Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Read... | Main | Josh 42 »

George Monbiot: scrubbing the record clean

This is a guest post by Julian Williams and Shub Niggurath


Last November things began to go seriously wrong for the IPCC version of science.  Things started after a leading Indian glaciologist called VK Raina publicly pointed out that he disagreed with the IPCC conclusion that the Himalayan glaciers would melt away within 30 years.  Raina said studies showed that at the present rate of melting, the glaciers would take hundreds of years to do so.   The Indian public had previously been told that the waters from the Himalayas would dry up within their lifetimes, so this good news was published on the front pages of the Indian newspapers.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, using his title as the chairman of IPCC, reacted strongly against the good news and told the press there were no errors in the conclusions of the IPCC AR4 report.  He told the press that VK Raina's conclusions were based on “voodoo science”, and that his opinions were not worth listening to. Questions were raised by observers, who couldn’t help noticing the strong reactions from the IPCC chairman, at the cost of addressing the errors themselves.

Pachauri’s crude attempts did not work and within days VK Raina found himself being interviewed by the Indian media alongside a very political Englishman who was not a glaciologist.   Whether Raina appreciated Dr Richard North’s intervention I do not know, but certainly North had a different style about how to confront the smearing of Raina’s reputation by the chairman of the IPCC.

By that time, the error had been tracked back to a glaciologist called Syed Hasnain.  Through a simple error, a rumour had developed that the glaciers would be gone within 40 years and the IPCC had published this story as part of its conclusions. Hasnain admitted to the press that there was an error in the IPCC report.

Eventually Pachauri had to acknowledge the IPCC’s error but the record in the assessment report (AR4) was never corrected, and remains incorrect to date.

One under-reported aspect of this scandal was the fact that Pachauri had a charity called TERI, which was poised to benefit from millions of euros and hundreds of thousands of dollars set aside to study the melting of the Himalayan glaciers. It turned out that TERI had used the IPCC’s very prediction of glacier doom in asking for funds. It also turned out that Hasnain was at work at TERI studying Himalayan glacier melt. It also turned out that Hasnain already knew about about the exaggerations in the IPCC report. The Sunday Telegraph became the venue where Richard North, who had uncovered major portions of this story, published these stories. Perhaps, as a result of this exposure, the Carnegie Corporation of New York decided to release no further funds to TERI.

On his blog, North asked obvious questions about the conflict of interest of one person being responsible for overseeing the writing of IPCC reports without error and running a charity which received money to study the conclusions of the IPCC reports. Was he tardy in responding because TERI’s glaciology team studied the same problem of catastrophic melt and therefore he assumed the problem to be genuine? North also raised questions about the accounts of TERI-Europe which is a charity run by Dr Pachauri from a suburban house in South London.

For the IPCC, there was more to come. Another claim that failed the test was that peer-reviewed scientific research had concluded that a small change in rainfall would decimate the Amazon tropical rainforests.  North revealed this claim was gleaned from unsubstantiated gray literature put out by green advocacy groups.  The scandal, which was published in the Sunday Times, became known as Amazongate.

By then of course, the public trust in climate science had taken a further severe knock after the leaking of the CRU Climategate emails.  These emails showed how an inner circle of climate scientists had tampered with the proxy temperature records to “hide the decline”, hidden their raw data from other scientists and statisticians and perverted the conventions of peer review.

The Monbiot counter-attack

Following Climategate, Glaciergate, Amazongate and North’s articles about Pachauri, Monbiot was finding it harder to sell his messianic scare stories and views to a sceptical public.  The two crutches on which he had always relied to convince his fans — the conclusions of IPCC reports and peer-reviewed papers written by climate scientists — no longer worked like they had in the past.

Certainly, someone had to be blamed.

Monbiot saw an opportunity to strike at North after the Sunday Times withdrew the Amazongate story.  He saw the retraction as a green light, writing two successive pieces at the Guardian, accusing North of “peddling inaccuracy, misrepresentation and falsehood” in the first. North only showed that things were worse — the IPCC statement had been harvested from a defunct Brazilian website. North considered Monbiot’s accusations to be libelous and lawyers were called in to sort out the mess.  Monbiot had to admit he had unfairly attacked North and give him space on his column for a reply.  (Dr North’s complaints about Monbiot are still awaiting adjudication by the Press Commission).

The next opportunity arose for Monbiot when the Sunday Telegraph retracted its article and apologised for suggesting that Pachauri was corrupt. The retraction occurred after Pachauri undertook libel action against the paper. In the piece, Booker and North questioned the IPCC boss who donned several hats, working on the boards of several corporations that benefitted from business action against climate change.

Monbiot repeated the same strategy writing two more articles attacking North for “smearing” the reputation of Dr Pachauri. Perhaps he had not paused to notice, as with Amazongate, that the retracted Telegraph article neither referred to Pachauri’s conflicts of interest nor questions raised about TERI-Europe’s accounts.

Nevertheless for Monbiot, just as a newspaper retraction vindicated the IPCC earlier, another newspaper retraction, under threat of libel action seemed to absolve the IPCC chairman of all lapses. The caveat-laced, ‘limited review’ of Pachauri’s personal accounts in India, by a private corporation KPMG, which relied on information provided by him, seemed enough for Monbiot.

The second of the two articles defending Pachauri was titled: “Press continue to hound Rajendra Pachauri despite his innocence”. Members of the public were quick to use the comments forum on Monbiot’s blog to challenge his portrayal of Pachauri as a man who had been smeared by Dr North. Addressing one commenter, Monbiot wrote in his own comments section:

More than just smears

I responded with an open letter to George Monbiot asking him to explain his position more clearly. I wanted to know why Pachauri thought VK Raina’s report was “voodoo science”. Was he simply ignorant that the 2035 date in the AR4 report was incorrect and none of his team of experts in glaciology had alerted him to the error? Was not TERI using public funding from the EU, to study the same claim? Wasn’t Monbiot bothered by this? Why did he persist in giving Pachauri the benefit of the doubt? The letter was removed soon after I posted it.

Further comments were being deleted as well; but I was not willing to give up. I repeatedly asked for Monbiot to comment on why Pachauri made his “voodoo science” smear. I asked whether it was unreasonable to inquire if it had anything to do with TERI being funded to study the very "2035" glacier melting claim.

