Monday
Jul182011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Guardian: "No agenda"
Jul 18, 2011 Media The Guardian has an interesting thread in which it appears to deny having an agenda on the AGW issue. Or sort of denies it:
"I don't think that there is any deliberate skewing of our reporting to suit a particular set of beliefs that are at odds with editorial guidelines"
Reader Comments (63)
Key phrase is "at odds with editorial guidelines". One is tempted to work back from the content to derive a set of de facto editorial guidelines, on many more subjects than AGW.
The Catholic church also just announced that they don't do religion /sarc off
Exactly true.
There is skewing of their reporting to suit a particular set of beliefs that are entirely in line with editorial guidelines."
Comment is only freely available if the moderators agree with your view
Rupert would admire such smooth compliance.
What a tortured sentence.
It's like Clinton's '...depends on what the meaning of "is" is...'
Yeah...Right!
What this says is that they don't have a policy of departing from their editorial guidelines. Of course they don't! But their editorial guidelines themselves support the AGW agenda. James Randerson who is on staff at the Guardian tells us
"The Guardian's editorial line is that global warming is happening and caused by human actions"
The background to this admission is as follows: one commenter on a Guardian article by Fred Pearce asked the question "What is the purpose for publishing all these articles by Fred Pearce?". This was replied to by staff writer James Randerson, who inter alia replied:
[JRanderson, 3 Feb 2010, 9:30PM, Staff]
"The Guardian's editorial line is that global warming is happening and caused by human actions...
Is there evidence in the emails of data manipulation? Is there evidence of abuse of peer review and FOI? Is there evidence of "hiding" temperature declines? Is there evidence of fraud and conspiracy? etc etc
The answer to most of these questions turned out to be no...significantly, the science of global warming has not been seriously challenged.
James"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/03/yamal-data-climate-change-hacked-email
(scroll down for Randerson's intervention in the comments)
So there you have it: anthropogenic global warming is the Guardian's editorial line. Note: 'global warming', not 'climate change'.
Note that the article is by the Readers’ Editor. They do this to all their journalists in turn - the Religion Editor, the Gardening bloke, they’re all wheeled on to defend the faith. No doubt the Chess Correspondent will be dragged squirming onto the Environment pages to announce “You’re all pawns of Big Oil!”
He talks of “a long correspondence with Martin Cohen” from which he has extracted one sentence to parse, and in the paragraph you quote, he gets his knickers precisely back to front.
The bit that really grates is the final sentence: “There is no Guardian-wide agenda here, but I would be interested in what readers think? think”
Of course he would. Except those who are banned from saying what they think by the Guardian’s rules.
"Except those who are banned from saying what they think by the Guardian’s rules."
Jul 18, 2011 at 10:42 AM | geoffchambers
Are you ever going to get over being banned? Seriously, move on.
From what I remember when you did comment there, most of yours were quite aggressive, swerved all the actual questions put to you exposing the gaping holes in your arguments, and detracted from discussion overall.
"From what I remember when you did comment there, most of yours were quite aggressive, swerved all the actual questions put to you exposing the gaping holes in your arguments, and detracted from discussion overall."
Just to get in first - I am aware that you'll all accuse me of the same thing.
Zed
Sorry you didn’t like my comments at the Graun. You know they were mine because I used my name. Who were/are you?
Again the Guardian gets its science wrong when it states, "Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas that comes from human activity"
No it is not.
The levels of Water Vapour, which is ten times more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, released into the atmosphere by human activity are far greater than CO2. Burning hyrdo-carbons produce as much water vapour as CO2. Industrial cooling processes introduce vast quantities of water vapour into the atmosphere.
"Who were/are you?"
Jul 18, 2011 at 10:59 AM | geoffchambers
I never commented there, just read the comments. As to my identity, I have no intention of revealing it people to whom I am hostile for obvious reasons. Especially with people like Do Pablo de la Sierra about who threaten to try and get the IRA to scare website providers because he doesn't like their message.
As an illustration of the processes involved in burning hydro-carbons.
Zed: “I never commented there, just read the comments. As to my identity...”
I didn’t expect you to reveal your identity, simply the pseudonym you used. Surely you had a pseudonym, even if you only ever lurked? You know, like a special magic word you muttered to yourself as we commenters trotted overhead...
Jul 18, 2011 at 11:28 AM | geoffchambers
Nope. Read the comments, that was the full extent of my engagement at the Graun.
Troll!
Who told them that? Outside?
