Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace
« L'Institut Turgot on le rapport Montford | Main | Oxburgh transcript »
Tuesday
Sep212010

Monbiot and TERI's accounts

I've been enjoying the comments thread below Julian and Shub's Monbiot piece. George is clearly quite upset at the suggestion that he was responsible for deleting comments and he has defended himself at his own site, stating that he has never asked the CiF moderators to delete anything.

Some commenters, notably Barry Woods, have argued that we should take George at his word, and I must say I think this is right. Having seen a BBC blogger (Richard Black, IIRC) getting one of his comments snipped on his own thread, George's story that he had nothing to do with the deletions is at least credible.

That said, I am also quite taken with Julian William's point that the deletion of anyone who responded to Monbiot's call for evidence against Pachauri very much gave the impression that nobody could meet the challenge. Whether this was a deliberate attempt by the mods to give a false impression or just a case of their being over-cautious is hard to know.

But if we set the past aside for a moment, I would hope that reasonable people could agree that the understatement of income in TERI Europe's accounts is worrying. How was it possible for this money to be overlooked? Were the books not reconciled to the bank statements? If the cheques from the various donors were payable to TERI-Europe then how could they not find their way into the books? Does TERI have more than one bank account? Was a whole bank account missed out from the books? Extraordinary if so. The idea that one can miss 90%(?) of the income of a company out of its books by mistake will simply not wash.  

I find this highly disturbing and I hope that George Monbiot does too. I'm quite sure he would not accept a commercial company "losing" such a large proportion of its income.

I wonder if he would like to say something on the subject?

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (116)

I agee with Barry and doubt very much if George Monbiot removed the comments. He has a tendency to jump to conclusions hence his remarkably honest piece on climategate before the inquiries, and the subsequent embarrasing embracing of Jones after the inquiries. In this case he appears to have been taken in by the fact that KCMG did the investigation into Pachauri's finances. He's not really an investigative journalist anymore, at least in respect of anthropogenic global warming, he seems to jump on anything that supports his cause instantly. Having said all that I don't think he's a fraud, but a poor sap who's be caught up in the religious fanatacism of global warming.

Sep 21, 2010 at 8:07 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

He just updated hs post to say that the comments were removed because they could be "libelous"

I'm not quite sure why posting that a charity just restated its accounts is libelous but maybe there was editorial comment in addition to the basic facts

Sep 21, 2010 at 8:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterFrancisT

George's mindset is set out here

Greens are a puny force by comparison to industrial lobby groups, the cowardice of governments and the natural human tendency to deny what we don't want to see. To compensate for our weakness, we indulged a fantasy of benign paternalistic power – acting, though the political mechanisms were inscrutable, in the wider interests of humankind. We allowed ourselves to believe that, with a little prompting and protest, somewhere, in a distant institutional sphere, compromised but decent people would take care of us. They won't. They weren't ever going to do so. So what do we do now?

The noble cause betrayed... interesting piece.

If you look at past history, then fanaticism/terrorism will come to the fore.

Our cause is just, at any price?

George though does not strike me as the martyr type

Sep 21, 2010 at 8:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Wayne's Horse

I don't believe in coincidences.

London/Amsterdam, February 18, 2010: Yvo De Boer, one of the world’s leading authorities on climate change and sustainability, is leaving his international role with the United Nations to join KPMG, the global network of professional service firms.

Mr De Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (‘UNFCCC’) - who facilitated the recent climate summit in Copenhagen - will have an international role working with KPMG member firms in advising business, governments and other organizations on sustainability issues.

Sep 21, 2010 at 8:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterLDLAS

After admitting "I don't know" - (Funny how George can say this when AM said the same on TV and all the Alarmist/Advicates had a go at him for it!) George goes onto say:-

"These failures have exposed not only familiar political problems, but deep-rooted human weakness. All I know is that we must stop dreaming about an institutional response that will never materialise and start facing a political reality we've sought to avoid. The conversation starts here."

OK - so let's have a look at this:-

"familiar political problems" - err what do you mean George? Democracy giving us all a vote? Freedom of speach and thought?

"deep-rooted human weakness" - Hmmmm - I doubt George thinks his belief in Alarmist propaganda is in anyway a "deep rooted human weakness" - seems to me he BELIEVES!

And then george urges to "start facing a political reality we've sought to avoid" -

I wonder what exactly is the "political reality (that) we've sought to avoid" infers?

Sep 21, 2010 at 8:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterDoug

All these big consulting firms, such as KPMG, Andersens (sorry, Accenture), Ernst & Young and PriceWaterhouseCoopers started life as corporate accountants, so you could say that massaging figures* was in their DNA. They've all been caught with their fingers in the till at some point, so why should anyone believe what they say about anything?

*With due deference to our host, but I assume he doesn't look after Enron-sized accounts.

