - I think you are right. This is the "collective" at work, never more so evidence as on this comment board. The only thing is, they are not scientists - group think has no place in science. Occupying a position, academic or otherwise, which purports to conduct science, does not a scientist make.
But the fact that a major breach of the rules can so easily be excused is quite remarkable, and I think you have hit upon the real reason - the group mind is a pathology, not a process. As long as the member of the collective is acting in support of the group belief, anything is permissible. By contrast, of course, anything that challenges the group belief must be ostracised.
This accounts for the exaggerated respect given to the priest of the collective ... Dr Lewis, and Dr Nepstad, contrasted to the contempt show to those outside the collective. It really is quite revealing ,,, and all so wearily predictible.
All that has to happen is that an annointed one can say "this is so", as with Nepstad saying: "The IPCC statement on the Amazon is correct ... ". In terms of scientific value, this incantation is entirely without value, but within the context of the belief system, it is the "Holy Fart".
The collective bows down and inhales, ad this becomes the mantra. Nepstad has said, "The IPCC ... is correct", and correct it is. You can almost imagine this being chanted in a low drone, by shaven monks, with the faithful summonsed by a gong ... "The IPCC ... is correct", hummmm, "The IPCC ... is correct", hummmmm, "The IPCC ... is correct", hummmm ... and so on.
Of course, anyone who happens to observe tha the "Holy Fart" is not perfume, but actually stinks, it cast immediately into outer darkness, with the harridens shrieking in dismay as the very idea that someone can actually disagree with the collective. And thus we have a Monbiot-esq commentary. Happy days!
-------
I wonder how long this will stay on here?
Common Bish, tell cannaman how long you intend to leave his post on here.
Cannaman....
The fact that it appeared at all, says volumes, compared to my comments that get moderated into oblivion at the Guardian, where you are a wamist regular, it would seem.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/23/still-deleting-dissent-at-the-guardian.html
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/3/29/graun-still-deleting-comments.html
Including, one of Bishop Hill finest, James Randerson (Guardian stopped by here to say deletions/censorship did not happen:
Bishop Hill said:
: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.
Cannaman does seem rather upset.
Cannaman - ae you really from the Hebridean Island of Canna?
Check the thread, I was moderated more than anyone else (so far), so don't feel alone in your persecution complexes.
However, the point is are you all happy to include Richard North as one of your own, when such distastefull writing would be grossly offensive to perhaps 60% of your American audience and perhaps 50% globally?
"-------
I wonder how long this will stay on here?
July 30, 2010 | cannaman"
I'm not surprised at your wonder, cannaman. You clearly come from a place where contrarian comment is anything but free. Welcome to Democracy mate. Here, as long as you stay polite, you are free to express your opinion without fear of censorship. It takes a bit of getting used and it's not always sweetness and light.
With freedom of expression comes freedom of thought and with that one learns to question.
Maybe, for you, the "Goodbye Lenin" moment has arrived.
Best of luck mate.
cannaman, is it Holy Fart you find offensive. Seems pretty mild given the personal offence heaped on Dr. North by your chums.
Cannaman: "However, the point is are you all happy to include Richard North as one of your own, when such distastefull writing would be grossly offensive to perhaps 60% of your American audience and perhaps 50% globally?"
Speaking from the colonies, not 60% of those who can read.
Geronimo,
Please feel free to post any quoted comments that you can find regarding the personal insults made regarding Richard North/spacedout? The only other particularly offensive one I saw, before it was deleted, was one from someone who uses the name of Bananachips and he called us (the non-deniers, warmists or whatever you choose) "climate spastics". This was obviously not directed at Richard North or his disgraceful piece.
Cannaman: "However, the point is are you all happy to include Richard North as one of your own"
We're all individuals...
I don't actually know what Richard North wrote apart from the headline 40% thing. Is there a clearly massive error that needed a retraction or could a correction to any mistakes have been issued instead?
Rob B,
Just look up the thread and read what he wrote, then decide if you like the cut of his jib?
The quote is more accurately represented by what the IPCC actually wrote " UP TO 40% of the Amazon COULD be affected. Richard North has tried to ignore this fact from the first day.
However, judge the man by his own words above and make your own mind up.
Excellent example Cannaman. We are not so different then. What bananachips said would have excised by any decent-minded moderator.
