Guardian writer Alexander White beclowns himself by using a paid PR firm as a factual source for climate

It seems this reporter Alexander White considered Jim Hoggan’s PR for hire website “DeSmog Blog” a factual source. LOL! He might find some challenges ahead if he doesn’t fix his story.

ISCS Director Tom Harris writes:

Please join in on the discussion after today’s piece slamming ICSC in the Guardian (UK) newspaper Website

guardian-white

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/southern-crossroads/2014/jan/04/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism#show-all

Here is one of my comments:  

TomHarrisICSC alexanderwhite

05 January 2014 2:22am

Alex, your article is riddled with mistakes about us. I have written a letter to the editor to correct your mistakes and suggest that, before attacking us, you should have simply contacted me to ask if what you read on DeSmogBlog was actually true. Let’s hope they have the integrity to actually publish the letter.

Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech.)
Executive Director,
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada

www.climatescienceinternational.org

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate ugliness. Bookmark the permalink.

87 Responses to Guardian writer Alexander White beclowns himself by using a paid PR firm as a factual source for climate

  1. Rud Istvan says:

    Idiots quoting idiots only proves both are idiots. Problem is, idiot recognition is by definition poor.

  2. crosspatch says:

    You had me all the way up to “Guardian”.

  3. Leigh says:

    I would ask “Adolf” White what sort of fool question is that ?
    Maybe in China or Russia or Cuba but in Australia?
    Please, why give him space if all he wants is to silence critics of fraud on a scale never before seen?
    If I can’t say that global warmists are being made to look extremely foolish over the last few days then we have a more serious problem than the global warmists/alamist frauds.
    Go over to America and try silencing some ones free speech.

  4. Then too, how can it be that anyone thinks the U.S.Senate and House are any thing but paid PR operations also. Little question by any one with a brain what the current Pres. of the U.S.A. is.

  5. Rattus Norvegicus says:

    Hate to point this out, but you post stuff from the GWPF all the time. Pot, kettle, black.

  6. TomRude says:

    Rattus, the crowd at desmog has never seen a course of climatology in their life… So get lost!

  7. Martin C says:

    It sure seems like ALL alarmists suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect . . .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

    . .OR, maybe they are the ones getting paid by someone/organization to spew this stuff. It SURE isn’t the ‘skeptics’ getting anything . . . !

  8. Rob aka flatlander says:

    Who reads this crap? That guy is so full of himself, he actually believes that only specific scientists can form an opinion based on a set of data. He himself is a climate change denier as he cannot accept historical evidence that the climate does in fact change and that we currently inside the normal variations of that change. I don’t want to muffle idiots. If I have a personal blog then limiting those that are allowed to post is fine. But a public news paper should always be able to handle posts and opinions od those that have a different opinion. The globe is warming because I say so is an unfounded opinion, not a scientific statement.

  9. Mark Beeunas says:

    The New Zealand Herald: Forest needed to cover carbon footprint of icy rescue

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11181470

  10. gbees says:

    No Australian newspaper which I have read has actually published ‘climate change denier’ opinion pieces. I haven’t meant anyone yet who denies that the climate changes. As for trying to censor Australian newspapers one Stephen Conroy tried that when he was Communications Minister in the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Labor/Green government. Australians suitably and overwhelmingly dispatched that government in September 2013. The Guardian is not worth reading and many Australians are already sick to the teeth that these people are invading our country with their ideological rants …. the Guardian is pure trash …

  11. mosomoso says:

    Was just discussing this latest Guardian foolery on an Aussie blog thus:

    When people are satirising the present in future eras, the Guardian will be a mine of humour. I love to read the ads and handy tips for living green, written by stuck-up fops for the exclusive posh dope market. These gems are taken at random and typical:

    “Download a coupon to get money off an eco-friendly toilet paper…Andrex Eco is a green toilet paper made from a mix of 90% responsibly sourced recycled paper and 10% bamboo to give it the softness you’d expect from Andrex…And, as you’d expect from Andrex, the eco-friendly product is fully certified by the Forest Stewardship Council and comes in packaging that is 100% recyclable.”