Monbiot never responded. As before however, there was more to come.

The UK Charity Commission made available TERI-Europe’s published and revised accounts.  I presented them to Monbiot.


Income as submitted before inquiries

Corrected figures submitted after inquiries













Ritu Kumar, TERI’s director at London was compelled to revise their accounts, following the Telegraph’s inquiries into its dealings. The differences were astounding.  What the new accounts showed was that, for three years running (the period shown above), TERI-Europe had grossly under-declared the income of the charity. It did not have any known subsidiaries. This was the same period TERI-Europe obtained DEFRA public funds, just for the IPCC synthesis report alone, an amount almost twice what it declared on the books.

In the period shown, only 15% of their income had been put through the charity’s accounts and 85% of TERI-Europe’s income had simply not been included in their declared income. Their complete accounts have not been submitted to date.

TERI-Europe Income reported to the Charity Commission UK

Monbiot asked visitors to his Guardian thread to come up with evidence of Dr Pachauri’s unreliable bookkeeping.  He must have thought this impossible. The one account unable to be veiled from public scrutiny was Pachauri’s TERI-Europe’s and that had 85% of income missing from the books until prodded. I provided Monbiot with what he asked for.

Monbiot declared Pachauri's personal accounts and financial practices were shown by KPMG as being clean. In the light of the above however, Monbiot's unquestioning confidence in such conclusions were puzzling.

About midday the inconvenient evidence that I provided at the Guardian forum, along with discussions of that evidence with aghast Monbiot fans were removed from the thread. The thread was closed down.

Every single comment about the accounts was removed.

The new Monbiot

It was always faintly funny that the Monbiot should accuse Richard North of ‘smearing Pachauri’. We saw that Monbiot’s harmless IPCC-inspired pushing of the party line had shallow foundations that would one day be swept away by the growing awareness of the public.  But we should revise that opinion. It is one thing to put forward one own points of view and cite half-truths as evidence; it is quite another to tamper with and remove facts from the public record to support an argument that does not stand up. To call for evidence and then hide is both hypocritical and paradoxical. Monbiot should be asking questions and releasing evidence, not covering it up to protect public figures like Pachauri. One wonders how long this charade will last.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.

Reader Comments (129)

Shub, thanks, given that I didn't have the Telegraph article I took the view that maybe the Guardian had pulled your posts and the comments because they were feared that they might be libelling the great man. Now it appears not, they simply pulled it because it was true! BTW look at the expenditure a good portion of the "consultancy" payments go to Teri India, I wonder what they do for Teri UK?

HowSoonIsNow. Missing you at the Grauniad, but I am a bit like you myself, the issue is so tired over there and there are blatant Green Mod Fairies who try to suppress dissent. Add to that the drop in quality of the alarmists, who seem to have no grasp of the science whatsoever. GPWayne is still there along with BCElliott they provide the last of the old guard, knowledgable and insulting in equal quantity, but they are tiring, probably because of the relentless evidence against their cause.

Sep 19, 2010 at 3:52 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Brian H
I think you may have found that I'm one of George's biggest critics....!
The game is, attempt EVERY avenue.

Thus, if every avenue has been covered...

There remains NO excuses, no wiggle room..
Do you understand? ! :)

It's called watching the pea, see climate audit.

Sep 19, 2010 at 5:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Barry, I 'tried' He has a 'contact' page. I did not use it because I was pretty sure he has someone reading his incoming comments and questions for him - he must get a lot of fanmail etc. Maybe I should drop a comment there.

Sep 19, 2010 at 6:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

John Shade

"only the past is uncertain while the future is known"

That (description of communism) seems made to fit AGW!

Sep 19, 2010 at 7:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Either you are being overly generous and naive about Monbiot's motivation, or you are legally constrained not to make any accusations.

To me the behaviour of Monbiot has had the stench of corruption for many years. You seem to think he is some sort of court jester or fool, but he has been one of the main drivers in MSM behind the AGW propaganda war.

Someone should be asking why Monbiot has been doing this? It seems to me he probably has exactly the same motivation for his behaviour as Pachauri.

Sep 19, 2010 at 8:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterPugshoes


I could pass it on to him, ie I occasionally correspond via email, to someone that knows George Monbiot well..

I know it sounds silly to say George may not 'fully' know what is going on...

But do you imagine, that Christopher Booker reads every comment in his columns or even James Delingpole..
I net Booker once briefy, amd asked him why he had not written something that was frequently mentioned in his comments. and he was NOT aware of it...and that was the stuff that made it in, and not deleted by mods.

Cif, is 24x7 website, are the moderators really going to advice George of every issue, or thing that crop up... Perhaps none of them even care about the issue. Just doing a job, following house editorial rules, ie anything that mentions people by name, or makes 'accustaions' just delete it. after all only a comments section, why drag the paper into unnecessary hassle.

If anyone thinks I am apologising for George, I'm not

Read this:

However he did call for Phil Jones resignation,
and has said written articles about greens (ie craziness)

He has of course written an awful lot of shameful 'denier stuff' as well..

But Fred Pearce and George may well have journalistic genes running deeper than you think.
George did skewer Davis at the climategate debate, not allowing him to wiggle out of the question, whether Jones was interviewed or not, after the enquiry panel was formed, as Stevem Mcintyre stated.

Davis' performance and wriggling was painful to watch, I'm sure Davis and Bob Watson thought they were going to have an easy ride at the Guardain climategate debate. George Monbiot could have easily rescued Davis as chairman and DID not..

Perhaps no love lost for Pachauri now, as his actions by association make them look foolish.
May decide to cut support, whilst still believing of course.

Have a try with the direct email, or via his personal blog:
(he may be more involved there.
Don't start off in a rant, the reader will probably not get beyond the first sentence.

Sep 19, 2010 at 8:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Monbiot is a fairly important player not just because he writes for the miniscule-circulation Guardian. He is also a constant interviewee on the BBC which amplifies his batty beliefs.

Sep 19, 2010 at 8:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Anderson

Barry, I think it is alright to contact him. I also agree that Monbiot has journalistic bones in his body, only they seem to switch off when it comes to investigating AGW claims. He is best in his environmentalism work; but his work with Amazongate was appalling, to say the least. I cannot imagine he tried a 'comeback' with Cox, 2004, and his first post attacking North and Delingpole was singularly devoid of research. What happened there?