Sep 21, 2010 at 9:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Only charities with yearly incomes of more than £10,000 are required to have their accounts independently examined or audited – below that threshold, accounts inspection is only needed if it is required by the charity’s governing document.

Sep 21, 2010 at 9:19 AM | Unregistered Commentermartyn

Monbiot is not naive - so I suggest "plausible deniability" as a better description than "unknowing innocence"

Sep 21, 2010 at 9:49 AM | Unregistered Commenterianl8888

There is stronger correlation between the deletion of sceptical comments on CiF and Guardian climate change journalism than with the rise of atmospheric CO2 emissions and global temperatures.

Why is that?

That can only be if the CiF moderators are taking their cue from the editorial stance at the Guardian.

Moderation at CiF is corrupted.

Sep 21, 2010 at 9:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

I would LOVE for the Guardian, Fred Pearce (who I like) George Monbiot to have the cojones, to attempt to save the entire Green/environmental movement, if they recognise the CAGW delusion for what it is....

Somehow I maged to get a signed copy of hFred Pearce's 'The Climate Files' book (which is VERY good), and neglected to ask Steve Mcintyre to sign 'The Hockey Stick Illusion'!

I have just tried to put this on George latest article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/20/climate-change-negotiations-failure?showallcomments=true&msg=a#end-of-comments

-----------------------------------------
My Comment:

"My six year old daughter came home from school yesterday extremely proud/pleased to be voted one of 2 children in her year to be part of the Schools Eco Team.

She now has a little eco team badge on her school cardigan. I am also extremely PROUD of her.
She wants to CARE for the planet, pick up waste, reuse, save energy, etc.. I'm fully supportive of that..

Not the crude environmentalist, romaticism that humans are bad, and the planet would be better off without us, that is frequently the message.

Yes I'm a 'Climate Cynic' now...

George mentions the sandbag report, about emmisions trading, a quick VERY cursory look at their website, shows who is involved.

http://sandbag.org.uk/whoweare

directors:
There we can see the Manging Director of Climate Care (Mike Mason) who want to sell you your carbon offsets.

Actually that is JP MORGAN CHASE Climate Care now.
After their involvenment in the global finacial crash, JP Morgan appear to have jumped on the next money making opportunity.

JP Morgan BANK! bought Climate Care in 2008.

http://www.jpmorganclimatecare.com/about/our-organisation/

Another Director of Sandbag, is Ed Gillspie, he writes for the GUARDIAN on occasion....

But his other role , is co-founder of Futerra.

"Futerra is the sustainability communications agency; from green to ethical, climate change to corporate responsibility. For over nine years we've helped you save the world"

Lots of very rich clients:
http://www.futerra.co.uk/clients/

There main claim to fame is advicing the UK Government and the UN Environment program...

Futerra and The UK Department for Environment published the Rules of the Game on 7 March 2005. The game is communicating climate change; the Rules will help us win it. The document was created as part of the UK Climate Change Communications Strategy.

Remind me of the vested interests again, political, lots of NGO's, etc, look closely George 'Big Oil' became 'Big Energy a decade ago.. Big business made the rational business decision to 'follow the money', scientists/politicians that are wedded to AGW catastrophism, cannot change. 'Big Energy' will quite happily smeak a bit of extra profit onto oil, as the governments raises all those green taxes.

And I'll point out again - JP MORGAN CHASE BANK carbon offsets...

I'm a man made 'political' climate change cynic..
My concern is that every pressing urgent real environmental, green sustainabilty message will be put back decade, bythe CAGW delusion.
They even focus grouped ' Carbon Footprint' in 2007:

George and Fred Pearce could save the Green party and the environmentalism fro being put back for decades because of the idealistic catastrophism has led the romantics/idealists/activists of all things green/eco/environmental away

These people will kick up a fuss, Sceptics cannot show thenm the way, (we are just evil deniars to them, and they will not listen) but the Guardian COULD show them the way
.
Or all things environemntal will suffer, because of a general public backlash, and I for one and my ECO Team daughter would be upset by this."

--------------------------
I am STILL pre-moderated at the Guardian. What are the odds of it appearing...


Will the Guardain ALLOW this comment in George's article,
factual, direct links to the people mentioned OWN websites, for the quotes.


Come on Guardian, if only because if you did this you could SCOOP Booker and Delingpole and you nemisis the Telegraph.

Go on pinch the CAGW message is just a popular mass delusion of crowds, explain why and get one over the Telegraph.....

Sep 21, 2010 at 10:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

This seems to be yet another way of "clearing" IPCC members.
Publicly ask for evidence against them and then refuse to publish the evidence because of libel laws thus making it appear as if there is no evidence. It seems to me that if you will not be able to publish the evidence against them then you should not request it in the first place.

Sep 21, 2010 at 10:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

"Free" in CiF is like "Democratic" in GDR, "People's" in PRC and "Real" in RC.