    “Fairphone
    Described as ‘a seriously cool smartphone that puts social values first’. This is a fascinating project aiming to sell 20,000 green Android handsets, while also giving the bigger manufacturers a nudge to improve their own products. £277.”

    Yep. A seriously cool smartphone that puts social values first. It’s not satire. You can find reems of this stuff every day in the Guardian.

    The English have a great tradition of skepticism, but Guardian readers must be the world’s biggest suckers for fussy green gadgetry and costly fetishism. The Guardian has been pushing all this over-priced and over-hyped junk for years now, devoting lots of space to it all. The stuff must really sell – unlike the newspaper itself. No matter how preening and pompous the NYT and Australia’s Fairfax Press, I don’t think they could keep a straight face while retailing such pious trash day after day the way the Guardian does.

    By the way, guys, did you know you can save energy by turning off your computer? And your TV? Especially if you turn them off at the power point. Also, if you turn off your car radio you can save a tiny smidgin of petrol. Because, you see, the car’s electricals are running off its fuel, so if you don’t run the electricals…No, I’m not making it up.

    Just read the Guardian to learn more!

  12. jones says:

    I have just submitted this…I might just slip through the filter…..

    Might.

    [Nope. Mod]

    It does sort of depend on perspective of course.

    P.S. Do you support pre-moderating comments that do not incite and are not abusive?

    Thank you for allowing the comment dump Anthony.

    [Note: Mods should only snip/delete comments that clearly violate site policy, and then with a short explanation. ~ Sr Mod.]

  13. Patrick Hrushowy says:

    I am full of wonderment about the Universe this fellow must live in. I am reminded of the Blorg of Star Trek fame. They all seem to be wired together, each one following commands from the Queen Blorg to spew their stuff. I can almost see this Alex fellow meeting with his mates down at the pub after deadline time chuckling how he did it to the bad guys, and all his mates chortling about how he did it tright.

  14. Tom Harley says:

    The Guardian comment moderators must be on leave, there is an avalanche in progress …

  15. jones says:

    Apologies. I was referring to Thomas Becket of course…It was a philosophical point about the meaning of words and of course not a call to harm.

    It may not be so known in the US.

    Apologies again for causing misunderstanding.

  16. GeeJam says:

    Even though it was a ‘sticky’ on WUWT for a few days, this report from the New Zealand Herald sums up the whole fiasco. Brilliant.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11181415

    Thanks to following original link from Mark Beeunas: January 4, 2014 at 9:42 pm.

  17. Konrad says:

    I was pleasantly surprised after reading, not the article (utter tripe), but the comments allowed after it. The Guardian had allowed a number of sceptical comments through and their usual high level of censorship was not in evidence. Sceptical comments were also far higher rated.

    Some of the comments of believers were also informative. Some Guardian faithful appear to actually believe there is “dark money” funding a “coordinated denialist machine” to the tune of billions. Coordinated? No one would waste their billions. Coordinating sceptics would be like trying to herd cats!

    An article on “should sceptic opinion be censored” with sceptical comments allowed? It seems almost like the Guardian censors may be easing their readership slowly across to the awful truth, that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce the atmospheres radiative cooling ability. After all “easing” may be required. Any sudden revelation that every member of the “Professional Left” is more of a turkey than Turney could cause mass head explosions.

  18. Streetcred says:

    January 4, 2014 at 9:32 pm | Rattus Norvegicus
    ————

    What a joke … GWPF compared to DeSmog ? DeSmog should be flattered to be included in such enlightened company. Phwett!

  19. Steve says:

    The leftist Guardian calling out the rabid leftist Fairfax press! Oh the irony and, given that other big AGW fiasco story currently still playing, the timing.