Yes, he was only one who took P Jones to task, but he was also ready to let him off the hook, using the inquiry reports.

...following house editorial rules, ie anything that mentions people by name, or makes 'accustaions' just delete it. after all only a comments section, why drag the paper into unnecessary hassle.

That was sort of the whole point. One can understand this concern, but if you venture out into the comments asking for information, which you are not ready to publish...information that brings to question the basic premise of your own article.

Sep 19, 2010 at 9:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

I agree....!

How about attempting to change his mind with reason rather than accusations.....

Or at least give a bit of wriggle room (there are a lot of people that may want to start building bridges and saving face, soon, I believe)

IE, here George writes about a book that actively SLAGS George off, and returns to slagging George off repeatable....

"A new book has forced me to reconsider my views on food.

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 7th September 2010

This will not be an easy column to write. I am about to put down 1200 words in support of a book that starts by attacking me and often returns to this sport. But it has persuaded me that I was wrong. More to the point, it has opened my eyes to some fascinating complexities in what seemed to be a black and white case.


He (the author, not George) goes on to butcher a herd of sacred cows. Like many greens I have THOUGHTLESSLY repeated the claim that every kilogram of beef requires 100,000 litres of water to produce(3). Fairlie shows that this figure is wrong by around three orders of magnitude. It arose from the absurd assumption that every drop of water that falls on a pasture disappears into the animals that graze it, never to re-emerge. A ridiculous amount of fossil water is used to feed cattle on irrigated crops in California, but this is a stark exception.

Similarly DAFT ASSUMPTIONS underlie the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s famous claim that livestock are responsible for 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, a higher proportion than transport(4)."

AND a lot more in this vein.

Maybe GEORGE is a REALLY nice person, maybe like MANY he really believed man made co2 was destroying the planet, and got swept along in the belief... Thought it was a battle against (the romatic belief possibly true 15 years ) ago off a well organised denial machine. But reality may be dawning, yet like the victim of a snake oil salesman (the IPCC, green groups) keeps going bag for more snake oil, because to question would challenge their beliefs..

I like challenges..

My first one was trying to correspond with the BBC, politely, PRIVATELY, in an attempt
(Ok a bit of sarcasm, and criticism as well) to halt the superfreighter that was their belief in CAGW...

As the did seem genuinely taken aback recently with the public anti BBC feedback, post all their Copenhagen, doom and gloom hype.. Compare then every story endless linked to the doom, gloom and sacre propaganda fed to them by lobby groups.. Even Pakistan, on the mainstream bbc news has jhad MUCH less linkage to 'global warming' compared to a year ago.

CAGW has become part of the unquestioned cultrue at the BBC over decades, it will take a while for people to give up their beliefs, even, with evidence before their eyes, that is just human nature. Yet their was the report of Al Gore behaviour to a BBC analyst post the 'Inconvenient Truth' screening when asked some questions, that maybe minds are open to obvious failings, that encouraged me to try.

I know this sounds like a bit of a rant,
BUT my Sister in Law is a pretty senior Green activist pr represenative, and I recogonise the mindset, of a number of the activist she deal with, I'm sure she knows George as well.
(for the record, she is also a very nice person, and even better educated than I am)

I am equally sure that many (delingpole, and I don't really blame him) may want to George to eat their words and get pay back, and not allow any attempts at saving face, but what do you really want to achieve.

Try and approach him reasonably, privately, you may be surprised.....

Sep 19, 2010 at 9:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods


George came across as a person.... At the Guardian Climategate debate

with the self awareness to say, with humour:

"I'm the ideal person to chair this debate, because I've upset everybody "

What would happen if George became convinced that CAGW is as ridiculous across the board, as some of the craziness he has reported.. If we keep trying to treat him as an indivdual, rather than a member of the 'tribe'

And has a realisation that every REALLY environmental issue (which he is GOOD at) will be damaged by the pursuit of CO2, and a public backlash may turn the public off all the serious environment issues for decades!, that I for one am also concerned with and tGM turns AGAINST the CAGW bandwagon. Fred might as well, big business, vested interests, corrupt government, etc. Something for the Guardian to get their teeth into (Camerons father in law, wind farm story, Cleggs wife's involvement in windfarms, etc)

It might be the making of George ;)

(I have had the environmental/green backlash (because of man made CO2) conversation, with my sister in law. Not convinced at all, but she was going to read ' The Real Global Warming Scandal, 'The Deniars' and a little book called 'The Hockey Stick Illusion' ie she knows I'm not a republican baby eating tory, big oil fossil funded member of the denial machine )

NOTE if anybody at EXXON would like to send me a big cheque, I'm sure my wife would appreciate it as compensation for all the unpaid time I've put into blogging and other stuff (note - that was another another joke)

I know a million to one shot, but it might just work ?!?

Million one shots are guaranteed to work. (commom knowledge)
Careful consideration of the odds are required of course if it is only 999,997 to one, you are toast...

(sorry, a bit of late night Pratchett humour)

Sep 19, 2010 at 9:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

For what its worth this is my analysis of Geoge Monbiot:

I think Richard North is right under Monbiot’s skin and he wanted to get at North. I think that he was annoyed that his Amazongate attack failed and he wanted a second opportunity, defending Pachauri was that opportunity.

I think it stinks because by leaping in to defend Pachauri he must also have realised that a conflict of interst is a conflict of interest, full stop. It was never about the accounts but he was hanging his hat on Pachauri’s whitewash of himself. The issue is about having a chairman of the IPCC who can be respected as a neutral chairman. I think Monbiot understands this very well but he could not stop himself from using the ST retraction as a second opportunity to attack North. He must have known inside himself that the articles he was writing were motivated by a wish to smear North first and serve the green movement second. He was playing with fire.

It was a smearing tactic. So I think Monbiot is a champion smearer. It is a personality trait that is counterproductive and insincere; anyone who is really sincere about AGW would have dropped such a tactic years ago.