Sep 21, 2010 at 10:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

At least 30 comments have apeared after mine.. In no way libellous, I am quoting people, linking to their OWN websites......

So this is for George Monbiot:

A close friend of mine was a senior member of the IPCC Working Group 1 Technical Support group..
Their name also appear on the Synthesis report for policy makers, the basis for science, alongside Sir John Houghton (who I have met, is no doubt a very sincere person, that truly believes, i could tell that, as could my wife) My Friend is VERY much involved still in'Climate Science.

My friend son, is my 7 year old son's best friend in the ENTIRE world, since they were babies..

My friend and I have 4-5 hard science relevant degree/post degree qualifications between us.

My friend's NAME is on the IPCC report that 'The Hockey Stick' graph appears numerous times, and Sir John was photograped against and used in the Inconvenient Truth. This graph is also on the back cover of Andrew Montford's book: 'The Hockey Stick Illusion.

My friend is STILL my friend post Climategate
(the very first time I got involved in any of this( I had no idea who the hell Steve Mcintyre was, for example)

My friend DIRECTED Me to REALCLIMATE when I asked them about it.........!

Yet George the Guardian and all those ignorant of science eco activists would make me a DENIAR for my actions, writing about the CAGW mass popular delusion of crowds......

My friend has never called me a deniar, knows full well I am VERY sceptical,
after all we trust each other with OUR CHILDREN... This crude deniar propaganda is aimed at driving people apart.

So if George comes here, ask yourself why can you not you read this at The Guardian..
You may think I am wrong, we could discuss it (privately) you may disagree of course and discuss all the scientific eveidence.. We might agree about the disaser that is carbon trdaing, feed in tariifs, and many other things..

But the GUARDIAN will not even PRINT IT.......

Comment is FREE.

Sep 21, 2010 at 10:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

TERI’s dodgy accounts would be meat and drink to Monbiot the investigative journalist, but unfortunately he’s been put under house arrest by Monbiot the climate campaigner. Should we call in Reporters sans Frontiéres?
His latest article is quite clear. The valiant fighting Greens have been stabbed in the back by civilian politicians. The next step is clear - the March on Stansted, followed by the Organic Foodstore Putsch.

Sep 21, 2010 at 10:44 AM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

George should be cross, how is George going to know what is going on, if the Guardian will not let member of the public give him information that they he asked for (at the very least delete it - publically - then pass it on privately.

If you want to see the quality of the averag pro -CAGW 'activist' side of the debate..
Have a look at the comments/conversation, at Climate etc (Judth Curry's website)
http://judithcurry.com/2010/09/15/doubt/#comments

I picked up my own little personal eco troll, calling me a deniar, dishonest ( a quick - google - showed him to be a regular, at DeSmogBlog, Deltoid, etc all the pro Climate attack blogs, with hundred of comments, ythat were just abusive)

Ian Forrester says:
September 17, 2010 at 10:17 am
Barry Woods said:

ie temps seem to have plateaued dropped (slightly – since 1998) against the models predictions</blockquote.

Denier Alert! Denier Alert!
---------------------

It went on for a bit, Judith Curry warned him a few times, he then started 'dishonest' misconduct, etc..
Hasn't been back, Judith may have blocked him..

He pops up at Deltoid slagging of Climate Audit, Judith (and is a regular of those types of blog, where it is welcomed...

Th epublic are general 'lukewarm' on CAGW, it is only a small gropu of activists, with a media voice FAR beyond their numbers, that have made it impossiblefor any debate to happen.. Anyone with any sense, has kep their heads down...

Only the realities of ecomonic recession and the actual costs of what is proposed, has started questions being asked, and the response don't you want to 'save the planet' is no longer enough, people want the questions addressed. Not insults/name calling.

'Hide the Uncertainty' no longer works

Sep 21, 2010 at 11:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

George my comment above (BBCBias) is now over 2 hours in moderation at Comment is Free....

-----------------
Go to first 50 comments | Showing all comments | Refresh page to see latest comments
Logged in as bbcbias
Click here to sign out
Your comment has been submitted for moderation.
For more information read our community standards and participation guidelines
--------------------------

Dozens of others have appeared.

What is your opinion of the CiF moderation policy....

What is so wrong about my comment, that the mods have to sit on it...

I have been both DEFENDING you and criticising (constructively) you here.

I even suggest you and Fred are the HOPE for the green/environmental movement.