This shouldnt be a surprise to anyone..as noted by Ali Campbell a couple years ago, each and every mfm outlet has a position on every subject, which its reporting then revolves around.
So the Guardian are big time Mann Made Global Warming (tm) cultists...this shouldnt come as a surprise to anyone that their reporting will revolve around their religious belief.
Regards
Mailman
"So the Guardian are big time Mann Made Global Warming (tm) cultists"
Jul 18, 2011 at 12:10 PM | Mailman
No. The Graun tries to report accurately on what the science says. The science overwhelmingly says that AGW is the correct theory. There are a tiny amount of people, generally fringe-types and wingnuts, who try and claim that the science is wrong. They have very little in the way of evidence, and almost always have clear motivations for their assertions.
These people have no more right to be heard than 9/11 truthers and creationists. Their beliefs may be important to them, but they don't count in the greater scheme of things. It irks them like hell that their fringe views aren't reported, just like it irks the truthers. But that doesn't mean the Graun has an boligation to report their views. In the end, they end up justifying their lack of representation as conspiracy. Certainly a trope I've witnessed here on many occasions.
ZDB, "No. The Graun tries to report accurately on what the science says"
Ha, ha, ha; LOL.
Best laugh I have had for ages - defending the indefensible - priceless.
Zed: ”The Graun tries to report accurately on what the science says”.
The Graun very rarely mentions the science on their climate pages. Their permanent science correspondents Alok Jia and the other bloke steer clear. Ben Goldacre, whose Bad Science’ column is so swift to criticise every poorly constructed survey or meta-study in medical science, was once asked to contribute to a round table discussion, but stayed mute, saying that climate science was too complicated for him. What they do is set their non-science attack dogs Monbiot and Hickman on the more eccentric sceptics like Monckton, deliberately censoring the newsworthy and scientifically valid work of the McIntyres and Montfords. “Monbiot bites Monckton” is not news. “Montford savages Mann” most definitely is.
My “obsession with the Guardian”, as you put it, comes precisely from my admiration for the ex-investigative journalist Monbiot. The Guardian has been obsessed with Climategate, and obsessed with the ex-News of the World journalist Wallis. Why won’t they mention them in the same article? Because it would harm their propaganda efforts on behalf of AGW. They are suppressing the truth - a form of lying. They have betrayed their 190 year old tradition of radical journalism, and are ten times more contemptible than the invertebrates at News International.
From Guardian thread;
JonnyForeigner
17 July 2011 11:14PM
Here is a good example of someone, with a PhD, getting himself in a right old mess.
1. Climate change does not equate to AGW.
2. CO2 heating is self limiting because the effect is logarithmic. CAGW requires a positive feedback produced by water vapour, which is being claimed has a self-limiting effect but also negative feedback (clouds).
3. I wouldn't question the motives of others when it is clear that someone with a PhD is so ignorant of the greenhouse effect and climate change.
"scientifically valid work of the McIntyres and Montfords."
Jul 18, 2011 at 12:53 PM | geoffchambers
They have published peer-reviewed work? Could you point me to it please?
Golly, Zed, you have really blown your cover of being cool and rational! How you can describe scientists such as Dr Judith Curry, Dr Pielke Jnr etc as being akin to 'wing-nuts, creationists and truthers really illustrates your lack of rationality and basic knowledge in matters scientific. The Mannian hockey stick, designed to rid the world of the uncomfortable reality of the MWP, has been debunked and real scientists tell us that the MWP was a global phenomenon, the world stopped warming for whatever reason over a decade ago despite the continuous aggregation of CO2 in the atmosphere which pretty much destroys the catastrophists' arguments, most sentient people know that the senior staffers on News of The World were not to be trusted, that the BBC and and it's print arm, the Guardian, are utterly biased in favour of CAGW, the Met Office appears to be in the thrall of WWF, the UEA is almost continuously embroiled in scientific malfeasance etc etc etc. Wake up, Zed, smell the coffee and give reality a chance.
ZDB, I agree that "The science overwhelmingly says that AGW is the correct theory". However, the issue that most of us here have a problem with is CAGW (i.e. the one that takes the radiative absorption effects that form the basis of AGW and then amplifies them many times via assumed net-positive feed-backs), for which there is no science, merely model based evidence that cannot be validated against real-world data.
Given this distinction, I have no problem with what you actually wrote, though I suspect this is not what you actually meant.