Regarding who did the moderation I did ponder this before I and passed the article to Shub, we had a very brief correspondence about this issue. I do not think it is a relevant issue. The thread was not really very long, I had been baiting Monbiot on Pachauri throughout the earlier Amazongate threads. ( North did the Amazongate stuff and I opened a second front on Pachauri). I had a strategy, it was to force Monbiot either to acknowledge Pachauri must go or defend Pachauri. He must have been aware of what I was doing, I was all over his threads on this one subject. The warmists were all attacking me for being a one subject blogger. On the final Amazongate thread they wheeled out the KGMP account, they thought it would silence me and make me look like a smearer of Pachauri.

This is the context of the reopening of the Pachauri articles by Monbiot, he thought he had silenced me and got North at the same time, and he thought the KGMP was an ace. Monbiot thought he was on save ground (but it was an insincere selfserving article more to do with a vendetta that Monbiot was carrying out against North, not for the benefit of the green movement).

My Pachauri comments were largely left standing on previous threads (I have not looked to see if they have since been removed). On the final showdown thread my initial long open letter to Monbiot was taken down after a few hours (It alluded to the TERI Europe accounts but i did not have the revised figures at that point) , but I was left to go on attacking for several hours afterwards. My bombshell (TERI Europe revised accounts) was posted about midnight and taken down at midday, so they were sitting there for 12 hours. My comments were always forceful but polite and had the warmists running around trying to divert my attacks on to other territory.

My posts were taken out by whoever closed the thread, and whoever it was went right through the thread taking everything I had written out. It was very deliberate, so I think they knew what they were doing; they even took out answers from warmists who were having trouble swallowing the TERI Europe accounts. It was censorship.

I think it was wrong, I think the moderator knew they were doing wrong and I think Monbiot knows what happened. I think when people knowing do wrong they are on a very slippery slope, it can end up with corruption and hurting innocent outsiders.

Sep 20, 2010 at 12:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterJulian Williams

Julian - I haven't had time to read and follow this thread in detail but your analysis of GM caught my eye and I'm afraid to say I agree. I was appalled at how he went for David Bellamy.

Sep 20, 2010 at 1:42 AM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

Is this the tea party site?

Sep 20, 2010 at 7:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterBob

I think it strange that anyone could be criticised for smearing Pachauri's name, when all that is needed is stating facts. Pachauri smeared his own name by acting with such bizzare force against people who seek the truth and he did this in full public view. Whatever your view of the AGW theory, defending Pachauri's reputation is a weird addition to this whole story. Pachauri does't need defending from mindless attack, but himself,


Sep 20, 2010 at 7:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterElanor W

Excellent analysis of Monbiot’s motivation.
When you “report abuse” on a CiF comment, you get a choice of reasons, one of which is “legal issue”. No doubt this rings an alert button in the moderator’s burrow which brings the lawyers out, which must take time and possibly money. It would be perfectly possible for a good friend of Monbiot to shout “legal issue” every time someone asks an awkward question. It happened to me on a thread about Italy, when I mentioned facts about Berlusconi which are common knowledge in Italy, but libellous in Britain. My comments disappeared immediately.
The Guardian used to have an excellent journalist who campaigned on issues of freedom of speech and censorship, name of George Monbiot.

Sep 20, 2010 at 8:11 AM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

One good reason for commenting at CiF is that all CiF climate articles are automatically reproduced at Monbiot’s Campaign against Climate Change site
where the excellent Robert Phelan (see above Sep 19, 2010 at 8:24 AM) and others receive their marching orders.
So you can read the views of frank verismo, latimer alder and others free on Monbiot’s own propaganda site (not that anyone does. They were last twittered four days ago)

Sep 20, 2010 at 8:48 AM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

Let's not forget that CiF is also rampantly anti-semetic when it comes to anything remotely connected to the middle east and Israel. So I guess it's only natural those nuts would also be rabidly pro Mann Made Global Warming (tm)!

Sep 20, 2010 at 8:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

Forgive my scepticism but these darts flung at Dr Rajendra Pachauri smack of a campaign to smear anyone in the scientific community who supports the argument for global warming.

I have come across the same tactic on the Tea Party Patriots (TPP) web site and it is depressing to see the same phenomenon creep across to this side of the Atlantic.The good news for this blog (though not for the common weal) is that you may be able to get support from The Lincoln Club - the right-wing corporate interest group that funds Mark Meckler's scurrilous TPP site.

Sep 20, 2010 at 9:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterHengist Viggen

Goerge Monbiot attacks this thread here: - saying he was unaware of the comments and never asked for comments to be deleted. He dismissed the comments in the threads out of hand

In an update this morning he writes:
Last night I asked the Guardian about this and I’ve just received a reply. They say the posts were removed for legal reasons. The Guardian’s lawyers were concerned that I was challenging people to post libellous material on the site, for which, under England’s defamation laws, it would be legally responsible.

I would like to see a response to the comments on both sides. If CiF is out of bounds, where is a suitable venue?

Sep 20, 2010 at 9:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterAndy

@Hengist Viggen

Pachuri is not a scientist (not even by loose qualification.) He is a career politician (in all but name) with extensive environmental business interests.

If he does not like the heat, he should stay out of the kitchen.

Sep 20, 2010 at 9:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterBrian Cohen

@julian williams - I've debated Monbiot on two occasions, plus conducted many a sparring match with him online, and I agree with your analysis entirely. When he concedes a point - as he did recently on meat - it is purely a tactical "reculer pour mieux sauter". Because he is thoroughly ideologically committed to his environmentalist - essentially eco-fascist - cause, he is not about to be swung round if someone has a friendly word or tries to introduce him to facts. I promise you I wanted to believe well of Monbiot. After I first debated him, I praised him for what I thought was his reasonable, unaggressive manner, which is to say that he seemed content to make his points without going in for too much snidery or ad hom. I then read that he had found "debating Delingpole like shooting rats in a bucket". And I thought, well a) that certainly wasn't my recollection and b) George, you're a nasty piece of work. Nothing I have experienced since has in any way mitigated my conclusion b). It's time he got a proper job.

Sep 20, 2010 at 9:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames Delingpole

Monbiot's bucket is full of holes.

Sep 20, 2010 at 10:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

Andy - Monbiot's defence that it was because "The Guardian’s lawyers were concerned that I (that would be Monbiot) was challenging people to post libellous material on the site, for which, under England’s defamation laws, it would be legally responsible." are odd because in that case would have removed Monbiot's challenge, but it was still there last time I looked. Monbiot's request for "libelous" rersponses is still up there.