Comment is FREE

Sep 21, 2010 at 11:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

One 'deep-seated human weakness' which intrigues me is our vulnerability to milleniarism and associated messiahs. For example, the numerous cults of the Middle Ages promised new paradises on earth, with all things shared (that old phrase 'as free as the air' is looking dated now that the very CO2 we breathe is attracting taxes and penalties, but it was widely used by the cultists to argue by analogy that all things should be shared freely). The cults usually became violent, selfish, and led by thoroughly nasty egotists, but they seldom had any prominence for more than a few years at a time. The 'climatist cult' has had a relatively long innings by comparison, and also by comparison, some of the core themes of it can be expected to re-appear quite often even if the main body and leadership is displaced or disgraced or otherwise disengaged. A feature peculiar to our age is the dependence on revelations from computer models rather than from angels etc visiting in the night. Climate-based eschatology deserves further study as a mostly secular modern phenomenon. Like all the others before it, it has the potential to make a substantial nuisance of itself, and cause a great deal of unnecessary suffering - all the while gratifying its followers with a sense of doing good works and being on the right track.

Sep 21, 2010 at 11:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Shade

Monbiot has stated that he has requested 'two years ago' that CiF moderators stop deleting critical comments to allow threaded debate.

That highlights, firstly, that Monbiot was acutely aware that critical comments were being deleted at CiF, and, secondly, he is now arguing that he was unaware that the practice of deleting critical comments had continued despite his request, and finally, thirdly, the practice of deletion was due to the concern that Monbiot's threaded responses and challenges to sceptics might lead to a libellous response.

Is that credible?

Barely!

If Monbiot was aware that critical comments were being deleted at CiF two years ago, he must have also been aware that the practice had continued - his threaded responses and challenges to sceptics were again going unanswered.

Why, now, does he ask CiF the reason for deleting comments, and why does he accept the answer given?

Monbiot complains of being smeared by false accusations. He doesn't see that his own hollow behaviour and that of Guardian editors have brought CiF into disrepute, and in doing so they have only smeared themselves.

Sep 21, 2010 at 11:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

The "Climate Cynic" point wasn't merely me being flippant.....

There are actually some media messages coming out now now and it is very deliberate, planned.
Obama's scientific advisor Holdren's - 'Global Climate Disruption' I imagine was NOT an off the cuff remark.

Anybody else come across; 'Climate Cynic' yet,
you know, the new way of saying 'Climate Deniers' without the holocaust denial smear...

From a green media company - Futerra:

Sell the Sizzle - The New Climate Message
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Sellthesizzle.pdf

"Cynics versus Activists
If you think the climate argument is won, then think again. Myriad climate battles continue to rage. On the science, or the policy response to the science, on the responsibilities of business, government and people, on the right moment to act, on who gets the blame, on who pays, on who benefits…

However, these battles have largely taken place beneath the public’s radar. Played out between CLIMATE CYNICS and Climate Activists in boardrooms or staterooms but only recently in living rooms."

These guys Futerra were way ahead of me...

They provide their service to the UN environment Program, UK Government,
In fact, the UK government used them in creating the UK Climate Change Communications strategy.

Futerra - Rules of the Game.
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/RulesOfTheGame.pdf

"Futerra and The UK Department for Environment published the Rules of the Game on 7 March 2005. The game is communicating climate change; the Rules will help us win it. The document was created as part of the UK Climate Change Communications Strategy."

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) was created in October 2008, bringing together energy policy previously with BERR and Department for Environment.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/

And yet, Futerra still can't quite help themselves though....
"Sell the Sizzle - The NEW Climate Message"
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Sellthesizzle.pdf

"Climate Change Deniers
Unfortunately, these guys are back (if they ever went away). The edge of this group are the conspiracy theorists who are sure that climate science is an excuse for either (a) the environmentalists to curtail consumption or undermine our way of life, or (b) for the developed world to hold back the developing world."

Fun Quotes From - Branding Biodiversity

"Need is essential
for policy makers
and business"

My favourite:

"Our audiences are
emotional rather
than rational."

http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Branding_Biodiversity.pdf

About Futerra.

"Futerra is a communications agency. We do
the things great agencies do; have bright ideas,
captivate consumers, build energetic websites
one day and grab OPINION FORMER'S attention
the next. We’re very good at it. But the real
difference is that since our foundation in 2001,
we’ve only EVER worked on green issues,
corporate responsibility
and sustainability.

Not that I'm trying to point it out, they advice the UN ENVIRONMENT Program.
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/WebEN21.pdf

"Futerra, in partnership with the UN Environment Programme, published Communicating Sustainability: How to produce effective public campaigns in September 2005."


So a reasonable, direct from the source, bit of evidence that the 'creative' tools of PR are being used by government and the UN, (futerra since 2001) see their client list (Greenpeace, etc) has/is being used to 'win' the AGW consensus amongst the public..

As a bit of popular culture. Anybody remember when ‘carbon footprint’ actually started being widely used…?!?!

Futerra focus grouped it in 2007….. in ‘Words That Sell’
http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Words-That-Sell.pdf
------------------

Doesn't that all sound like a mad sceptic/deniar conspiracy theory,?

Follow the links back to their own websites..

No conspiracy, just human nature', in the above we see a bunch of media creative types, investing their time and energy and their skills into 'saving the planet' - since 2001. They do not question the IPCC/CRU science, how could they do not have the skills, they believe, and they trust the UN/IPCC intentions...

