Bishop Hill Monbiot and TERI's accounts
Sep 21, 2010 Climate: Pachauri Media 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?
Reader Comments (116)
I agree with Mr Montford here.
Much as I disagree with what George Monbiot says on many issues, I respect the fact that he says what he thinks and we need more of those in British journalism, no matter what their political persuasion.
I don't think he's the kind of guy who's so fragile he would feel the need to delete comments.
.
GC
You could be right that trolls on both sides have been eliminated from Monbiot's blogs, but the comparison with Toynbee is telling. She is just as contentious as Monbiot and attracts vicious comments from both left and right of politics. If CiF moderators had been eliminating trolls from both sides of the political left-right debate I would have expected a similar downturn in removed comments for Toynbee, but the numbers don't back that up.
My simple experiments on CiF show that sceptical comments are more likely to be removed, sceptical commentators' accounts are more likely to be stopped, that the reccommend button was/is open to abuse (internally?) reinforcing the warmist viewpoint, and that Monbiot has seen a dramatic turn-down in removed comments in recent weeks compared to last year due to heightened editorial sensitivity at the Guardian and moderator sensitivity at CiF.
There is enough evidence to show that CiF moderation is linked to the editorial stance on climate change at the Guardian. That point, simple though it is, was always assumed - that assumption has been proven to be correct.
Admittedly off topic, but worth the trip.
The other day I mentioned our friend ZDB to a friend who was into acid rock and all that sort of cacophony. He instantly recognize the genesis of ZedsDeadBed -- "except he has it wrong. It's 'Zed's Dead, Baby' "
It appears to be a corruption of "Zed's Dead, Baby", a line spoken by Butch (played by Bruce Willis) in "Plup Fiction" in 1994.
The "immortal" words were spoken in this clip. youtube clip
but since it is hard to understand him, I copied them out of
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110912/quotes?qt0447146
Fabienne: Whose motorcycle is this?
Butch: It's a chopper, baby.
Fabienne: Whose chopper is this?
Butch: It's Zed's.
Fabienne: Who's Zed?
Butch: Zed's dead, baby. Zed's dead.
The connection with the acid rock scene is actually to a group from Canada, "Zeds Dead", who sound like chipmunks.
Zeds Dead - White Satin
It is a fitting theme song. I can just see him roaring down the streets and by-ways of Truro on his chopper, with his MP4 player blasting his ears off. It may explain some of his behaviour.
Back to topic.
I have found long ago that "Liberals" are anything but liberal when it comes to personal freedom. Witness the Nanny states they have created in which they control everything conceivable. And this is justified by their firm belief that they and they alone understand and have the TRUTH. A good example of that is the thread regarding the cattle feed lot in Australia.
As for CiF I have no doubt the GM has never asked for anything to be deleted. He doesn't have to -- it will be done automatically by the moderators who see any dissident views as vile and corrupt.
There is a good reason why I don't bother posting in CiF -- it is a waste of time. As the old saying goes:
"Don't try to teach a pig to sing -- you will only waste your time and annoy the pig."
As for KPMG's performance it might be worth noting that the chairman of the finance and banking committee of the Swedish Parliament has just proposed that they should be prohibited from handling any accounts in the finance sector..
The reason: all three swedish banking firms that have gone down in the current financial crisis (Carnegie, HQ Bank, Habo finans) had been given a clean bill of health by KPMG just before they keeled over.
The chairman, Leif Pagrotsky cited "a completely unacceptable company culture" in KPMG.
Does anybody know why, if the material posted here is "libelous", (AFAIK) nobody's brought the Bishop so far to court? It should be very easy, under current British law.
Hello, Zeds
I think Moonbat should find a new campaign for his activism, one that fits much closer his personality...
http://tinyurl.com/299q9ta
Don Pablo
At the risk of seeming to defend my least favourite paper:
1) moderators at CiF are not biassed. The moderating rules are inadequate, the moderators probably overworked and undertrained, and there is a fear of libel prevalent in the British media which probably works against factual material being allowed, given that the moderators can’t be expected to check every assertion. Julian Williams knew his facts to be correct. Monbiot or a Guardian Environment editor could have checked them in a second. A moderator can’t be expected to do so, so wiped the comments, just in case.
