Saturday
Jan042014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Guardian: is totalitarianism the way forward?
Guardian Eco is, yet again, trying to set out its stall as the new home for totalitarianism in the international media, in an article questioning whether things would be a whole lot better if we didn't have freedom of the press any longer:
Should Australian newspapers, like Fairfax, publish opinion pieces that deny or seek to cast doubt on man-made global warming?
As the Guardian Media Group's financial black hole grows, its journalists will steadily be replaced by NGO activists. We should therefore expect more of this kind of thing in future.
Reader Comments (143)
White attacks the leader of the Canadian-based International Climate Science Coalition by saying
White's Guardian bio states
White also links to a Canadian Desmogblog. From the "about" section
One suspects a slight inconsistency here.
artwest its always been an irony that the Guardian is a far more 'establishment paper' they those it often moans about , it is for instance much more likley the chatter classes of North London , who both in politics and the media carry far more weight than their numbers justify, are Guardian readers than readers of the Sun , Express or Mail . While the later is much more likely, and in far greater numbers ,to be find in the very working class homes which the Guardian claims to care about but actual despise .
Are the BBC, MET and EA now using/abusing the word exceptional to describe weather?
Harry Passfield, re the Telegraph quote:
'Its true that sea ice has shrunk dramatically in the Arctic in recent years...'
Oh, really..? Do these people NEVER check their facts..? And how on earth did the writer manage to justify (in his own mind at least) that more ice in the Antarctic equals global warming..?
You couldn't make it up - even if they can...
Chandra continues to repeat his discourtesies and hides behind dissembling logic. He says: "To thinking people, that says a lot about [the Bish] and about those readers who uncritically support such lies'
D'you know, Chandra, if you came to my place and told me I was a liar you'd get a punch on the nose. If you can't be courteous to your host why bother coming here? Oh, I know, you play the 'provocateur' in the hope of being able to claim victim-hood when challenged, and that says a lot about you. I think your manner of argument is infantile and discourteous - and that, I submit, entitles me to call you on it in a similar discourteous way.
Cheers.
(Your Grace: Please feel free to snip)
Stephen Richards, so you want the Bishop to ban me for accusing him of lying. The Bishop wants you to think the Guardian is promoting totalitarianism for asking whether voices that accuse climate science and scientists of lying should be published. You are probably not smart enough to see the irony in that.
Chandra, you creep, calling our host a liar kind of says all.
WTR the article, the amusing thing is that apart from the ever-reliable ABC, no-one has sucked up to the CAGW meme more than the Fairfax corporation, whose share price is now less than a tenth of what it was a few years ago. They even have a "carbon economy editor", whose sole job is to reproduce alarmist studies, and press releases from the usual suspects. Yet, their readership continues to plummet.
UK and other international readers should realise that once upon a time their flagship publications, The Sydney Morning Herald, and the (Melbourne) Age, were middle-of-the road tending to conservative publications with a large readership. They were sustained by rivers of advertising (especially classified) gold.
Now, the rivers are drying up and they have alienated much of their mainstream readership with endless articles about where to get the best latte, why cycle paths are critical, the usual global warming and sustainability crap, and how evil anyone but the Greens and perhaps Labor under the control of the Greens are.
The fact that voters kicked that view out last September produces childish paroxyms of rage on their opinion pages and in the letters column. And now, even the Graundian criticises them for publishing a single article which is not in line with Correctthought. The final insult (in the old sense).
Roy,
You said.
"Further to my previous comments, Henry Ford said the customer can have any colour he wants as long as it is black. I wrote white, but that must have been a Freudian slip since the author of the article advocating censorship has the surname White."
.
The possibly missed point being of course is that with a suitably efficient form of censorship and control of the historical record black may indeed become white!. If you see what I mean?
But I got yer drift.
I'm currently on the naughty boy pre-mod step at the G myself...I actually had a comment deleted (Stalinised in fact...no evidence) that simply was a link to a G article from 2011....it was about how the Antarctic has been a tropical paradise for most of its history. I must confess I did laugh at that ...censoring themselves!!!?)...I have screengrabs of everything I now haven't said....Just so I know I said it anyway!...In time I'd forget otherwise.