.. and right on cue to support my analysis of the utterly contemptible propaganda rag which the Guardian has become, the headline article on their “climate change” page is “Climate sceptic Lord Monckton told he's not member of House of Lords” by Leo Hickman.
Zed thinks Montford’s science can’t be right because it’s not peer reviewed, and Hickman thinks Monckton must be wrong because the Marquis isn’t a real Lord.
Zed, there are bigger idiots than you around, and they’re being paid for their idiocy.
ZDB: "These people have no more right to be heard than 9/11 truthers and creationists. Their beliefs may be important to them, but they don't count in the greater scheme of things. It irks them like hell that their fringe views aren't reported, just like it irks the truthers."
As far as I'm aware neither the 9/11 disaster, nor the theory of evolution are requiring us to destroy western industrial civilisation so the refusal to allow them air time to pass their opinions is reasonable.
CAGW is not proven by any science at all, you are falling into the trap of allowing a bunch of activist scientists using the correlation between the rise in CO2 and temperature. There is little doubt that humans are having a affect on the ecosystems, but whether they'll bring the world to eventual destruction is in serious doubt. For instance if it was real science and we'd spent $80billion on research one would have expected the scientists to come up with a forecastable, observational relationship between CO2 and temperature. They have not and, and the cannot, because the climate is chaotic, which means that forecasts of it's behaviour cannot be made with any certainty. You will hear activists scientists try to get round this awkward fact by telling you that, yes they can't tell you the actual temperature in December, but they can tell you that it's going to be colder than July. Well, they can do this because they have thousands of years of observations. I can predict that at some point in the future the world will be warmer, it's exceptionally cold now by the way about 8C below the normal temperature over the last 600 million years. I can also predict it will be colder, and another ice age will appear because they are cyclical. I cannot predict the effect of CO2 increases except to say that at around 560ppm it should be 1C higher than at 280ppm of CO2, as it doubles again the temperature will rise by less than 1C because the relationship is logarithmic. The reason for the panic is that, without any proof whatsoever, nor any sums to check it the activist scientists have invented positive feedback.
Keep up the good work ZDB, but I suggest you'd be more prepared if you took a GCSE in a science subject.
Zed'sDeadHead
"There are a tiny amount of people, generally fringe-types and wingnuts, who try and claim that the science is wrong. They have very little in the way of evidence, and almost always have clear motivations for their assertions."
If you really believed that, you wouldn't waste your time coming on here for the rather marginal pleasure you seem to get from being irritating (before scurrying off as soon as you are nailed).
Get a life.
Or if you can't get a life, open another bottle.
geronimo - "the correlation between the rise in CO2 and temperature". None seen this century - rgds simon
Mac - 'Water vapour is ten times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2...'
You're right, of course; but to quote the dear departed Tony Hancock: 'Have you gone raving MAD..??'
How can the politicians tax clouds..?
When will you learn not to confuse facts with a good story..?
Apropos the Guardian:
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman
Zed
Boligation? Is that the mental state of one who has drunk too much champagne?
Mac: You quote JonnyForeigner with his PhD in physical chemistry, but you missed his claim that "CO2 on the other hand has a quite potent heat trapping effect". I've yet to find any evidence that a gas can trap heat. I'd patent the idea and sell it in bottles if I could find it.
ZDB
1. "The Graun tries to report accurately on what the science says. The science overwhelmingly says that AGW is the correct theory."
I don't think you have much idea what science is. Whenever one comes across a phrase such as 'science says' then we can be pretty sure it's not a scientist saying it, not a scientist who knows what science is, at any rate. For a start, science doesn't 'say' anything. Science is an idea, not an interlocutor. The Graun can't 'report accurately' on what science says since science doesn't speak. Only human interpreters of ideas speak.
And as I showed above, the Guardian has an editorial policy on which interpretations to report: here it is again, courtesy of the Guardian, in case you missed it:
"The Guardian's editorial line is that global warming is happening and caused by human actions"
2. "There are a tiny amount of people, generally fringe-types and wingnuts, who try and claim that the science is wrong."
There you go again, personifying 'science'. But you right, there are a tiny amount of people (and I shouldn't think many of the commenters to this blog fall into that category) simply because 'science' can't be right or wrong, so to think it can is some sort of fringe and unhinged idea. But you seem to think that it can be, and you, with your personifications, are perhaps the only one around here who thinks it can, so you must (by your own definition) be one of those fringe types and wingnuts.