It’s a serious criticism of the CiF set up that it favours banal emotional comment at the expense of information. Similarly, Monbiot’s habit of replying only to fans or critics with weak arguments, and avoiding responding to factual criticism, indicates bias on his part.
2) I disagree about CiF being a waste of time. As the Guardian editor indicates in the TimesofIndia interview dug up by AnthonyIndia, they have invested a lot of effort in their climate propaganda effort. Yet half the comments, and a clear majority of the recommends at CiF, are sceptical. They are losing the battle on their own pitch, thanks in part to commenters here who have the patience to enter the trolls’ lair.
so monbiot says: "I saw none of the posts I allegedly asked to have removed".
and then: "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"
you saw them or not?
“a clear majority of the recommends at CiF are sceptical”
It seems unlikely that we sceptics are all being whipped up by Big Oil to support our contributors, but I expect that is how the CiF faithful explain it among themselves. It must be depressing for the mods and editors, though.
Maurizio (4:28 PM above) asks an obvious question which demands an answer. As a foreigner longtime resident in England, he has a habit of seeing the blindingly obvious which we Brits miss. See
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/has-the-uk-establishment-got-any-confidence-in-climate-science/
geoffchambers
True, the libel laws of the UK are onerous, even GM has said that. However, there is a clear differential in which comments are accepted, and which are "moderated". I work on the lexicographical theory that the word biased means
To which we may add:
4: The Guardian's CiF blog (a biased newspaper).
QED
Monbiot in his latest Guardian column sounds extremely depressed:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/20/climate-change-negotiations-failure
He made an effort to participate in the early subsequent comments, but then he disappeared circa #60. Ironic that his last comment is immediately followed by a deleted comment.
The whole environmental movement runneth over with doom and gloom; I don't see how any of those wackos can maintain a positive attitude for very long. I think even some of Monbiot's followers were taken aback by his post and became disillusioned.
It is almost comical but I've copied here a comment I've had to just re-post at the time shown from an original posting at 12.39pm.
theoriginaljones
21 September 2010 5:42PM
Here we go again, this is a re-posting of what was at 12.39pm.
I've also posted this on Bishop Hill blog.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/
George, I am placing this here as I have been thoroughly disillusioned by the, frankly, stalinist levels of censorship that DOES go on at the G and you know it. The argument that such deletions is, somehow, secondary to legal concerns just does not wash mate and nor is bleating that you had nothing to do with it because in a well functioning set up nobody need say a word for the 'correct' actions to occur. The G was being particularly censorious some time ago resulting in my re-directing (to this blog site) deleted comments and posting a comment that suddenly became subject to 'pre-moderation' .(The blog mentioned above with James Randleson contributing). None of my contributions was in any sense abusive or (to my non-legal mind anyway) libelous.
They just didn't fit a 'narrative' whereas I was subjected to abuse in reply. These were allowed to remain.
Towards the end of my attempting to 'freely' comment in the self-loathing rag I was briefly submitting comments to simply generate discord. (I've wound my neck in now because that isn't the best way to behave and have abandoned the guardian as a source of reliable information)
I speak as someone who was a complete convert to the idea of AGW but having a scientifically based education became naturally curious when questions were raised as to the validity of AGW. I sought out alternative points of view and my mindset began to shift. I still (albeit without the certainty of faith any more) continued to be a proponent of AGW but stumbled across a mindset in the righteous which, simply put, makes Salem look like an oasis of liberal tolerance. I was in the position of having to exercise 'self-censorship' when in discussion of any green issues (AGW invariably being the most salient one) lest there be any leakage of my inner doubts at that point.
I have now found the 'deniers' (another term that raised hackles) stance to be the most persuasive one and this belief grows stronger the more I look but to get back to the start one cannot 'look' in the guardian as it is far too partisan for the warmist camp. Doubtless it will shift seamlessly onto a new bandwagon and down the memory hole AGW will gooooo.....
George, I have little doubt that you have enormous potential and I'm sure you will claw back some lost integrity and good luck to you but I won't ever buy another book of yours.('Heat' since you ask.......er...).
Ah well, the proceeds have contributed to the cost of your international flights that presumably would relegate one of 'them' going on one to the ranks of the paedophiles. It really is the case of the 'right' sort of people having it all isn't it George?. That includes material comfort whilst exhorting the rest to cut back ( so the 'right' sort can continue to enjoy the goodie eh?...don't get me started on Polly).