That looks like a manufactured response to cover an exposed bottom!

Sep 20, 2010 at 10:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterJulian Williams

Libel is normally the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false. Hmmm, now if what he has asked for is evidence as in “proof of facts” then I frankly cannot see how that can be a problem. He could, of course, be more specific if it will make his lawyer’s happy by adding that “circumstantial evidence” will not be permitted :o)

Sep 20, 2010 at 10:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterH

It is entirely possible that it is the Guardian at fault. NOT George.

from George's website..

"UPDATE: 0630, 20th September. Last night I asked the Guardian about this and I’ve just received a reply. They say the posts were removed for legal reasons. The Guardian’s lawyers were concerned that I was challenging people to post libellous material on the site, for which, under England’s defamation laws, it would be legally responsible. "

Now I believe him on this, I have no reason to expect George to monitor personally, or even have much to do with the website himself, At the Guardian, the commets section of Cif will have people employed to do this. Who will follow the rules put down by the newspaper, anything 'legal' all newspapers will get twitchy and just delete it..

As I have said above, Christopher Booker does not even appear to read his comments, someone at the BBC told me that they have no innvolvement themselves in the moderation policy of BBC blogs, on their article, beyond, reading them as you and I do and being able to ADD a comment.

However. The Guardian have caused this problem.

The percerption is that comments that too closely question that questions the AGW consensus are being removed because it challenges the editorial CAGW 'belief'. It does appear to vary depending presumably who is moderating that day.

Bishop Hill was blocked FROM HIS OWN ARTICLE (lost in premoderation) at the Guardian..

Moderation in All Things

Andrew Montford:
"I'm just wondering if I'm the first author on the Guardian website whose comments are on premoderation at the same time..."

Thus, the Guardian has been SEEN to stop Andrew Montford from commenting on his own article at the Guardian.

The Guardian also, the evidence suggests, gave Andrew Montford's article to Bob Ward prior to publishing it, which again is just very poor form.. Bob's comment appeared 2 minutes after the article appeared, resulting in some hilarity about the 'olympic' champion BOB reading speed and ability to type at over 300 words per minute (or did he get to see it first ?!)

Andrew Montford: Can One TRUST the Guardian

In my mind, it has been perfectly reasonable for the public, reading this at Bishop Hill, and see it with their own eyes, to question the Guardian's 'intelectual honesty' and 'journalistic integrity' (not in this case George's, he was not involved with any of this)

So, if George, is reading this:

PLEASE do not people think Bishop Hill people are attempting to smear you, they would appear to have come to these conclusion incorrectly?) by the observed moderation and shameful the editorial policy of the Guardain.

If you, George had observed the same behaviour from say the Telegraph, and a Delingpole article what conclusions would you come to..Does the Guardian want to appear as the mouthpiece of the Grantham Institute, or Al Gore.

Some time ago, James Randerson posted here defending the Guardian's moderation policy, many people here posted copies of comments that were deleted/removed or simply never appeared at the Guardian, (which appeared to follow all the tules, but were just of AGW message.. James never returned.

George has written many articles about the ridiculousness of feed in tariffs, carbon trading, solar in the UK, many of the things that make me SCEPTICAL of CAGW. George performed as an excellent chair at the Guardian Climategate debate.

But, it does look like it is ALL very personal and about poltics, between George Monbiot, The Guardian, North, Booker and Delingpole...

AGW is an apolitical issue (the Coalition are full CAGW believers, as is the Chief Scientist) just George and James Delingpole are throwing bricks at each other not because of the 'science' but their perceptions of the individuals, people and their politics. (Guardian vs Telegraph, Left vs Right, etc)

Bought about, lest we forget, by the Guardian allowing Bob Ward (Policy and Comms director - Grantham Intsitue to attack Andrew Montford's book - 'The Hockey Stick Illusion'

Their is other evidence that this battle between North/Monbiot/Delingple is personal..

George Monbiot is Honourary President of th Campaign Against Climate Change:

They have a section called Sceptic Alerts.

I wrote about it here.
Since that was wriiten some of those listed as being memebers ie, MP's have stepped down or lost seats)
(no doubt this would make me a 'deniar' in their eyes. I was just cross at the manipulation)

Since this was written over 80% of ALL those sceptic alerts,

have been directed at the TELEGRAPH,
and the majority are advising the CACC activist's to target: JAMES DELINPOLE's blog...
and Christopher Bookers comments. (anyone want proof, I can forward ALL the emails)

THUS, it appears PERSONAL

No alerts for Bishop Hill, Watts Up, Climate Audit, Harmless Sky, very few other newspapers.

Thus, the people running CACC may also bringing George's good name into disrepute,
Maybe George is unaware of it, if the boot was on the other foot, I imagine he would be complaining.

I hope he unaware of this behaviour, as I hope these public figure are:
Advisory Board and Vice Presidents:

Caroline Lucas (Green MP,)
Michael Meacher (Labour MP - Minister of State for the Environment May 1997 - June 2003
Jean Lambert (MEP (Green Party, London)
Mark Lynas - (climate change journalist - Author of "High Tide: News from a Warming World" and .

I would hope for those MP's MEP's journalists listed, would NOT want to be asociated,
or be seen to endorese, this type of activist lobby group, targeting attacks on 2 Telegraph jourmalists,
NOR, as a member of the public, I am most offended that these public figure are associated with:

The Campaign Against Climate Change:
HALLS OF SHAME (which includes elected politicians, scientists and Booker and Delingpole)

I intend to email theses MP's, MEP's now, and ask them to disassociate themselve from the CACC, until the CACC changes it's behaviour

I imagine those at the CACC would add me to their Sceptics Hall of Shame, (merely for writing my solitary guest post at Bishop Hill) if I were more famous, and call me a deniar..

It is shameful for journalists and Members of Parliament and Members of the European Parliamnet to be associated with this..

George has his own Deniars Hall of Shame at The Guardian

This includes, elected politicians, scientists and journalists.
(includes, Booker, Melanie Phillips, David Bellamy, Senator Inholfe, even Sarah Plain!)

Whatever he and the Guardain may think of these people politics and position on a scientific theory, is this really the way for the Guardian to behave (it is their website, they -the editors and board this are seen to endorse it)

Why do the Guardain's trust, ALLOW this, it brings them into disrepute.