'Science' can't be right or wrong, it's only people's opinions, presuppositions, axioms, methods, authorities and interpretations that can be right or wrong. Your grandiose (and, frankly laughable) appeal to the authority of 'science', "The science overwhelmingly says that AGW is the correct theory" reveals that you don't know much about the history of science, or are pretending that you don't. Practically all scientific ideas about 'reality' have at one time or another in history been shown to be false, and anyone who says that 'science says' that such and such is 'the correct theory' is setting himself up to be a laughingstock, and is self-evidently very ill-equipped to say anything rational about science at all.
Zed's finally jumped the shark.
MSM who still use "climate change" instead of what they used to mean, MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING, are so yesterday.
mikeph got a great comment through, at the top of the pile no less:
"Good to see you recognise this simple point. Now how about mentioning that the PR agency headed by Neil Wallis, who has figured prominently in the News International saga, the former deputy editor of the NoW under Coulson, was hired by the University of East Anglia after the climategate fiasco...Wallis' partner Edwards is quoted as saying
“We don’t advertise a lot of the things we do,” says Edwards, who was called in by the University of East Anglia when Climategate blew up. “That was really interesting. It’s very high level, and you’re very much in the background on that sort of thing.”
The university’s Climatic Research Unit wanted Outside to fire back some shots on the scientists’ behalf after leaked emails from the unit gave climate change skeptics ammunition"
Hmm, makes one wonder about all those hacking stories as well as the short-lived Russian secret service stories about who the "hackers" were."
i'm counting the days the MSM will avoid the "News" man who ran damage control for CRU.
geoffchambers,
i suppose if Monckton is not that kind of Lord, than he is ill positioned to be peer-reviewed. too bad.
Dreadnought
"too much champagne"
Zed can't have that - it's full of CO2...
I'm beginning to think ZedsDrippingBed is the Bishop pulling our leg. The entertainment value is ferocious.
Pointman
ZDB,
As you know, many of the people who write comments on this blog are highly scientifically literate. Many have science degrees, and some have sciencey jobs.
I would be fascinated to hear your scientific background and education.
James
Most odd given CIF environmental management have openly stated their full support for AGW and made it clear they consider their job is to promote this theory .
"These people have no more right to be heard than 9/11 truthers and creationists."
Zed,
9/11 Truthers and Creationists have as much right to be heard as anyone.
Andrew
ZDB said "They have published peer-reviewed work? Could you point me to it please?".
Ask and you shall receive;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/01/skeptic-paper-accepted-on-antarctica-rebuts-steig-et-al/
Mailman
Bias....... the graun?
A title that fits in well with; the Socialist Worker, Pravda, The Morning Star and any Socialist council 'truth' weekly.
AGW=watermelons=thegrauniad.
The idea of objective journalism - abandoned this execrable organ long, long ago - the critters they allow to appear on the TV newspaper reviews are loons, just think about what the remainder are like - the ones they won't allow out of their sight.
Blame Auto Trader [how's that for irony?] for this rag still seeing the light of day.
ZDB
Golly, Zed, I don't remember doing that. Perhaps you have a reference pointing to the statement to which you refer. You realize that you live in UK and that there are very strict rules about slander and libel in the UK. Where do I have my solicitor send the legal papers?
Don Pablo -
With the aid of Google -- where would we be without search engines! -- I think ZDB is referring to this comment.
While I view that comment was a not-so-funny joke, it says a lot that certain persons will store away such minutiae to try to score a "gotcha" point.
Tangentially, the post on which that comment appeared was a somewhat-skeptical guest post which appeared on a not-skeptical-at-all website. Out of curiosity, I went to re-read it, but said website has removed said heresy from its archives. Quelle surprise.
arghh... that last paragraph should start with:
"Tangentially, the post on which that comment appeared was about a somewhat-skeptical guest post..."
Is the Guardian relevant? It exists on advertising and by the skin of its teeth by disposing of assets (Autotrader) and by job adverts for watermelons (on which there IS a measurable greenhouse effect). Their circulation is tiny and in steep decline. It is in their interest that watermellon ads continue - hence policy. Not to mention Murdoch (oops!).
Simples.
To the guardian agenda - possible it doesn't believe it has one when the 'science is settled'. One of their luvvies, NoPressureCurtis and an actor, has just come up with this gem.
If you don't want to watch, the plot is that other peoples' money should be used to fight climate change. So far only 87,524 think it should. You can vote toward the end of the vid but there is no 'NO' counter:)