Beginning to rant more than usual so I'll leave it at that.
I think the Guardian comment moderators follow a "safety first" approach to moderation. (geoffchambers point #2). In this instance, I do think they goofed up in deleting comments from one side, but letting Monbiot's original comment stand - which they cannot delete as easily, albeit for a different reason. Monbiot could have stepped in and replied on his thread. The moderators could have left a note, indicating their reasons. Anyway...
Deleted within 2 minutes. They're onto me................
Well - as Geoff Chambers has manifestly failed to answer the questions I put to him about astroturfing on Monbiot comments, now and on similar earlier threads, I'll have to draw some conclusions from his silence. Namely, that it happens.
Which does give an extra dimension to moderation on the Grauniad.
With no Moderation at all, given enough time and money, anyone could utterly kill CIF by swamping it completely in denier comments. If the first 300 comments are variations on 'Gore is a liar' and 'it's a scam' then most people will just give up reading/posting beyond there.
For astroturfing to exist, each astroturf comment needs x amount of time, and y amount of money. The former, simply to write it, the latter, because all human time does have some monetary value, whether that be explicit payment for commenting, sufficient private means to have the luxury of time to do so, or simply interested parties using their own time to comment, which could be used in other ways which could have a monetary value attached to it.
So, to recap, astroturfing exists, and has money and time behind it. I'll leave you all to deny Big Oil or pressure groups or motivated individuals. Whatever the resource, the output will only vary in quantity, depending upon x and y.
Astroturfing does not a good comments section make. Bear in mind that the mods also have a duty to ensure that the comments section will hold some interest for Joe Bloggs, who has just logged on as a casual observer.
So the mods do have to make a decision as to whether a comment is astroturf or not, and if they think it is, do they delete/block it? That's surely not always an easy decision? After all, most astroturfers are going to be pretty good at what they do, and hard to tell from genuine comments.
Some comments here seem motivated from personal sleight as much as concern over bias, but perhaps empathise a little with the poor mods. It can't be a good or a well-paid job, and how sympathetic would you be to someone who seems to be getting angrier and angrier, reposting similar things, frequently, which, considering where it's posted, the mods probably don't personally agree with.
"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"
They've got 'futter' spelled wrong.
Bonus pearl of wisdom for Geoff and everybody else...comment ain't free at the Guardian's blogs, just like "Arbeit" never made anybody "frei"...
Few things are clearer in life than the pointlessness to write anything in Monbiot's pages that is not celebratory of the man. Think about it...the guy even showed up at the Delingpole debate in December with the claque (of course George had nothing to do with a group of young women determined to cheer at all of his utterances and to boo poor James). What more, one of his researchers is the only person that has ever banned me from following her on Twitter (she's repeatedly refused to tell me what exactly I have said or done to deserve that even if the record is out there for all to see).
I know it's a pity to watch, an obviously capable man slowly degenerating into a British newspaper columnist like any other, but hey, Piers is coming back to intelligent life by replacing Larry King, perhaps George will one day do a Christiane Amanpour impersonation at the same CNN.
Shub
In this instance, I do think they goofed up in deleting comments from one side, but letting Monbiot's original comment stand - which they cannot delete as easily, albeit for a different reason.
Which is ipso facto being "biased".
I wish you people would stop making excuses for the Guardian. Call a shove a shove.
ZDB: I doubt that being a mod on the Grauniad is a well paid job because they're just there waiting for the right job in the BBC to turn up. I had a comment on one of GM's pieces that survived 24hrs received over 600 recommends and was deleted, presumable when Tamsin the Green Fairy Mod came into the office and didn't like the post. Shame, I've never come near that before or since, but apparently pointing out, in the nicest possible way, George's ignorance, is against policy.
Maurizio
The female claque at the Delingpole debate sounds interesting. Link please? Anything to do with the fact that, at the Guardian debate, chairman Monbiot insisted on taking questions 50:50 from men and women? As for you twittering defenceless British girls ...
On the pointlessness of not celebrating the man, I have several times expressed my admiration for Monbiot the investigative journalist, harrier of the establishment, etc. I once said he was far from being the thickest pane in the greenhouse; the comment was removed. Some people are so hard to please.