Thus they wonder why member ofthe public, like myself, who read the Blogs, are quite cross with the Guardian.

So I would ask George and the Guardain to stop considering people like myself to be deniars.

And a challenge to all the jounalists concerned (including the BBC) drop the pesronal issues, drop the perception that your politics are aligned with a stance on climate change..

LOOK at the evidence disspasionatly and be JOURNALISTS.

(for the record, I regulaly BUY and read the The Guardian and The Telegraph)

Sep 20, 2010 at 11:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

He’s squirming. His excuses make no sense, for instance the excuse that

“Last night I asked the Guardian about this and I’ve just received a reply. They say the posts were removed for legal reasons. The Guardian’s lawyers were concerned that I was challenging people to post libellous material on the site, for which, under England’s defamation laws, it would be legally responsible.”

The request was still up after removing my posts, if they were really serious about this threat they would have removed that request.


“No evidence that he has been “making a fortune from his links with ‘carbon trading’ companies”.” Whether I said something along these lines I do not know, quote marks are round carbon trading, the rest of the phrase is not attributed to me (our side) - in any case that was not the issue in the final thread; The issue was having a chairman who wears two hats - ie a conflict of interest. This is humbug, we do not have to prove Pachauri is making millions, only that he is wearing two hats.

My opening letter on the final thread did not include reference to carbon trading, it was removed. This is a copy of that letter that was removed.


“Julian Williams 7.45 1st Sept 2010
Well Monbiot take a look at the accounts of Teri Europe, a British charity run from the back streets in South London of which Pachauri is a trustee. We know money has been in and out of this account because the payments have been published by the payees, however when you look at the charities published accounts little money has been registered as having gone through the books.

This was brought to the attention of Pachauri last winter by North and Booker and at that time Teri-Europe have admitted the accounts are inaccurate and need to be corrected. But nothing has happened since.

The Indian accounts you refer to are published with caveats, they were commissioned by Pachauri and really it is a matter of trust how much we believe his figures. In any case this matter of how much Pachauri benefits as an individual is immaterial because a conflict of interest is going on between his role when he is wearing his IPCC hat and when he is wearing his TERI hat, this is not acceptable to anyone who wants transparancy. This is not just the sceptics, it is everyone who believes the IPCC should be transparant.

Now explain to me why Pachauri made his Voodoo science remark? What motivated him to get involved in discrediting a scientist in this way without first checking with his enormous glacier research department which had been funded to research by the EU and other governments to research this exact subject . Are you telling me he was simply ignorant that the 2035 date in the AR4 report was incorrect, none of his team of experts in this field had bothered to alert him to the error? Well even if you believe that it leads to more unanswered questions about how this public money he is getting for his charity TERI is being used? We can see TERI have expensive HQs with private golf courses that draw water from local water tables.

Pachauri actually employed the very man, Syed Hasnain, who originally declared the glaciers would be gone in 40 years. ... results=20

OK You genuinely believe that when C02 levels go up from 250 part per million to 350 parts per million causes the earth to warm dramatically. I believe it might add to the global temperature but do not believe the added warmth is measurable because the other green house gas (water) is present in concentrations of 10,000 parts per million (1%) and varies vastly from day to day and from continent to continent. You are entitled to your near religious dogma, but you are not entitled to tell me that I have trust a chairman of the IPCC who wears so many different hats and is an advocate for your strange (to me) beliefs. Especially a chairman who fails to keep proper accounts of the money flowing from his green friends into his charities and abuses scientists who are telling him about errors in the reports made under his chairmanship.

I do not understand why you call my attempts to get rid of a chairman who has so many problems a smear campaign; it is common sense that this chairman is the wrong man for the job.

I do not doubt he is a personable man and good company, but that is not a reason for giving him so much benefit of the doubt after he has made so many public blunders. If you have any feeling for the green movement you would be asking for him to go, the fact that you cling to him makes me doubt your sincerity to be a champion of the green movement. To me the position you have taken vis a vis Pachauri is beyond understanding."


My attacks afterwards were very much centred on this line of attack, carbon exchanges were not an issue in the final thread, we did not need them

He could come on this thread and answer the allegations. Monbiot's response allows no comments – how convenient.

Sep 20, 2010 at 11:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterJulian Williams

The problem with CiF is two-fold.

Firstly, the Guardian editorial line is to prohibit a range of views being expressed on environmental matters at CiF. It is remarkable that the only way a sceptical commentator can correct errors and/or express a view on CiF is thru legal action.

Secondly, clearly the Guardian moderators take their cue from Guardian editors in deliberately skewing the debate on climate change at CiF towards the warmist viewpoint by stopping accounts and censoring comments of sceptics, and allowing the reccomendation button to be hijacked by warmists.

What we have at CiF is green dogma, eco-propaganda, censorship of dissent - in essence an authoritarian approach to environmental matters. The Guardian of old would be sickened by such a state of affairs.

Sep 20, 2010 at 11:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Dear Mr Monbiot
If you are reading, which we would be glad for, we (Julian or I) did not claim, nor wish to claim that Pachauri is "corrupt" or that he "has made millions of dollars".

The nature of our argument is different. We are not concerned about Pachauri, as much we may refer to him in the post. We were concerned with the confidence you placed in the KPMG report to draw the kind of conclusions that you did, given that information is easily and openly available that shows a TERI operation is being, shall we say circuitous, erroneous and tardy, with their accounts. In other words, we were only concerned with what you think and write.

You appear to claim that a conflict of interest is possible only when payments of cash can be traced to the very person playing dual roles. I do not share this view. It appears, once again, that you wish to define "conflict of interest" narrowly enough so that the KPMG report's conclusions answers to that definition. I am afraid to say that members of the public expect a higher standard of probity from their leaders and bureaucrats.

I am concerned about what you write, because I believe, you are a journalist who is on "our side". You attacked Jones for his seemingly casual attitude towards FOIA, you exonerated him partially only after the inquiries report. You defended Pachauri via the KPMG report - you base your arguments on grounded material and available 'fact'. But if you widen your circle of scrutiny, you might realize that your interpretations of these material might turn out to be wrong.