Cheers mate
Andy
See!! I was right!! Chandra, the 'creep' (thanks Johanna, neat!) replies to Stephen Richards: "Stephen Richards, so you want the Bishop to ban me for accusing him of lying. The Bishop wants you to think the Guardian is promoting totalitarianism for asking whether voices that accuse climate science and scientists of lying should be published. You are probably not smart enough to see the irony in that."
That's exactly what I predicted the 'creep' would do. So bloody predictably transparent! And as that's a buzzword these days, perhaps we can but hope that Chandra is not like another buzzword: 'Sustainable'!
Putting a question mark after a statement doesn’t make it any less of a demand or a threat.
“Don’t you think you’ve had enough to drink darling?”
“Do you want a slap?”
The Guardian was not asking a question it was trying to bring others into line. Like many warmist attempts at communication it completely ignores good practice and tries to use bullying instead. Well bullying only works when you have the upper hand. Sceptics don't accept the role of victim.
The hot air balloon of Global-Warming alarmism is rapidly losing height. The 'crew' are frantically looking for more passengers to throw over the side.
The hot air balloon of Global-Warming alarmism is rapidly losing height. The 'crew' are frantically looking for more passengers to throw over the side.
The hot air balloon of global-warming alarmism is rapidly losing height. The 'crew' are frantically looking for more passengers to throw over the side.
They're eating their own, when they start attacking Fairfax (or Fauxfacts, as we call it here).
triple post, that's a record for me...
----------------------
Harry Passfield, I think he/she/it may well be being provocative in an attempt to get an angrier response, and so make the blog look worse to other readers. Which is probably partly why the Bish discourages troll-feeding beyond a certain level.
@GeoffChambers
Geoff, most of the sceptics that would have argued alongside Fernando Leanne have either been banned, or they are so heavily pre moderated, it is impossible to hold any kind of discussion.
Coincidentally, this happened around the time Drillbit Dana turned up on CiF.
I always challenge the trolls to go and start their own blog and see how they get on. go on, Chandra - and Zebedee, Entropic man et al... Show us what you're made of. Let's see if you can make a global impact on the debate - like The Bishop has.
The Guardian is based in the Cayman Islands. GMG pays no tax. It has capital reserves of nearly £1billion. It is supported by its ownership of Autotrader that is profitable. Do not hold your breath waiting for its demise because you will lose.
If a BH regular posted with the same attitude as Chandra but as a Sceptic on Real Climate he would be banned in an instant. I would keep him/it on to show the difference from AGW Totalitarianism deployed on Real Climate and Guardian comments.
But I still would not feed the Troll.
Michael/BoFA: I am with you, to a point. I used to have a hard time with trolls and now tend to ignore them as much as possible. The thing is, some of them actually serve a purpose, because they not-so-much challenge us as cause us to challenge ourselves. That gives us pause and is no bad thing. Ultimately it helps us to strengthen our arguments.
That said, I totally understood the 'provocative' nature of the 'creep': I do not believe it was, necessarily, to make for 'an angrier blog' - I've seen it a lot feistier; it was to get the Bish to ban 'it' and then be able to play the hypocrite card. But, when a commenter says the Bish is lying I cannot let it rest. I felt my anger was controlled and directed. I am happy to leave it at that. The 'creep' now knows how we all feel and its argument has been dealt with - to the satisfaction of reasonable people. And I'll be happy to leave it at that.
Like most contributors on here I don't normally call for trolls to be banned though as we saw with ZDB and BBD things can come to a point where unless every thread is going to be derailed by offensive and/or arrogant and/or ignorant comments some action is needed.
and suggested to Stephen Richards thatWhich further suggests that he doesn't understand the concept of the rhetorical question, but my point is that anyone who treated guests of mine in that manner wouldn't be welcome in my house. At least until he learns manners and understands the nuances of the language he is trying to debate (don't laugh) in.I leave it to the owner of the blog to decide when but just in case he hasn't noticed (and I'm sure really that he has!) Chandra has chosen four, or perhaps five, times to call him a liar over an interpretation of a phrase, further evidence that Chandra is not especially familiar with idiomatic English. He has previous in this regard having carried on the same sort of nit-picking argument with me and with others.