Your use of the word @disgraceful@ though needs worked on.
The unseemly phrase used by bananachips falls squarely into that category but to include thoughts that challenge ones own viewpoints is a wee bit odd. Don't you think?
Oops, don't bother answering that. It's pretty clear that you don't see the problem yet.
Do keep coming back though, we are all here to help.
ah, the cunning art of condescension, who could have seen that coming?
"UP TO" and "COULD be affected" are precisely the lazy, weasel non-science that infests the IPCC report. Remember that document was not a summary of all the science, as it was originally proposed to be, but became a means of selecting evidence to support a particular world view espoused by those controlling it. It has very little to do with science, as is obvious once one digs in as Pielke Jr and Dr North have done. It is a political document.
You have a sense of humour, cannaman. I like that in a man. Truly there's hope for you.
:)
Cannaman,
You do certainly seem to be obsessed with Dr. North. Why? I just did a tally of comments under his article in the Guardian: 240 total comments of which 21 were yours, including 5 of your comments which were deleted by the moderator. Now you have followed him to this blog. Are you not attempting to smear Dr. North and to deny him his right to respond to the zoologist? Are you associated with some activist AGW organization? Your behavior seems irrational to me -- why is Dr. North the object of your passion? I think you need to relax and look at the big picture of life.
?
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/19/skeptic-alerts.html
Barry, thanks for the link. Sorry I had missed your earlier post; during that time period I was involved with assisting one of my sons who was moving to Alaska, and consequently my Internet excursions were very limited.
Oh, did someone take the ball home while I popped out for a meal with friends? Such a shame that the absence of censure (in denialisyic terms) is confirmation that everyone associated with this site supports the disgraceful outbust that Richard North made on the Guardian debate boards. Just to remind you what you are supporting -
Yeah - I think you are right. This is the "collective" at work, never more so evidence as on this comment board. The only thing is, they are not scientists - group think has no place in science. Occupying a position, academic or otherwise, which purports to conduct science, does not a scientist make.
But the fact that a major breach of the rules can so easily be excused is quite remarkable, and I think you have hit upon the real reason - the group mind is a pathology, not a process. As long as the member of the collective is acting in support of the group belief, anything is permissible. By contrast, of course, anything that challenges the group belief must be ostracised.
This accounts for the exaggerated respect given to the priest of the collective ... Dr Lewis, and Dr Nepstad, contrasted to the contempt show to those outside the collective. It really is quite revealing ,,, and all so wearily predictible.
All that has to happen is that an annointed one can say "this is so", as with Nepstad saying: "The IPCC statement on the Amazon is correct ... ". In terms of scientific value, this incantation is entirely without value, but within the context of the belief system, it is the "Holy Fart".
The collective bows down and inhales, ad this becomes the mantra. Nepstad has said, "The IPCC ... is correct", and correct it is. You can almost imagine this being chanted in a low drone, by shaven monks, with the faithful summonsed by a gong ... "The IPCC ... is correct", hummmm, "The IPCC ... is correct", hummmmm, "The IPCC ... is correct", hummmm ... and so on.
Of course, anyone who happens to observe tha the "Holy Fart" is not perfume, but actually stinks, it cast immediately into outer darkness, with the harridens shrieking in dismay as the very idea that someone can actually disagree with the collective. And thus we have a Monbiot-esq commentary. Happy days!
--------------------
Some of you may have noticed, if you had bothered to visit the scene of the crime, that Richard North has been exposed as a serial political extremist and to have absolutely zero credibility regarding the scientific anthropogenic climate change issues. Of course none of my comments contain any of the ghastly and totally unpleasant imagery of Richard Norths Posts and Geronimo has been unable to post any examples of personally abusive comments from the other so called warmist posters to the discussion thread. Even Dr Crinum (not unknown in the posting threads at the Guardian) is totally at a loss to explain the apauling performance and inappropriate behaviour of you colleague Richard North. He suggests instead that it is I who has a 'fixation ' regarding Richard North and that I should 'relax and look at the bigger picture'. Strangely, I do not recall any of you suggesting the same thing reagarding the hyperbolic comments that sped through the internet about Mann, Jones or Briffa et al convicted on the basis of suspicions and innuendo.
