Thursday
Aug262010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill More from the Guardian
Aug 26, 2010 Climate: HSI The Guardian has made further changes to Bob Ward's article. The title previously referred to sceptics having misled the public over the Climategate inquiries. This was unfortunate since the article below was about my book, which predates the Climategate inquiries by some weeks. The revision now speaks about the "hacked emails". They've also made it into a question.
More to come.
Reader Comments (26)
Hardly surprising. This is the Grauniad after all. It is not renowned for being objective and unbiased, for checking the facts or for getting things right first (or second) time. QA rules at the Graundia.
Bob Ward is not much good as a PR man, is he? He doesn't even know how to lie properly!
Funny how Ward points to the troubles at Wikipedia as being some kind of slight against The Bishops book aye.
Perhaps a less, biased writer, might draw a different point..one that says something along the lines of how contentious Mann Made Global Warming is that anyone who goes against the "concensus" is set upon by alarmists at every opportunity, and Wikipedia is just another example of this.
Mailman
The net result of the changes is to put a big question mark over Bob Ward's credibility - while the article itself contains a succession of juicy and hard-hitting quotes from HSI.
Does Ward give lessons in shooting oneself in the foot ?
Also - as he (and others) have already prejudged your forthcoming review - does that not weaken anything they say AFTER publication ?
I still think the Grauniad owes you a full right of reply to Ward's scurrilous review.
You won't be happy till the title reads:
"Has Bob Ward mislead the public?"
And I'd go for it if I were you!
"Bob Ward misleads the public - again," would be a better title.
Environmental journalism is now what it used to be. Only the 'mental' remains.
The trouble is - the most lasting impression is created when the original article appears.
How many readers who are influenced by the original article can be expected subsequently to return to check whether there have been any corrections made?
In general, these post-modern Leftists of the Grauniad have so little self-awareness, so little insight into how they are perceived by others, that they cannot grasp how foolish and transparent their efforts to maintain credibility appear.
Most probably, they delude themselves into thinking that nobody notices all these little changes...
Am I the only one to think that it is intellectually dishonest to amend the article but keep the original comments?
Whatever the comment - pro- or anti - AGW, it will have been written in response to an article that no longer exists. As such its context has now disappeared, and so its value much diminished.
I do not know 'the answer' to this difficulty as it seems to be a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' problem, but it leaves me feeling very uneasy nonetheless.
In The Hockey Stick Illusion:
p.56: "...attack the Soon and Baliunas paper [...] several scientists resigned from the Editorial Board of Climate Research" - a clear protest against its publication, at least that was my impression.
p.186: "von Storch [...] had resigned from the board of CR over its publication of the S&B paper." Obviously he was not exactly impressed with the paper !
And yet, Bob Ward's article only quotes page 410, which is an open question. That von Storch himself published the reasons for his resignation (and they are quite explicit when reading THSI) does not mean that there had been behind-the-scene maneuvers against him (see p. 407, Wigley's e-mail).
As for the Huang affair, it is ludicrous. The article in question was rejected by Nature, and nowhere in THSI is it even hinted that it was not published elsewhere (note that it is supportive of the skeptics' stance!), but only by Nature, which is incriminated at being a bit partial. That other papers of Huang were published later is irrelevant: nobody has ever implied that he was blacklisted by Nature!
Now, for Mitchell, just read pp.446-447 and Berg's quotation of the IPCC report. True, the discrepancy has not been "suppressed" but completely watered down.
If that's all Ward can find in a 480+page book to confound Montford, it is a proof of the author's attention to details and impartiality (well... let's say "honesty", which is even better).
It's getting Orwellian, this constant changing of the texts!
Nobody reads this changes anymore, the last comment is from Aug.22nd. If I were the Bischop I would demand a full blown re-published correction.
I have one further suggested edit correction.
Replace
'Previous mistakes mean Andrew Montford is not the right man to lead an inquiry into the UEA climate emails'
with
Andrew Montford's book confirms his exceptional talent for investigative journalism and suggests he is the right man to review the veracity of the controversial inquiries examining the UEA climate emails'
I don't think the guardian is the most objective newspaper. And, just to know, are the emails really hacked or is it just to appeal reader ?
Pharos
I agree. In fact I couldn't have put it better.
The article is still full of smears. Time to call in Pachauri's favourite law firm:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/08/non-apology.html
I believe the circulation of the Guardian has fallen some 15% in the last year. Perhaps readers have got fed up with never ending "the world's about to end" stories. Or maybe their readership is falling because they are so depressed by the stories they all topped themselves by throwing themselves of a cliff like lemmings. In which case maybe we should encourage the Guardian to keep it up.... :-)
Latimer Alder points out that comments made before the corrections are now potentially misleading. Quite right. I find it even more interesting that comments are closed after the changes have been made. Given that, I think a "right of reply article" is the only way to allow comment on the truthiness of the revised article.
I'd be be a lot more impressed with claims of "hacked" emails if there were ANY evidence that they were accessed from outside the Uni. It looks to me like they were gathered for an FOIA (which was denied) and someone inside lifted them from there. Thumb-drive cowboy. Unauthorized? Well, that depends on who did the deed, doesn't it?
My favorite suspect is the much put-upon programmer. He sounds like he's had all he can stand.
Global warming is a religion at the guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainability/environment-zen-buddhism-sustainability
On the Guardian front page it says:
Global warming
Zen warning
Zen Buddhist master Thich Nhat Hahn warns of end of civilisation
He talks about capitalism as a disease that has now spread throughout the world, carried on the winds of globalisation: "We have constructed a system we cannot control. It imposes itself on us, and we become its slaves and victims."
He has a best selling book out (one of 85) - yours for only £13.99 from amazon
http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-We-Have-Buddhist-Approach/dp/1427098212/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282851180&sr=8-8
The guardian is doing so much reversing on this article it reminds me of the Goons song "I'm walking backwards for Christmas". The effect is to boost your reputation and entertain us all at the same time. Many thanks, Guardian!
For those who can’t be bothered reading the Guardian, they have just published, simultaneously,
1) a report exonerating Pachauri from wrongdoing
2) an article by Monbiot and Randersen reporting that Pachauri has been exonerated from wrongdoing
3) an article by Monbiot congratulating Pachauri for being exonerated from wrongdoing.
Only problem, the report says: “This report is based on information supplied to us by TERI & Dr Pachurai..”
Those of us who still believe in the possibility of radical independent journalism in Britain can only weep.
Your Grace,
Since we're having some fun at the Guardian's expense, would it appeal to you to ask them to itemise clearly all the alterations to the article since it was originally published, and open comments for a suitable period of say a week, and you having sight of any comments rejected in moderation?
In fact, it might be extremely educational to ask to see all comments rejected for the original piece while you still have them by the proverbials.
Jus' Sayin'
Has anyone got the original? It must be in a cache somewhere...
I see Jo Abbess has given you a new title "Climate Denial Machine lackey Andrew Montford"
http://www.joabbess.com/2010/08/27/cuccinelli-want-fries-with-that/
Following Arthur's lead, has Jo Abbess linked to a copy of the original Guardian article?
http://www.cwwa2009.com/climate-change/climate-denial-machine-lackey-andrew-montford-set-to-lead-fake-inquiry-into-the-3-official-inquiries-that-exonerated-u-k-scientists-of-allegations-of-fraud-and-misconduct/