Not only that he has told Peter Wilson that
Jimmy Haigh, me start a blog? I tend to think that to write a climate blog one has either to have enough knowledge and experience in the subject to write something worthwhile or failing that, to have sufficiently little integrity to feel comfortable writing lies in order to boost reader numbers. I don't qualify on either count.
BofA, I expect and hope that if Real Climate ever published a blog post that was openly and transparently untrue, its warmist readers would be the first to cry foul. The fact that you lot either can't recognize a lie, are apologists for lies, or refrain from protesting lies contrasts well the different communities and values associated with the two blogs.
@GeoffChambers
Geoff, most of the sceptics that would have argued alongside Fernando Leanne have either been banned, or they are so heavily pre moderated, it is impossible to hold any kind of discussion.
Coincidentally, this happened around the time Drillbit Dana turned up on CiF.
Jan 4, 2014 at 3:40 PM | Galvanize
============================================================================
Way before that. I'd had some five or six CiF IDs banned before Dimwit Dana turned up. Once after linking to a peer-reviewed article which contradicted the assertions being made in the article I was commenting on. For Chandra's benefit, yes, this is what happens in totalitarian states, in a microcosm. I spoke up and demonstrated that the article was incorrect. And for that, I was banned.
I can't be bothered with CiF any more. It's like walking into Bedlam, and the levels of hate expressed by sincere believers towards us dissenters is pathological. As one with strong connections to Manchester, I mourn the Manchester Guardian, which was a fine paper.
Chunder, the meaning of the article is exactly as The Bish has implied (have you read the article? Hmmm… I think we might know the answer to that one – it is full of rather long words, with only one picture). The comments following the article merely prove that the Bishop is not lying and you are wrong.
The quote from Reddit (who have banned argument) says a lot:
“As a scientist myself…” seems an odd precursor to the rest of the statement: is evidence of a null required? While proof of a theory can be difficult to obtain, the whole AGW scam provides nothing to support the idea – they just expect us to believe, and if we object, call us contentious names and demand proof that their empty rhetoric is wrong. How can you prove a null? How can you falsify a theory that in unfalsifiable? (Even you, surely, have to admit that extensive, metres-thick sea ice where there was none 100 years ago has to indicate a flaw in the idea; but, no – it is yet more proof!) All the evidence available to most of us is that the Sun orbits the Earth (without moving from your chair, you can see it tracking cross the sky), yet we accept this to be false, without any evidence to the contrary. Can you provide ANY evidence that the Earth orbits the Sun?BTW, after all this time to search, can you provide any proof of aquifer contamination by hydraulic fracturing?
I’m reluctant to ban the likes of Chandra for many reasons and would simply ask people to ignore his/her inflammatory remarks because… it’s the adult thing to do.
More importantly, people should also recognise that these ‘contributions’ tend to indicate that the evidence supporting CAGW is so thin that those who support it are forced to use increasingly desperate arguments in its defence.
Harry P
"D'you know, Chandra, if you came to my place and told me I was a liar you'd get a punch on the nose."
+1. Yep, sick of it. Chunder is no longer making any attempt at civility - or even rational behavior - and that makes him useless as an opponent.
His descent into spittle-flecked territory being complete, excommunication is the only answer.
He can then cry "victim" on the blog that he would write if only he knew enough about anything.
Chandra is ZBD and I claim my £10. "You lot" give away.
I've just taken the time to go back and read White's article again just in case I missed something first time round. It doesn't improve on second reading, believe me.
I have to say that Chandra is correct when he says that article says nothing about not being "allowed" to print sceptical articles.