Here there is no suspicion, no innuendo because the facts are here and easy to read, moderation will not remove tham from the data records - Richard North will live with his "Holy Fart" imagery where ever he goes, much like the gone but still not forgotten Gerald Ratner.
This is beginning to remind me of the baggage carousel at the airport with the last couple of suitcases meandering on their circuitous journey and not a hope in hell of finding another direction.
Funny enough the same thought had crossed my mind as well; this article is about Richard (the holy Fart) North and how he is most definitely unnecesary baggage to the anti-scientific aims of the blogoshere. Rather than having articles lauding his failures it would probably be better for the denialist media to leave him on the carousel with the other embarassments such as Monckton, Plimer, Rush limbough et al.
@canaman
I think you need to look in a mirror before you post next time.
Cannaman,
The reason that North came to put out that article in The Guardian is that he's made a substantive case that IPCC claims concerning the Amazon rainforest lacked the rigorous basis claimed, thus further diminishing the credibility of the IPCC and showing it to be determined to pursue a political cause, rather than dealing in science.
You've told us that we shouldn't like the cut of his jib, he's a serial political extremist, and you are attempting to inflate this "Holy Fart" posting with a significance it won't bear.
You can't kick the ball so you're attempting to kick the man, and quite frankly, you come across as hysterical.
Latimer Alder,
I can sympathise with your problem when you say -
"I wish I could post things on 'Comment is Free - if you happen to agree with Moonbat or have good lawyers'.
I must have upset a moderator once - I think for asking if anyone actually noticed when the sealevel rose by a catastrophic twelve inches in the last 100 years (heresy) After a spell on the naughty step I was excommunicated from the Land of the True Faith.
But, with no actual charges ever made, and hence no ability to defend myself, I can never be admitted to the Shining Host Upon the Hill again. Sob!"
It is probably not very nice to lose your public voice but does this mean that you support Richard (the holy fart) Norths use of vile and offensive to many religious people (and not) when exercising his freedom to reply? When people use a public main stream media to insult a significant proportion of the global population by using gratuitous and offensive imagery and make no attmpt to appologise for their words, do you really think that they should have the access to a public forum that you appear to have been denied?
I suppose you could empathise with Richard Norths predicament if you were guilty of similarly offensive posts, so does the cap also fit you?
cosmic,
I don't regard it as inflationary to comment on this blog site that is celebrating the article that Richard (the holy Fart) North placed in the Guardian by refering to the posts that he also placed in the Guardian in support of furthering his political interests. Nothing in his article or the debate that followed would justify his cynical and premeditated use of the 'Holy Fart' imagery, he even posted on his own blog that he wondered how long the message would stay before being moderated.
While you may believe that North made a reasonable case, there are many that do not including to date the Sunday Times, the Guardian and anyone who can read the IPCC report.
This was not an attack on the science or the data, it was a cynical and premeditated political attack and Richard North has made a serious and possibly fatal political error in not appologising for his offensive comments in a public arena. I did not write 'The Holy Fart' piece - Richard North did and he cynically posted it in the Guardian expecting to get it moderated precisely because it is so offensive. In this case judge the man by what he says and does.
Cannaman. Not sure what your point is.
Are you saying beliefs should be some kind of a package deal that need to be internally consistent across a wide range of topics? I know this is standard practice for pseudoscientists, so for example if they smoke, their knowledge of say, atmospheric physics must be discounted. For insulting a significant proportion of the global population by use of gratuitous and offensive imagery, do you mean faked images of polar bears, or cooling stacks instead of smoke stacks, or photoshopped flooded houses, or perhaps even 'hiding the decline'? Presumably you also disapprove of Hansen's calls to execute coal company execs, and comparing coal wagons to death cars?
Could you also perhaps expand on "anti-scientific aims of the blogoshere"? Do you mean blogs like Real Climate that suppress the exchange of knowledge, or encourage the suppression of data that would allow scientists and other interested parties to validate results? How can it be "anti-scientific" to question science, especially if the data doesn't appear to support a hypothesis, or conclusions? Unquestioning belief is surely more anti-science.
Has the Graun backed down?
Jul 29, 2010
Climate Greens Media Richard North is given space at Comment is Free to vent his spleen at George Monbiot.