It is just those big evil fossil fuel companies that they need to market/ medai campaign against and persude the general public to ignore - ie like ExxonMobil.

The same ExxonMobil, that helps fund the Science and Media Centre that Bob Ward is board member of:
(Bishop Hill knows all about Bob Ward - see Bob and Me, and the follow ups)

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/about/smc_board.htm

and Fiona Fox is the Director:
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/about/staff.htm

Newswatch 23/04/2010 (still availble on BBC iplayer?)

“it is unnecessary....misleading...inaccurate... to always have a sceptic to balance the views of the climate scientist” Fiona Fox – Director, Science Media Centre


Fiona Fox: "Chaired a report, for Lord Drayson, the science minister, looking into the quality of science reporting reporting in the media"

Fiona Fox: (ExxonMobil part funded - Sceince and Media Centre)

"Fight the good fight for accuracy, in fact. On Climate change there has been a real change..
People like Richard Black and Roger Harrabin,[at the BBC] fighting internally to say we DON'T have to have a sceptic every time we have a climate story."

Fiona Fox is about 6 minutes in..

If the BBC is reading this, are Roger and Richard happy that Fiona Fox thinks this of them, is it true?
Maybe not Roger, but Richard?

Funding:
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/about/funding.htm
(also includes, BP, Shell, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Met Office, and many more)

including the Department of Business Innovation and Skills - which has a new website, where the Chief Scientists has poped up, with a CAGW message)

http://www.bis.gov.uk/go-science/climatescience

So to Futerra - I am PROUD to be called a 'Climate Cynic'

Even if, a more accurate LABEL would be a 'Man Made Catastrophic Global Warming , Al Gore Political Climate Cynic'

Butt he poor downtrodden masses are too dim to get that into thier heads...
Or are Futerra spinning something.

Comment is FREE

Sep 21, 2010 at 11:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Barry Woods: "Only the realities of ecomonic recession and the actual costs of what is proposed, has started questions being asked..."

And that is a sad truth which shames 21st century mankind.

Sep 21, 2010 at 11:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoger Carr

Sorry but given that Monboit been more than happy to use his column to personal attack people that have failed to support him , and remember this is the guy that tired to construct the link between AGW sceptics and Holocaust deniers. It far to say his got form while has been happy to ignore evidence in the past when its but under his own nose , so what role he played in this is unclear. But it is very much his column where he has been free to lurch attacks on individuals or whole groups , i.e the old don’t care because they’re going to die soon , people who fly are like paedophiles.

So his protests of innocence ring somewhat hollow.

Sep 21, 2010 at 12:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

Comment is.........

.........................ALLOWED


Maybe George is reading this after all - thanks George for giving the CiF mods a kick..

It took 2 hours... (timestamp below).

bbcbias
21 September 2010 9:49AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/20/climate-change-negotiations-failure?showallcomments=true&msg=a#end-of-comments


Last week only about 50% of my comments got in, none for months before that ( I did try occasionally)

The shortest one was following Lovelock's interview in the Guardain, that all the computer models were rubbish, to paraphrase:

"I would love to see Georeg Monbiots's repsonse to this article"

Not even that was allowed...
(have a look at the rest of that article to see all sorts of rubbish, off topic, ranting that was allowed)

Sep 21, 2010 at 12:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

How was it possible for this money to be overlooked? Were the books not reconciled to the bank statements? If the cheques from the various donors were payable to TERI-Europe then how could they not find their way into the books? ....

Hey, Bishop Hill, what do you know about such things? You are only an accountant...

Sep 21, 2010 at 12:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Is it possible that it's NEWS to Monbiot that his comment threads have had a bias moderated into them? Is it at all possible that he's been unaware of the colouring of his comment threads? That the truth about the dwindling number of his "green army" has been kept from him?

Definitely, one could argue that he SHOULD have been aware, that he SHOULD have seen what was happening. But what if.. through either his own ignorance or because the truth was withheld from him by the Gruan moderators.. he's only now realising that his army of supporters is actually, in large part, CGI?

That might explain the rather deflated Monbiot we're seeing now. The truth will set you free. It can also knock you over.

Sep 21, 2010 at 12:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterSimonH

JS

"Climate-based eschatology"

Not to be confused with climate-based scatology.. :-)

Sep 21, 2010 at 12:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

"Hey, Bishop Hill, what do you know about such things? You are only an accountant..."
Sep 21, 2010 at 12:37 PM | Martin A

....not a climate scientist or an impartial inquirer.

Sep 21, 2010 at 12:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

"He's not really an investigative journalist anymore, at least in respect of anthropogenic global warming, he seems to jump on anything that supports his cause instantly."
Sep 21, 2010 at 8:07 AM | geronimo

Coming from a denier, that shows a lack of self-awareness that I should no longer find staggering, but still do.