But having then gone back and checked the Bishop's lead-in to this thread, that doesn't mention the word "allowed" either.
Sorry, folks, I really should have double-checked before I posted, But perhaps it would be fair now to point out that Chandra has not only called our host a liar several times, he has misrepresented him in order to do so.
Why would that be, Chandra?
The American colonists chose freedom of the press and the bill of rights and secured them by two wars against Great Britain. We will never give up the battle against censorship, tyranny, dictators and purveyors of half-truths.
That a respectable paper should even consider the issue of censoring opposing or challenging views is absurd, an insult to free speech. In this case if the science is 'settled' then it would be easy to demonstrate so, wouldn't it?
What they cannot take though is the whole litany of failures in their agw sales pitch. Climate sensitivity estimates are collapsing downwards, the almost universal failure of the models, no Hot Spot, a fauilure to explain or predict the missing heat and of course, The Blasted Pause! These multiple failures are proving excruciatingly embarrassing, not least because it shows that on multiple levels their damn theory is all-but busted.
Their response? Simply to silence their critics to save face, which reveals they're interested in anything but the truth. Pathetic doesn't come close.
" Can you provide ANY evidence that the Earth orbits the Sun?"
I'm assuming, Mr. Rodent, that this is a rhetorical question, if not I can supply loads. I can't actually work out what point you are trying to make with this particular analogy though. Is it that scientific conclusions are often counter intuitive? That would seem to support Prof. Turney's explanation for the presence of all that ice rather than detract from it.
The thing about counter intuitive explanations with regard to climate alarmism is that there have now been so many that they have started to sound like rationalisations. Sort of when supporters of the phlogiston theory had to resort to claiming that phlogiston must have negative mass.
Dale Hartz (Jan 4, 2014 at 5:43 PM): want to bet? You are being turned into sheeple as fast as all others, as evidenced by those who returned to their apartments after the Sandy storm, and waited for “the authorities” to help them. Very few appeared willing to do anything to help themselves. So many have accepted the smoking bans – and soda bans! – with nary a murmur. Your “right to bear arms” is under assault from all sides; how long before that right is rescinded? And I can confidently predict that it will not be too long before a call goes out for “curbing” the “excesses” of press intrusion – a.k.a. the first step in censorship.
Bishop:
"Guardian Eco is, yet again, trying to set out its stall as the new home for totalitarianism in the international media, in an article questioning whether things would be a whole lot better if we didn't have freedom of the press any longer:
Should Australian newspapers, like Fairfax, publish opinion pieces that deny or seek to cast doubt on man-made global warming?
As the Guardian Media Group's financial black hole grows, its journalists will steadily be replaced by NGO activists. We should therefore expect more of this kind of thing in future."
Content Free Zone:
"Bishop you are lying again. The article asked its readers whether newspapers should "give a platform for climate change denialist opinion pieces", not whether it should be allowed so to do. You shake their tree shouting "totalitarianism" and your moneys start singing your tune; job done. But that says little for your integrity or their intelligence."
What am I missing where did the Bishop say "should be allowed"?
Turney speaks! (But evasively)
'This wasn't a tourist trip. It was all about science – and it was worth it'
http://www.theguardian.com/science/antarctica-live/2014/jan/04/antarctic-expedition-was-worth-it-chris-turney
Guardian enviro-hack James Randerson is busy BTL telling everyone who questions His Eminence's wisdom how wrong they are.
This is the first time I've seen such dedicated Guardian "protection" below the line.
Mike Jackson, see you beat me to it. Story of my life.
Well, Rodent, you must have learned nitpicking from the AGW crowd. We do help people who cannot help themselves, a Christian thing to do. We do that over and over in weather catastrophes.
The assault on guns is a myth here. The big push is against high powered, high ammunition volume loaded guns. The fervor rises and fall after some incident of crazed person attack some innocent folks. Like the AGW theory, the lack of guns does not assure less murder and mayhem. Most people undrstand these facts.
artwest
'This is the first time I've seen such dedicated Guardian "protection" below the line.'