I think it would be interesting for some Monbiot journalism to occur around the following story:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece
Where Pallava Bagla, a respected journalist who writes for Science, said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the infamous "Himalayas gone by 2035" error in November 2009. Mr Pallava said to Pachauri: “I pointed it out [the error] to you in several e-mails, several discussions, yet you decided to overlook it.” (for some reason the Times chose to include the phrase 'taped interview' in close proximity to this quote).
geronimo
600 recommends? I’m envious beyond measure. That alone is an answer to Don Pablo and Maurizio’s assertion that commenting at CiF is a waste of time. It suggests the possibility of reaching out to numerous undecided and open-minded people who will never be found here, not until they’ve been converted elsewhere.
Don Pablo
I’m not sure if it’s making excuses for the Guardian to point out that they have their own - possibly sensible - rules, which, if followed in a pigheaded fashion, result in distortion, bias, call it what you like.
The Guardian is an ancient British institution with an honourable history of opposing slavery, colonialism, child labour, etc. If I could choose between saving the world from 2°C of warming and saving the Guardian from its current self-inflicted ignominy, I’d choose the latter.
I was at the Delingpole debate and there was certainly a noisy group of young women there, with the audience splitting broadly along age/sex lines, old men like me favouring James and the young women supporting George, with the honourable exception of Guido Fawkes's assistant Emily Nomates. I didn't get any sense that GM had shipped them in, though, it seemed more like they were just typical of the poley-bear loving, eco-trendy innumerates that tend to read the Guardian.
PS should there be a separate thread for "educating Hengist"?
Are you too mixing up 2 DIFFERENT debates..
The guadian debate was George's (and the Guardians) on climategate -Steve Mcintyre, Doug Keenan, Fred Pearce, Bob Watson and Trevor Davis were present.. James Delingple was NOT there...not even in the audience.
?
Roger Carr wrote:
Indeed. Yet, they can't say they weren't warned by one of their own - even before Climategate.
Joseph Alcamo, an IPCC alumnus (who served 15 years including at least one as "consensus builder" par excellence), in his address to the IPCC Bali meeting on Oct. 26/09 - as the "Chief Scientist" of the IPCC's parent, the UNEP - said, in no uncertain terms:
What he said is what they're getting!
Hello David S - no, George M doesn't need to "ship" any female supporter - that's the result of untold years of boundless ego and tireless self-promotion among the right kind of people: you get your own claque!
And apologies Geoff, I will definitely take and then post pictures of the audience next time I go hear Monbiot, my blog will surely become very popular if I do that.
DavidS: “should there be a separate thread for educating Hengist?”
YES. And Zeddy. Are they possibly related? And if so, to what?
"Hey, Bishop Hill, what do you know about such things? You are only an accountant..."
....not a climate scientist or an impartial inquirer.
Sep 21, 2010 at 12:47 PM ZedsDeadBed
Zebedee! It was a joke! It was meant to be a parody of exactly the sort of comment that you posted!
So - is this the summary?
George Monbiot:
-Asked for information on a topic on a forum where that information would be rapidly deleted
-Was unaware that this deletion would occur, but has discovered in the last few hours that this deletion was mandated by UK libel laws
-Is a leader of an organization which aggressively promotes its own message on the web, based on the notion that volume is equivalent to 'message'
...did I get that right, or is there more to it?
I wonder if the Guardian and Real Climate share motives and moderators, in their mutual and relentless quest for truth and honesty?
I'd say that their disingenuous, gung-ho approach has left The Guardian holding a tiger by the tail. They can't let it go and they can't control it.
Monbiot is getting a lot of heat in the comments and the recommendations.
My fave:
Never mind, George, I'm sure there'll be another bandwagon along in a moment, and some new scare for you to fret about.
Haven't popped in for a while as I've been busy massively increasing my carbon tyreprint by driving around the UK working.
ZBD, I assume the same sorry article who was constantly getting a kicking in the Daily Fail comments section
Now he's here; same loonacy, met with the same derision.
On topic though, I have always assumed Monbiot censors, and not just comments on his blog.
Tom Nelson is showng an avalanche of Climate type posts by the Guardian, including George swinging at the sceptics again.
Jack
"My fave"
Mine too, and now heading for 500 recommends. I quite liked this one, too:
"I had to close a pop up advertising the new Jaguar XFR to read some of this article. Says it all really."
Poor George, James has it in for him. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100054559/we-have-lost-the-climate-war-admits-monbiot-surrendering-his-ceremonial-luger/
I can't stop laughing.