Have any of you done any exposes of Lord Monckton prior to his humiliation? Does making up quotes and figures lift the lid on the whole rotten business of denialism?

How ironic that this whole topic is about comments on climate change articles, yet posters here freely admit to manipulating and distorting them. Have any of you seen fit to tackle that in a spirit of fairness?

Collectively, this place is hard pushed to fight off a charge of hypocrisy.

Sep 21, 2010 at 12:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

ZedsDeadBed: Thanks, absolutely accurate, I hadn't seen it that way before. Not sure what you're talking about in relation to Monckton, perhaps you could expand it for us.

Sep 21, 2010 at 1:16 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

This comment is also pending moderation atthe Guardian:

So slight benefit of the doubt with George at the Guardian, on deletion of comments
Allthough I had not noticed that he had said he been aware of deletions previoulsy at CiF.

George Monbiot is Honouray President of the Campaign AGAINST Climate Change..

Whose activists receive Sceptics Alerts...
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/19/skeptic-alerts.html

It is interesting to NOTE that over 80% of those alerts I have received since the Bishop Hill Sceptic Alert article was written, are for articles written by Christopher Booker and James Delingpole in the Telegraph -

OVER 80% !!! (that makes it personal, in my opinion, to someone at CACC)

The Guardian's Comment is Free has for years been perceived as routinely deleting sceptical comments (see earlier article at Bishop Hill and else where) George is at least partially aware that it goes on for his articles, and has said he wants an open thread.

But George 'apparently' has no problem with what I would perceive as the CACC activists 'trolling' Bookers and Delingpole comments at the Telegraph..

Over 80% makes it sound personal to me (no Watts up, Bishop Hill blog alerts, very few other newspapers)
Just Deleingpole and Booker, and The Telegarph, the main target of CACC

The Campaign Against Climate Change have their own Sceptic HALLS of Shame
http://www.campaigncc.org/hallofshame

Booker and Delingpole are in there, along with other elected politicians and scientists.

Is George going to deny all knowledge of this, or does he still condone it..

I found out about Skeptic Alerts by chance as a commentor at Delingpoles blog (Jo Abbess )
invited James to a CACC meeting, I had a browse at the CACC website and found it..

I was previoulsy for months -post climategate - surprised at the shear number of 'troll' like coments in the Telegraph articles, one commentor the Telegrpah allowed to be outed was a Media management professional with Guardian AND Telegraph clients)

I emailed Bishop Hill, and as he was a bit busy, he suggested that I write it up:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/19/skeptic-alerts.html


So that is why my sympathies lie with James Delinpole, (even though he can go a bit over the top at times, I can see why he has his opinion of the Guardian and George Monbiot, that the expressed at Bishop Hill)

Pro- CAGW - Comments are allowed at the telegraph

Should these activities, be something that these MP's be involved with..
http://www.campaigncc.org/hallofshame
http://www.campaigncc.org/node/384

especially Caroline Lucas (1st ever UK Green MP)
http://www.campaigncc.org/whoweare

Is their any sort of journalistic code, ( I imagine Delingpole, Booker and the Telegraph, should consider writing to the CACC organisers, or maybe George will/can stop this, or those MP's)

I will also post this commemnt into the Guardian, as A Jones comment above has been allowed into CiF today...

I can of course forward all those sceptic alerts to anyone that wants them. (to verify the percentage)

Sep 21, 2010 at 1:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

who 'alerted' ZedsDeadBed

Sep 21, 2010 at 1:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

ZDB

Who is in denial now?
Who is being a hypocrit now?
Can you feel it? Now?

Sep 21, 2010 at 1:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterLDLAS

Geronimo - respect for taking it on the chin.

Basically, Monckton has been busted wide open for making it up.

A chap called John Abraham attended one of Monckton's lectures, and became very suspicious of what he heard. So he took some of his own time actually verifying whether what he heard was true. A great deal of it was total fiction.

He primarily responded in audio - if you have time, you can listen to it here:

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

Sep 21, 2010 at 1:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

Please restrict this thread to discussions of Monbiot and/or TERI's accounts.

Sep 21, 2010 at 1:34 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Martyn wrote:

Only charities with yearly incomes of more than £10,000 are required to have their accounts independently examined or audited – below that threshold, accounts inspection is only needed if it is required by the charity’s governing document.

Is this confirmed? This might be a good "reason" that TERI-Europe's accounts incorrectly showed four-figure values rather than five figures.

Sep 21, 2010 at 1:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterHaroldW

Experiment 3: CiF sensitivity to recent criticism over moderation.

The Guardian over the past couple of months have been forced to provide a form of redress to independent bloggers who feel that they have been subject of ill considered ad-hom attacks by Guardian environmental correspondents. Over the past couple of days George Monbiot has conceded that he was aware, 2 years ago, that CiF moderators were deleting or preventing publication of critical comments on his blogs. There is now a heightened awareness that the Guardian editorially is not providing a balanced and fair platform in the debate over climate change. Has that had an impact on moderation at CiF?