It happened a few times in the past too, and its normal a dead give away that that got it very wrong , usual followed by heavy moderation and the 'disappearing' of post. But be warned mention posts are 'disappeared' on CIF means your post will get ' 'disappeared' , and no they do not get the irony of that nor what poor ethics it is to do it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation
Circulation of The Guardian has halved in a decade, to 204,000 - barely relevant as a source of opinion. But most newspapers have experienced similar demise. It's interesting how "status" and reality can become temporarily detached.
On attached link, Evening Standard is big anomaly, the only newspaper to show a rise in circulation, and a big one at that.
geronimo
Never mind. There'll always be a next time!
The Guardian banned me 3 years ago, one of the Trotskyites who manipulate CIF falsely accusing me of being in the BNP. So, it's interesting to see the development of the new Marxist Plan, centred on academic institutions like UEA, PKI, UNSW, RS and Bristol. In the US, the drives appear to be more financial.
Thus the Australian Finkelstein Report called for those who publish scientific claims not approved by the State be fined and if necessary jailed. For bloggers, the threshold would be 70 'hits' per day. The PKI wants its 'Grand Academic Committee' to control all Society, including investment. UEA is the centre of Common Purpose which has via Levenson set out to establish UK Press Censorship
It's Lenin's 'The end justifies the means' all over again, a 30 year plan using fake Climate Science to trigger Socialist Revolution. In the UK, this has run in parallel with the recent promotion of privately-educated elite, fellow-traveller Chief Scientists to channel fake science to government. King did the same to Blair but has had the honesty to revert to scientific objectivity.
Some of you seem to have difficulty distinguishing between a freedom to print and a voluntary decision to refrain.
If the Bishop thinks I have wrongly accused him of lying, why doesn't he say so.
Preventing (Eco-)Blasphemy is always the first concern of any priesthood.
The Guardian and their broadcast arm, the BBC, have definitely started plumbing the depths when it comes to climate propaganda, even in the first few days of this new year.
Maybe it is a sign that the great global warming scam is beginning to crumble and certainly, the shenanigans in the Antarctic were a spectacular own goal.
The spin continues as they get excited about whether 2013 was the fourth warmest year on record. Given that the earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age and reliable record keeping started a long time after that, their spin is just pathetic, but again, with many people ignorant of the facts, the faithful lap it up.
I agree with the Bish. The Guardian will lose its better journalists (it took some effort to write that, but I assume some exist outside of the political and environmental arena) and more extreme activists will replace them. It is too successful as a left wing propaganda publication for the extremists to lose it. However, the costs of printing hard copy are prohibitive so it will soon be online only.
The BBC, unfortunately, will continue for some time but the writing is on the wall that a compulsory tax will not be compatible with multi-choice on-demand viewing patterns in very few years from now. In a strange way, if the BBC were not such an obnoxious, biased organisation overseen by a useless, pointless Trust, then I am convinced that many people would be happy to see them continue, provided they made significant efficiencies to reduce costs and the abuse of the licence fee. But try telling that to the multitude of liberal minded loons that run it.
As we move into another year of climate madness I would like to float an idea.
This site undoubtedly has a following of intelligent, (with two exceptions) gifted people. It might be useful to set up a couple of separate discussion threads on specific topics to pool or research information, or investigate a technical or political subject, with the purpose of creating better understanding, or an argument to be used externally.
I'm really saying that the commenters here are a potentially valuable resource with a pool of experience. How can we make use of this resource to counter balance the garbage pumped out by the Guardian and the Biased Broadcasting Corporation?
Is this a practical suggestion or just wishful thinking?
Chandra "If the Bishop thinks I have wrongly accused him of lying, why doesn't he say so."
Because cubs are sometimes served live prey?
Yes, I've noticed that the Guardian Antarctic report now has a comments "bouncer".
He seems to be polite but I didn't have the stomach to evaluate his arguments.
Well, don't insult my brain - its my second favourite organ.