Sep 20, 2010 at 12:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

Barry Woods. Would you contemplate keeping a rattlesnake as a pet ? Sorry, but you are far too kind to Monbiot - 'George and James Delingpole are throwing bricks at each other' is a little too even-handed.
'Climate change is perhaps the greatest calamity our species has ever encountered. Its impact dwarfs that of any plague, any famine we have confronted so far. It makes genocide and ethnic cleansing look like sideshows at the circus of human suffering'. - George Monbiot honorary president of the Campaign against Climate Change.
The man who said that also said 'His (JD's) libertarian conservative, deliberately incendiary and facetious journalism got too big for its boots when he took on journalist George Monbiot in a debate (BBC of course).No false modesty there !
George's Climategate 'circus' on 14th July had but one single purpose, which was to humiliate CRU East Anglia and all who are associated with it. This it achieved admirably. Like all religious fanatics George feels that those who betray the 'faith' are more to be condemned than mere 'infidels'. Thus Phil Jones and Trevor Davies are far more to be despised than Delingpole and the other members of the CCaC's 'Hall of Shame' - Lawson, Monckton,Booker, Lomborg (yes Lomborg) Plimer and Imhofe.

Sep 20, 2010 at 2:55 PM | Unregistered Commentertoad

Aye, the excision of inconvenient information on the Guardian's comments forum is perfectly consistent with the warmist cult's MO. From the Climategate e-mails through to the various pro-AGW websites and the IPCC itself, there is a culture of revisionism to reshape facts to fit their agenda. It's good to remind people on a regular basis that this technique was the stock in trade of communism - a poison that has infiltrated the environmental movement. Green is the new red.

Sep 20, 2010 at 3:36 PM | Unregistered Commenterandersm

This article makes a number of good points and the best is that without their IPPC reports and their piss poor peer review the alarmists and green gravy trainers have nothing to support their specious arguments.

Comment is free if you agree?

Mr Monbiot and CIF is heavily censored, not for immoderate behaviour but as soon as they start losing the argument. They have brought the Guardian down.

Mr Monbiot once wrote that he disagreed with moderation on blogs. What do you call someone who says one thing and does another?

Well there is only one thing worse and that's a sanctimonious hypocrite.

Sep 20, 2010 at 3:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterStacey

The BBC are usually VERY good moderators..

But I've been lost in moderation/consideration for 4 days now.

My comment below asking whyi salso lost in consideration (whilst some snippets of my comment have bee quoted by others remain.


Cooment 47# (lost in consideration)

My comment (43#) in Richards previous article, has spent 4 days in consideration, is that a record?
It really was quite short,and on topic, (and no pdf's)

I was merely trying to mention, that the only reason nuclear was being considered, was because of emmissions..

Thus of interest to report, that whilst the BBC were very willing to quote one MP on a select commitee, saying all scientists agree..

Why would they not quote Graham Stringer MP, of the select committee, saying that the work of one of the scientists at one of the leading climate research centres - CRU)

"That is just not science, but literature"

Surely, there is a difference there in these MP's opinion of the agw science, that is worth investigating, otherwise we may be making unneccesary nuclear waste and dumping it in holes in the ground.

if the BBC ever allow it, anyone can check the links themselves, in the nuclear article


It may appear at some point in the future, of course long after the thread is dead and buried and other readers might see it.. A tactic used at the Guardain on occasion. (pending moderation, whilts dozens get through)

Or this comment will be said to be off topic, as an excuse.

But as you cane see from the other comments LOT of stuff is allowed way of topic.

Sep 20, 2010 at 4:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Barry, et al;
Isn't it rather disingenuous to trace in painful detail the biased and duplicitous censorship at the Guardian and Beeb, etc., as though it was new, surprising, or susceptible to reprimand and change? It is and has been SOP for generations.

I refer you to Anthony Jay's Confessions of a BBC Liberal.

Sep 20, 2010 at 4:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterBrian H

Hmm...why do all these strange impediments to debate appear? why do all the mistakes seem to favour warming? why do new statistical methods need to be invented? why do the inquiries have pre-ordained conclusions? why do the CRU select the papers that are used to 'independently' review their science/integrity? why do the Guardian and Real Climate need to delete so many comments? Either the big oil conspiracy is much worse than we thought, or the truth is being kicked aside to serve an agenda.

Sep 20, 2010 at 4:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

Not sure that I agree that the BBC are usually very good moderators - I've had posts on the EU (anti) for example held up for hours whilst contrary posts have been posted immediately. They quite often get posted eventually when a new thread has opened up.
When the CRU scandal broke Richad Black's Earthwatch thread originally censored any mention of the email leaks and then stopped comment on the thread completely for two days - 21st Nov/22nd Nov.

Pretty disgraceful in an organization that is funded by license payers and is supposed to ensure both accuracy and impartiality!

Sep 20, 2010 at 4:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterSparklet


Above the doorway entrance to the IPCC's HQ office should be an engraved plaque with the following quote inscribed:

"`all hope abandon, ye who enter here of assessing uncertainty in climate science"

[With my sincere apologies to Dante Alighieri]

Above the exit doorway of the IPCC's HQ office should be a plaque with:

=> a smiley face labeled: "Have a nice apocalyptic CAGW day!"


Sep 20, 2010 at 5:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Whitman

In the early days of climategate,
I had a LOT of comments held up in moderation at the BBC, Paul Hudson blog, and Richard Black.
I started copying them to my MP and the BBC trust enquiries (which was/still is?) looking into bias in science reporting at the BBC, and a couple of journalists.

Until now I have had no further problems.

I fyou don't keep mentioining it, new people to the debate are NOT aware of it.

Sep 20, 2010 at 5:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

ARBEIT MACHT FREI. For those of you who are prepared to give Monbiot the benefit of ANY doubt, I spent a day last week in Auschwitz and do not feel that too many of the 1.3 million people who went to their deaths via the gas chambers there, would have agreed with George's statement that - 'Climate Change ..... makes genocide and ethnic cleansing look like sideshows at the circus of human suffering'.

Sep 20, 2010 at 5:12 PM | Unregistered Commentertoad

An inordinate amount of time and space on this blog site seems to be taken up with personal slights.

As an alternative to the arid discussion of who said what to whom and why, may I propose finding an answer to the following simple question? If global warming is a myth, what convincing alternative mechanism is there to explain rising sea levels? Since roughly three quarters of the planet is covered by sea, I think we can agree that any temperature-driven rise or fall in sea level reflects a net global change rather than a purely local one.