I compared the levels of moderation, specifically the dreaded - "This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted" - to compare how often comments were removed by CiF moderators for the blogs posted by George Monbiot and Polly Toynbee at CiF. Both are seen as being equally contentious in their expressed views on matters environmental and political. Both have relative high number of comments from a high number of commentators. I compared 5 consecutive blogs by Monbiot and Toynbee posted over the past few weeks to a similar period in 2009.

Results:

Monbiot 2009: 1865 comments, 184 removed comments = 9.9% of total removed.

Monbiot 2010: 1429 comments, 54 removed = 3.8% of total removed.

Toynbee 2009 - 1706 comments, 97 removed = 5.7% of total removed.

Toynbee 2010 - 2117 comments, 82 removed = 3.9% of total removed.

A year ago 1 in 10 of comments posted on Monbiot's blogs were being removed by CiF moderators. Over the past few weeks it is now 1 in 26. That change is stark.

In comparison, a year ago 1 in 18 of comments posted on Toynbee's blogs were being removed by CiF moderators. Over the past few weeks it is now 1 in 25. That change is modest.

Conclusions: It would appear that CiF have become sensitive to criticism over moderation, especially so on climate change. It is likely that this sensitivity is recent and is linked to criticism of the aggressive editorial stance at the Guardian on environmental matters. The evidence strongly suggests that CiF moderation is affected by recent editorial decisions at the Guardian.

Experiments 1 (stopping anti-CAGW accounts) ,2 (abuse of the reccommend button at CiF) and 3 (above) highlight that online debate on climate change at CiF is being deliberately skewed by CiF moderators towards the editorial stance of the Guardian, i.e. pro-CAGW.

Sep 21, 2010 at 2:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Easiest way for TERI to dispell scepticism regarding their finances is for them to publish their accounts to an international standard, rather than the bizarre pie charts used. Pachauri's a bit trickier, his 'audit' wasn't an audit and didn't look at non-cash interests like share ownership.

Sep 21, 2010 at 2:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

Mac many of mine, just never appeared at all, not even has being removed (zero evidence of ever existing)

Sep 21, 2010 at 2:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Should the Scott Trust replace the editor, for betting on the wronghorse....
I saw this in the comments of George's article..


"the "global warming" story: Alan Rusbridger in an interview yesterday with the (leftwing) Hindu newspaper:
A year ago we decided the environment was the biggest story of our lives. So we have six reporters doing the environment – one in China, one in America and four in the U.K. And then we built a network of environmental sites. We aggregated and became part of a network, with about 20 or 30 sites. A huge amount of editing and resources goes into the environment. That's like saying, almost regardless of revenue, its going to be such an important subject.

http://www.hindu.com/2010/09/20/stories/2010092052441100.htm

Sep 21, 2010 at 2:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

BW

It could be that the CiF moderators have done their work too well in stopping the accounts of those critical of Monbiot, et al, at the Guardian. Not only is the debate being skewed, it is also being prevented.

Sep 21, 2010 at 2:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

mac
I appreciate your efforts to plumb the mysteries of CiF moderation, but I’m afraid your experiment tells us little. That fewer comments are being removed now is probably because the worst trolls (on both sides) have been barred. I’ve been barred for alleged abusive language, but so have many really bilious warmists. And those who remain are on their best behaviour.

Monbiot has been mulling over the question of CiF censorship since at least March 2009, when I pointed out that a doom mongering report from MIT which he was puffing was financed by Big Oil. He came back within minutes asking me for evidence of financial wrongdoing. (Had I produced any, I would have fallen under the Julian Willliams ruling, no doubt). Minutes later, he was back, accusing some perfectly innocent sceptical commentator of being an astroturfer. Instead of apologising for this unsubstantiated smear, he followed up by proposing various possible reins on free expression, in a longwinded article of the type “of course, I’m against censorship but ...”

I recommend everyone read the comment on george-monbiot-scrubbing-the-record-clean by AnthonyIndia (Sep 21, 2010 at 2:54 AM). The policy of turning the Guardian into a climate propaganda rag is not the aberration of a small band of enviro-freaks. It comes from the top. As a loyal Guardian reader for the past half century, may I take this opportunity to say - I hope they rot.

Sep 21, 2010 at 2:46 PM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

HaroldW
I omitted the confirmation link to the Charity Commission on my earlier post.

Audit or independent examination:-
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Publications/cc15.aspx#1

Sep 21, 2010 at 2:55 PM | Unregistered Commentermartyn

When they were asked for the records, they said "why should we share that information with you when you will just try to find something wrong with it?"

And, of course, that explanation was deemed sufficient.