"Oberstgruppenfuhrer Monbiot"
LOL!
How about if George snatches it back (and the Guardian and Fred Pearce) and says. I believed in CAGW, but I realise it was al a delusion, that nearly everyone suffered...
I will expose it, and try to save all enviroenment al issues, rainforest destruction, pollution (not CO2) , etc,etc from a public backlash..
We will try to bringthe activists with us, who have been creully treated by, advocates of CAGW (ie Al Gore)..
They have a lot of material to work with..
I genuinely think they believed it.... The world will fall in for many activists (think Jo Abbeess - who DOES believe) onlythe Guardain can help them...
I would Like GreenPEACE, WWF to go back to what they WERE good at, intended for years ago..
Please Note - I am not being sarcastic...
It would stick in many people throats for this to happen,
but what do you want to achieve, if the BBC/and the Guardian decide to forget the romantic 'saving the PLANET' CAGW delusion, and concentrated on the REAL local environmental issues.
The delusion would be over by next year.
I'm not being sarcastic.
It could be the making of George, Fred and the Guardian and the BBC
The editor might need to get replaced though atthe Guardain ;)
Phillip Bratby
Thank you for the link to James Delingpole, I too had a good laugh. I will order a copy of
Welcome to Obamaland: I Have Seen Your Future and It Doesn't Work as well.
Poor George, don't get no respect. I guess that's what happens if you write for the Guardian.
Following on the link to Maurizio's blog (which said the UK establishment was being careful not to "look at the science" because they know what they'd be forced to see and acknowledge, he followed up with a similar observation on the US establishement: http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/has-the-us-establishment-got-any-confidence-in-climate-science/ .
In that was a link to a Greenie site bewailing the Administration's withdrawal of support for court mandated EPA control of CO2: http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=6050
My (so far un-displayed) comment there was "Huzzah! Another blow against the Soylent Greens!"
:)
Philip, James P and Don Pablo, you may have missed the fun this afternoon when Monbiot who poses as 'freewales' on other blogs, suggested that JD should stick his head up his a..se, followed by jeers from the assembled company. The post has now gone, but George really can't take what he's so ready to hand out to others. I know Barry does not think he's beyond redemption and while I'd agree with him about Fred Pearce, I hold out no hope for the Moonbat, a vain, arrogant, self-obsessed, aggressive strutting coxcomb with no sense of humour.
toad
Thank you, I am sorry that I missed it. Perhaps he will hop on the back of Zed's Chopper and blast around the by-ways of Truro with him. Next time do a "save as" with your browser so we can all enjoy the show.
And I agree with you about GM -- a vain, arrogant, self-obsessed, aggressive strutting coxcomb with no sense of humour. I guess that is a result of his deprived childhood, being a scion of the Ducs de Coutard and raised in Henley-on-Thames in South Oxfordshire. An absolutely deplorable childhood. It should be band.
By the way, where is our resident Truro Troll? He's been quiet all of a sudden.
Ok - slightly off topic - and long - I won't be surprised if this is snipped - but I feel compelled to share what the 'TERI' annual report had to say about Pachauri's web site (sadly offline, presently). However, I believe that this piece sheds light on George and Pachauri's mutual respect and synergy.
From: http://www.teriin.org/about/AnnualReport_08_09.pdf:
"The official website of Dr R K Pachauri, Director-General, TERI, was developed this year. This website provides an interface where media persons, climate change researchers, and the public in general can know more about Dr Pachauri’s individual and professional life.
The website is a complete repository of all his speeches and addresses delivered at various public forums; these are provided in the text format and are also available as online webcasts. The website informs the visitor about the various national and international awards and honours bestowed upon Dr Pachauri. His illustrious body of work, which includes books, research papers, and articles authored by him, are also listed chronologically. One of the highlights of the website is a photo gallery, which highlights Dr Pachauri’s interactions with
eminent personalities, provides photographs of his frequent trips, and also captures his personal moods.
The interested visitor can also find videos and webcasts of all his television interviews and the text of all his newspaper interviews. News clippings and magazine covers featuring Dr Pachauri in the international media are also included. There is an interesting section on cricket, which showcases Dr Pachauri’s passion for this recreational sport. His milestones in corporate cricket, his cricketing moments and feats, and columns written by him on cricket are featured here.