My comments are clear and concise and polite. I have observed and provided the evidence that Richad North has cynically used offensive and totally innapropiate comments in the furtherance of a politically motivated objective. His Use of "The Holy Fart" piece with the expectation that it would and should be moderated is a gross insult to many of faith and many that are not. He makes no appology for his innappropriate behaviour and celebrates it on his own blog site among his faithful followers. Is it not usual among your readers to expect that people should not use inappropriate terminology and/ or imagery when they are in the public forums?
So to you it is perfectly OK for Richard North to Post his 'Holy Fart' piece in the Guardian, but it is unacceptable for Pachauri (for example) to be quoted as saying 'Voodoo Science?
I wonder in reality, which the general public will find more offensive?
It would appear that Richard North has used similarly inappropriate terminology in your sister site WattsUp WithThat, as I was helpfully pointed to doing a goole search (by his blog site)on 'Richard North Holy fart'. I am not sure what combination of words they used but apparently they got 16,300 responses on their search, although, they also observed that it would take a million for the "Holy Fart" piece to go viral.
IPCC's “Africagate” blunder as told by Dr. Richard North | Watts ...
6 Feb 2010 ... Dr. Richard North, who does investigative journalism at the EU ..... Note to self: Get onto it – there's bound to be one in there somewhere. ..... Broken, Fragmented, Shattered, Hungry, Constipated and Disgusted all at ... The biggest fart of the centuries coming straight from your constipated self. ...
wattsupwiththat.com/.../ipccs-latest-blunder-africagate-as-told-by-dr-richard-north/ -
I could not bring myself to go through the whole sorry article and links to look for it, but unless Google is wrong, it would appear that Richard North makes a habit out of posting inappropriate andd offensive text in order to promote his political agenda. It would also appear that the often identified as denialist blog sites have absolutely no compunction in promoting such behaviour in, on and or through their sites.
No one have an opinion as to which is worse 'Voodoo Science' or 'Holy Fart' ?
@Canaman
I am deeply disappointed. I had read your earlier remarks to imply that North had called Monbiot a 'Holy Fart'. And I looked eagerly for the actual reference, being in need of a good giggle today. And I had some remarks in preparation about how few people actually believed George to be a Living God.
But I found it not. Just a rather dull remark that a lot of the IPCC reports contain a lot of hot air and of you examine them closely you find that there is an unpleasant smell about them. Hardly new news, nor the most evocative or vibrant image imaginable.
How and why you can take such offence is beyond me. I seriously doubt whether anyone else will bat much of an eyelid, let alone the millions you imagine.
As to Pachauri's remark about Voodoo Science. ...I positively encourage him to make a complete dickhead of himself in public as often as he likes...and for his remarks to be broadcast to as wide an audience as possible. The more he does so, the sooner his Empire will be brought crashing down around his naked body (*), and the sooner we can get some real science with integrity and rigour back into the debauched field of Voodoo Climatology and Fortune Telling by Computer.
But I am truly saddened that the hallmark of a liberal Guardian reader used to be Voltaire's remark 'I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it'. By your own words you have sacrificed that principle for a belief in a religious system of CAGW. Shame
*Emperor's New Clothes, HCA
Cannaman, please clarify:
"His Use of "The Holy Fart" piece with the expectation that it would and should be moderated is a gross insult to many of faith and many that are not."
Which "faith" are you referring to? Are you implying that you are a deeply religious person and are thus offended?
Since you follow my occasional posts in the Guardian, you will remember under the recent bogus article about pollution in the Jordan River (polluted as per the Friends of the Earth, not per the Israeli health authorities), I remarked that last year I was re baptized in the Jordan River and am still alive today. So obviously you know that I am a religious person. I did not find anything offensive in "The Holy Fart" regarding my religious faith; his remarks were nothing new in the climate war shenanigans of ad hominems that abound in the blogs. His comments were a satire reflecting the opinion that the AGW Movement constitutes a religion, not a science -- definitely not an original concept. That the AGW Movement is a religion was well developed in Crichton's lecture at Caltech in 2003, a piece familiar to many who question the AGW theory:
http://www.tsaugust.org/images/Lecture_by_Crichton_at_Caltech.pdf
So, were you offended by North because of your faith-based religious beliefs, being Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc., or because of your belief in AGW?