Sep 21, 2010 at 3:02 PM | Unregistered Commenterstan

KPMG are hardly a disinterested party and actually did NOT do an audit - they essentially wrote a review like say, somebody at Guardian Travel doing a review of a holiday destination by copying and pasting from the tour operator's web site.

Most folk here are aware of this relationship - as should Monbiot be - it's curious and actually true hypocrisy from an anti-industrialist / anti-corporatist like George to pick one of the dishonest and conniving boosters of AGW "action" to attempt to support his arguments.

The was a neat comment over at the Guardian about the large accountantcy firms, referring to Arthur Anderson (AKA Accenture) being the getway car driver to ENRON's bank raid. A pretty accurate comparison from where I'm sat.

Sep 21, 2010 at 3:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterTom

"Minutes later, he was back, accusing some perfectly innocent sceptical commentator of being an astroturfer."
Sep 21, 2010 at 2:46 PM | geoffchambers

Geoff - how do you know it was an innocent sceptical commentator and not an astroturfer?

Sep 21, 2010 at 3:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

Latest Sceptic Allert:

Courtesy of George Monbiot's (Hon President) Campaign against Climate change
And they haven't allowed my earlier comment:


From: Campaign against Climate Change aggregator <xxxx@campaigncc.org>
Subject: Climate Change sceptic blog alerts
To: xxxxxxxxx@btinternet.com
Date: Monday, 20 September, 2010, 16:07


Climate Change sceptic blog alerts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Delingpole: Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!

Posted: 19 Sep 2010 04:10 PM PDT

President Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren is worried about global warming. Having noticed that there hasn’t actually been any global warming since 1998, he feels it ought to be called “global climate disruption” instead. That way whether it gets warmer or colder, wetter or drier, less climatically eventful or more climatically eventful, the result will be the same: it can all be put down to “global climate disruption.”
(to read more, click here)
James Delingpole: The real reasons why one billion go hungry: wind farms, biofuels, sustainability…

Posted: 19 Sep 2010 04:09 PM PDT

A great post from Roger Pielke Jr. (H/T Roddy Campbell)
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has just released a preview of its flagship report The State of Food Insecurity in the World. And guess what?
The preview has some good news: the number of people worldwide in chronic food shortage dropped 10% over the past year to “only” 925 million.
(to read more, click here)
You are subscribed to email updates from Campaign against Climate Change aggregator
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.

Sep 21, 2010 at 3:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

BarryWoods
Are you subscribed to Campaign against Climate Change’s sceptic blog alerts? If so, it would be interesting to see a list of blogs to which you have been alerted.
For the uninitiated, the Campaign against Climate Change (president: G Monbiot) has a system whereby they alert readers to sceptical articles to which they are recommended to send warmist comments. They specify that no specialised knowledge is necessary, and give some source sites from which the warmist message can be cut-and-pasted. This is unpaid astroturfing, courtesy of an organisation of which Monbiot is president. I wonder if they are being sent here?

Sep 21, 2010 at 3:24 PM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

I think you are being over generous to George Monbiot. If he is against moderation in principle then why does he continue writing for the Guardener?

Sep 21, 2010 at 3:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterStacey

"This is unpaid astroturfing, courtesy of an organisation of which Monbiot is president. I wonder if they are being sent here?"
Sep 21, 2010 at 3:24 PM | geoffchambers

If you're talking about me, then no. I don't subscribe to it, I post here and on the DM only.

I notice you assiduously avoid answering any of my questions to you, even where, as here, they seem to be extremely relevant to the topic of the thread.

You claim an innocent commentor was unfairly accused by Monbiot of astroturfing. How do you know they were innocent? I can only see three options, although I would welcome another viewpoint if you could provide it:

1) That the other commentor was you under a different name. In which case the charge of astrturfing was correct, and you are deceiving the Bishop Hill website.

2) That the other commentor was not you, but someone you knew. If this is the case, then that would seem to fit quite closely to the model of a pressure group working in a co-ordinated fashion, which could easily be construed as astroturfing. Again, that would mean you are deceiving the Bishop Hill website.

3) You've no idea who the other poster was, so they could well have been an astroturfer. In which case, Monbiot was right, and you are, again, deceiving the Bishop Hill website.

I hope I'm wrong about all this, or have missed another, more innocent option, in which case I apologise.

But if I'm not, why are none of the other commentors here, or Andrew Montford, picking Geoff up on it?

Is your scepticism entirely reserved for those with opposing views, and completely absent for your allies?

Sep 21, 2010 at 3:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterZedsDeadBed

Sorry! Just had a vision of George, gliding across the sky squatting on his magic flying carpet of bright green astroturf.

Sep 21, 2010 at 3:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

Does this mean that the CACC will soon become the CACD?

I’d love to know how you campaign against largely natural events. Or does Monbiot think he can take on the Almighty?

Sep 21, 2010 at 3:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

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):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>