Kevin Marshall says-
"White attacks the leader of the Canadian-based International Climate Science Coalition by saying-
Heading the ICSC is a former Canadian energy company public relations consultant"
Interesting that White points this out, given for example the background of IPCC, UNFCCC and global warming champion Maurice Strong-
(from Wikipedia)
"At Gallagher's Dome Petroleum, Strong occupied several key roles including vice president of finance, leaving the firm in 1956 and setting up his own firm, M.F. Strong Management, assisting investors in locating opportunities in the Alberta oil patch.
In the 1950s he took over a small natural gas company, Ajax Petroleum, and built it into one of the leading companies in the industry, Norcen Resources. This attracted the attention of one of Canada’s principal investment corporations with extensive interests in the energy and utility businesses, Power Corporation of Canada. It appointed him initially as its executive vice president and then president from 1961 until 1966.
In 1976, at the request of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, Strong returned to Canada to head the newly created national oil company, Petro-Canada. He then became chairman of the Canada Development Investment Corporation, the holding company for some of Canada’s principal government-owned corporations."
There's a comment over at the Guardian which I think should be preserved for posterity as I think it perfectly encapsulates what we are dealing with here. I've reproduced the most interesting first part below.
It is remarkable for being a complete inversion of the truth and many people's experiences with the Guardian. Most of the 'right-on' posters aren't aware of it because they don't get censored. They also completely lose any sense of opposition because of it. It's just beyond belief:
Matthew2012
04 January 2014 4:31pm
"There are at least two accounts in this thread which are highly suspicious.
They deliberately create new accounts to stop anyone seeing their past posting history. This is self censorship.
From just one WUWT thread:
"I normally would’ve posted a comment at the Guardian but my second account has now been banned..."
" I said I give up on commenting on the Guardian after being banned over 8 times but today I decided to have another stab ;)I have just posted 3 comments under ButWhatAboutTheFacts but expect them to be deleted soon and my account disabled."
It is high time that a journalist with the Guardian investigated what their IT department know from IP addresses and refused certain individuals anonymity in their posting.
They also astroturf with their multiple accounts."
Sorry I appeared obtuse, Stonyground. My point was that the quite astonishing idea (compared with previous ideas) of planetary movement is not counter-intuitive, it is quite logical. However, I doubt that I could provide any evidence, other than by quoting cleverer people than myself. The idea of AGW is, however, contains little logic, if any. Viewing historical records shows that global temperatures have risen and fallen over the centuries and millennia, as have CO2 concentrations; to suggest that the present situation is solely the fault of humans is pure vanity; to think that there is anything that we can do that will have any effect upon the situation takes vanity to the extreme. The perversity of it all is that even the AGWistas confirm the idea – even they conclude that human-produced CO2 comprises about 3% of the total increase. So what makes this 3% so powerful?
Dale Hartz: a bit sensitive, aren’t you? My point was not intended as a slight against you or your countrymen; however, there is a growing, as-yet sub-, culture of dependency upon The State (of which the UK has a veritable army). Sorry if you cannot see that.
Radical Rodent -
I will take issue with this part of your comment: "even the AGWistas confirm the idea – even they conclude that human-produced CO2 comprises about 3% of the total increase."
Human CO2 emissions are *larger than* the increase in atmospheric CO2. Let's take 2012, for example. CO2 emissions are estimated to have been about 31.6 Gt (per IEA). Average CO2 in the atmosphere increased from 391.90 ppmv to 394.22 (from here), or 2.32 ppmv. How much CO2 (by mass) does this represent? From here, 1 ppmv CO2 = 2.13 Gt of carbon, or 7.81 Gt CO2. So the 2.32 ppmv of CO2 represents an additional 18 Gt CO2. This is less than the 31.6 Gt of emissions. Most of the difference ends up in the ocean, while there is also increased biological absorption on land.
[My memory is that about half of recent human emissions ends up in the atmosphere. It worked out to ~60% for the calendar year 2012 above, which perhaps is not perfectly representative. Either way, emissions are >100% of the increase, not 3%.]