Sep 20, 2010 at 5:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterHengist Viggen

And of course, WHY accept it.....

Of the BBC, especially..............

Unless you persist, nothing changes.
How long has Steve Mcintyre been persisting

I even have a little hope, that George Monbiot, gives up the CAGW, and becomes a very good, investigative environmental journalist again.......

It could be the making of him, AND give the Guardain a new lease of life.

Imagine all that vested interests, JP Morgan Carbon Offsets for example, to get their teeth into, and boost circulation. 'corruption at the UN, windfarms and the mafia, massive sunsidies out of the publics energy bills, into the pockets of big energy companies and rich landowners.. that's just for starters.

You'd think they would be chomping at the bit..

but the romantic activists dream of the CAGW delusion, because it says man is damaging the planet (and they want to save it) stops them from seeing what is evident.

George has had some good articles on feed in tariff's, other subsidies and some green craziness recently..

However, in the George vs James ding dong, my sympathies lie almost entirley with James Delingpole.

Sep 20, 2010 at 5:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

You might also ask, whether all the natural factors that have driven sea level UP and Down , hundreds of feet over the millenia, are understood by the climate scientists... !!!

They can't, yet attribute rises that could be entirely naturally driven to man, official IPCC estimates still say 9cm - 59 cm per century.

And many sea level experts beg to differ......

Sep 20, 2010 at 5:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Global WArming is NOT a myth..

Man MAde Global warming is proably more aGW, than AGW defiently not, in my opining CAGW.

please make a distinction, between natural and otherwise.
Or have al the natural drivers, stopped for ever, won't change direction, ever, etc,etc

Sep 20, 2010 at 5:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Monbiot ask for evidence and then the Guard deletes any given for "legal reasons". Makes for a one sided conversation.

"...As for the content of the deleted messages, they still fail to provide any evidence of the false charges against Pachauri that my posts refuted. No evidence that he has been “making a fortune from his links with ‘carbon trading’ companies”. No evidence that the money he has made while working for other organisations “must run into millions of dollars”, no evidence of “highly lucrative commercial jobs”, no evidence that payments he has received caused a “conflict of interest” with his IPCC role. That’s what I asked for, and that is what I have yet to receive.

UPDATE: 0630, 20th September. Last night I asked the Guardian about this and I’ve just received a reply. They say the posts were removed for legal reasons. The Guardian’s lawyers were concerned that I was challenging people to post libellous material on the site, for which, under England’s defamation laws, it would be legally responsible. ...."

Sep 20, 2010 at 5:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterEd Forbes

Ed, you fail to note that George Monbiot's call - which he says the Guardian lawyers were concerned was a challenge to "post libellous material on the site" remains. Meanwhile the evidence he requests is being deleted. The net illusion is that Monbiot calls for evidence, but that nobody has any.

This is wilful manipulation, disingenuous and perversely distorting.

Sep 20, 2010 at 6:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterSimonH

toad, I might be tempted to feel for Monbiot. He, and many environmentalists, were encouraged to coatrack their environmentalism on science which it transpires is not the solid thing that they were led to believe that it was. There are many issues of breaches of the scientific method, of postnormalism spreading through climate science like a cancer, undermining the integrity of work in the field and in the credibility of the same.

The knock-on effect on the ideology of environmentalism is inevitably devastating and will doubtless sap the impetus in environmentalism and set it back decades. This, you might be surprised to know, will not make climate sceptics happy. But the integrity of scientific conduct must be maintained if scientific advancement is to continue. The cancerous contamination of scientific endeavour must be cut out.

Environmental matters are not well served by advocacy science in which trust cannot be placed. And trust can not BE placed in science which is shaped to an ideology, no matter how much we wish in our hearts that science would support our personal beliefs.

George needs to recognise this. I suspect that, deep down, he does. But there are issues of cognitive dissonance which inevitably lead him to behave in ways which ultimately lead him to compromise his journalistic integrity. This is, I feel, what we are witnessing now. One cannot defend the indefensible without compromising or abandoning one's own credibility.

If I could impress upon George one thing, it would be for him to recognise that the nobility of environmentalism and of conservation COULD, and WOULD, endure. But only IF he would recognise that the horse he was offered, and which he was encouraged to jockey - deeply flawed and corrupt advocacy science - is dead. George, pull your leg from under that old mare, and get running. It's the jockey, not the horse, that wins the race.

George, it is immeasurably more noble to foster love of the earth than incite fear of its climate.

Sep 20, 2010 at 6:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterSimonH


I agree with you that the Guard was "wilful manipulation, disingenuous and perversely distorting"

I thought I had been clear that it was a onsided conversation.

Sep 20, 2010 at 6:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterEd Forbes

Apologies, Ed, I misread and misinterpreted you. I think I must be hungry. :)

Sep 20, 2010 at 7:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterSimonH

I think Hengist wants us to discuss sea levels in order to avoid the very important questions raised by Sheb and Julian. Monbiot’s excuse for the deletions makes no sense, but the nonsense is the fault of the CiF moderators, not of Monbiot. Questions should perhaps be addressed to
Meanwhile, Monbiot the investigative journalist and fearless defender of freedom of expression is going to find it harder and harder to defend the position of Monbiot the climate propagandist. Interesting Times, as Pratchett has it.

Sep 20, 2010 at 7:11 PM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

SimonH, Julian, Barry and others have offered a very perceptive and fairminded analysis of Monbiot the climate campaigner. Will Monbiot the investigative journalist realise that the mendacity he recognised in the Jones emails is prevalent throughout climate science, and that he is being offered the scoop of the century? It’s not that difficult; the spadework has already been done by McIntyre, Montford and others. All he has to do is admit he was wrong (which he has already done on other subjects) and reveal the truth to the chattering classes. He’s already faced up to Bush, Blair, and even George Galloway. Surely he can face his faithful trolls on Guardian Environment.

Sep 20, 2010 at 7:57 PM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

If he did that he might need to resign as Hon President of the CampaignAgainst Climate Change...

Pop over there, look at the forums there, and listen in the echo chamber as the tumble weeds go by....

How many activists does CaCC actually have, dozens? where is the funding coming from, what do the MP's think as VP's,etc...

Sep 20, 2010 at 8:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>