Canna
If you sell your soul to the IPCC angelhead, whose dire predictions always stem from mighty minions at the WWF, and *then* call real work 'voodoo science', you deserve to be dismissed for the lackey that you are.
The voodoo warmists never examined any of the three pillars of alarmism that have been taken down, did they? the hockey stick - defended; the glacier melt - defended; the Amazon collapse - defended.
Nice record of voodoo beliefs there, dont you think?
latimer Alder, that is a very convoluted way of saying yes you do support Richard Norths choice to say :
"Yeah - I think you are right. This is the "collective" at work, never more so evidence as on this comment board. The only thing is, they are not scientists - group think has no place in science. Occupying a position, academic or otherwise, which purports to conduct science, does not a scientist make.
But the fact that a major breach of the rules can so easily be excused is quite remarkable, and I think you have hit upon the real reason - the group mind is a pathology, not a process. As long as the member of the collective is acting in support of the group belief, anything is permissible. By contrast, of course, anything that challenges the group belief must be ostracised.
This accounts for the exaggerated respect given to the priest of the collective ... Dr Lewis, and Dr Nepstad, contrasted to the contempt show to those outside the collective. It really is quite revealing ,,, and all so wearily predictible.
All that has to happen is that an annointed one can say "this is so", as with Nepstad saying: "The IPCC statement on the Amazon is correct ... ". In terms of scientific value, this incantation is entirely without value, but within the context of the belief system, it is the "Holy Fart".
The collective bows down and inhales, ad this becomes the mantra. Nepstad has said, "The IPCC ... is correct", and correct it is. You can almost imagine this being chanted in a low drone, by shaven monks, with the faithful summonsed by a gong ... "The IPCC ... is correct", hummmm, "The IPCC ... is correct", hummmmm, "The IPCC ... is correct", hummmm ... and so on.
Of course, anyone who happens to observe tha the "Holy Fart" is not perfume, but actually stinks, it cast immediately into outer darkness, with the harridens shrieking in dismay as the very idea that someone can actually disagree with the collective. And thus we have a Monbiot-esq commentary. Happy days!"
in the guardian, despite the fact that it was cynically calculated to be offensive and to be removed so that false claims could be made about the papers moderation policy.
Choosing to attack pachauri, something else that the acolytes at Richard Norths site did with his full support despit the fact that they admitted they were based on scare stories ( oh do check it out, I have not referred to it before and it really is so naive).
I am sure the general public will make up their minds as to which of the two expessions when taken in context are the most offensive to the majority of the audience.
Dr Crinum,
I try very hard not to offend the sensibilities of any religious group and would never condone the use of inflamatory speech by any group in the furtherance of their political objectives, and certainly never in the pre-meditated and cynical way that Richard North did with his 'Holy Fart' piece in a national UK newspaper.
Shub - I will treat your opinions about me with the same indifference that I feel to yours.
Cannaman, you're obviously of an anti-science and anti-freedom of expression persuasion. Care to comment on the WWF and their little escapade of flushing the Saudi name plate? Do you also think discusson of evolution, or geology should be banned as it may offend people's religious beliefs? Do you also think Pachauri should be silenced because he published a soft-porn novel that may offend many people, and not just for it's writing style?
I'm also curious about your google results. I just tried on 'Holy Fart' and got 16,100 hits. I know exageration and inaccurate data is quite common in climate science though.
But rather than playing cheap ad hominem tricks, don't you think it's more important to focus on the fact that the IPCC got it wrong about Amazongate, and that many CAGW blogs blindly believed the IPCC version? But then if CAGW is more faith-based than science-based, believing the CAGW high priests is expected I suppose.
atomic hairdryer,
I am flattered that you are so interested to know my opinions on those unrelated matters to the Richard North 'Holy Fart' blunder, if your interest is genuine, read the Guardian debate thread and you will see a number of my comments there (quite a few are missing due to moderation as was observed earlier).
Cannaman. You chose to visit here and make your claims, answer the points here. Like many others with an open mind and a sceptical disposition, I'm also banned from commenting at 'CiF'.
Atomic Hairdresser, I am sorry that you are also banned at the Guardian, but that does not stop you reading the comment threads that include my opinions on those unrelated issues to the Richard North 'Holy Fart' piece.