The website also has a blog through which Dr Pachauri regularly expresses his views on the
latest developments related to climate change. He writes on issues of global importance,
and the number of page hits and the nature of comments on each blog entry reflect the
popularity of this blog amongst audiences around the world."
The linked PDF is an interesting read - one can get a sense of the careful graphic design that went into Pachauri's web site, for example.
I think some of you folks are being rather unkind to George.
Over the last ten months he's been through Hell.
His congregation has slumped to levels unseen since the dark days of the Vicar of Dibley, PBUH. His stewardship of that most Holy of relics, a splinter from the sacred Hockey Stick, has been mocked by many as a scam that comes close to that of "The Great Carbon Con" as the biggest crime against humility since Gird 'em On Brown announced himself as the Saviour of the World.
Cut him some slack guys. He's been cuckolded by clever rogues, persuasive politicians, delusional dimwits and incompetent amateur mathematicians.
His only sin was to be swept away by the certainty afforded by swallowing that which he'd spent the rest of his life avoiding. Acceptance of Authority!
Is this a bad time to point out that George has been gazumped by Big Oil?
BP, keen to protect their energy dominance for as long as possible, sponsored the UEA to hire some hack scientists at the CRU to publish some dodgy research and hockey sticks, defend it to the point of mock-worthiness and then leak a series of their own emails exposing the sham, thereby destroying the environmental movement and setting it back decades. Big Oil Win.
Okay, I've never been good at inventing conspiracy theories.. but the warmies are already conspiracy theorising about Big Oil.. they could possibly run with this! :o)
I have been away; I wouild like to say how pleased I am to return and find that Bishops Hill are taking this matter seriously. Your post is spot on because it really goes to the heart of the matter; Monbiot is telling us we have to accept his choice of IPCC chairman because from his point of view when Richard North raised these sorts of incidents; the voodoo scientist remarks, the TERI Europe accounts and the wearing of multiple hats he was using smearing tactics. I have yet to see Monbiot move back from his extraordinary point of view on these topics and whilst he sticks to his guns we should go on highlighting his attitude and asking him how he squares the circle?
It is a moment of truth, what sort of person is Monbiot? I have my opinions, I am waiting for him to proove me wrong.
Julian, GM is an alpha male. Stubborn, strong and a survivalist. He accepts that he is human, makes mistakes but he will stay on side and defend his mates for as long as he can until he accepts the inevitable.
As sure as night follows day he will become a born again sceptic. He will have nothing to lose by doing so and everything to gain. In time he will make "Mr Angry" look like a cross between Ghandi and Joseph Chamberlain.
He'll do it honestly as well. He'll 'fess up that he was duped and declare war on those who hoodwinked him.
He's a good bloke at heart. Ignore his past pronouncements. His passions then are but a fraction of those he will bring to fruition in the future!
RoyFOMR
Much as I try to generate cynicism and anger towards GM I am forced to accept what you say here. I do hope you are right because the man would then become a much stronger individual overall....He screwed up, I sort of suppose it wasn't his fault (although he, of all people, should know better).
Part of my own 'ire' towards the man is precisely BECAUSE I held him in such high esteem....
I'm prepared to wait also for the outcome of GM's ego-restructuring!!. It is a threshold moment for the man....
Sorry GC, but there is a clear link between CiF moderation and the Guardian's editorial stance on climate change - "Will no one rid me of these meddlesome sceptics?"
UPDATE: George Monbiot's latest piece is interesting in that it represents a first, only one comment has been removed by someone calling themselves "ecocampaigner" - lo and behold a warmist !?!?!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/sep/21/climate-sceptics-evidence-gullible?showallcomments=true#comment-fold
Here we have evidence that CiF is acting fair and and balanced manner ................. NOT. CiF is hopelessly corrupted.
It is also interesting to note that George Monbiot uses the phrase "scientific canon" to describe CAGW in this latest sermon from the mount.
There is no such thing as a scientific canon - canon by definition is used generally to describe an acceptance of faith based judgements or religous laws. A scientific canon makes no sense, it is nonsense.
However that phrase "scientific canon" describes neatly Monbiot's stance on CAGW - it is simply an imposition of a system of beliefs on others - Monbiot is a CAGW zealot in the land of the Guardian priesthood surrounded by the CiF faithful.