  20. mem says:

    Ah the Guardian! Without creating its own headlines and controversies it would melt into slime.
    More concerning to me are the growing number of “independent ” Science Media Centres which function as warmist/green propaganda units(now in UK,Aus,Japan, USA,) for reporters and media people that are sloppy,lazy or corrupt.The latest Rapid Response Post on the Australian SMC site demonstrates my point.The so-called experts are all warmists cleverly presented as independent.Please read what it presents. It is mind bogglingly distorted science.
    http://www.smc.org.au/2014/01/rapid-reaction-hottest-year-on-record-experts-respond/#more-14047

  21. dbstealey says:

    Norway Rat,

    Listen to Tom Rude’s excellent advice.

  22. Other_Andy says:

    Yeh right, if I am going to click on a Gruniad link.
    I have standards…!

  23. GeeJam says:

    Konrad says: January 4, 2014 at 10:48 pm
    “I was pleasantly surprised after reading . . . .”

    Completely agree Konrad. Only very occasionally do I become immersed in the Guardian’s comments. Unlike A-th-ny’s regular commenters (whom mostly remain civil when debating CAGW), it’s ‘war’ over at the Guardian. Angry ‘warmists’, volatile ‘tree huggers’ – all vociferously defending their position with unsubstantiated arguments. Some of the comments are simply astounding.

  24. dbstealey says:

    Rob aka flatlander says:

    Who reads this crap? That guy is so full of himself, he actually believes that only specific scientists can form an opinion based on a set of data. He himself is a climate change denier as he cannot accept historical evidence that the climate does in fact change and that we currently inside the normal variations of that change. I don’t want to muffle idiots. If I have a personal blog then limiting those that are allowed to post is fine. But a public news paper should always be able to handle posts and opinions of those that have a different opinion.

    Repeated for effect.

  25. jones says:

    Hia Sr Mod

    Ta for that. I really think I confused the issue badly by the wording of my comment and it might have appeared that I was addressing WUWT when I was really just dumping a comment here. Sorry. I also think the four letter word scared who initially read it. It was simply a reference to the conflict between Henry the second and Thomas Becket and a phrase Henry is supposed to have said “who will free me of this turbulent priest”. There has been a historical debate ever since around the actual meaning of his words at that time.

    In the context of any debate on censorship the words “should we allow” can also be similarly debated as meaning “we should not allow”.

    I think I was trying to be too clever… I hope the pre-mods (at the G) don’t spot this comment here and then allow my comment through as that would represent a bit of an own goal against this superb site (truly) when lots of people are having a good old ding dong about censorship…

    Although my guess is they would feel unwashably unclean if they did look here!!!

    Ah well, never mind…Thanks for the time to respond.

    [Not all mods are the same. ~mod.]

  26. John Karajas says:

    Should Australian newspapers publish material counter to CAGW pseudoscience?

    Too right they should, mate!

  27. Unmentionable says:

    Not much to be concerned about, newspapers are hanging-on by a thread due to rubbish content and loss of circulation and adds. Similarly bad on-line publications that present pure BS have a limited shelf-life if they want to present only one side of a discussion involving public policy based on BS ‘science’. Plus we have an ace-in-the-hole called Earth and it has more credibility than anyone running any newspaper/website or political agenda.

    The other factor is that the bulk of humanity doesn’t subscribe to the AGW baloney anyway. Its predominantly a western trash-science pleading prop for funding, and a political election fad, that has just about run its course.

    The other thing is weather variability swings both ways, and people can see the winters are still terrible. This weekend for instance, a few hundred million are going to experience the most bitter cold-snap most of them have ever encountered. As one report put it yesterday, if you are under 40 years old, you have never experienced anything like what’s coming over the next few days. No amount of verbal baloney is going to overcome the shock of a direct experience of wind-chill factors down around -60 degrees F. Aside from the ruthless dangers of such conditions it will be a very interesting week in extreme WX variability.

    My guess is generation X is in for a shocking and lasting reality-check.

  28. Angela says:

    The only thing worth looking at in the Guardian is the Crossword and since the death of its best compiler earlier this year, even that is not as good as it used to be!

  29. Felflames says:

    Patrick Hrushowy says:
    January 4, 2014 at 10:36 pm

    I am full of wonderment about the Universe this fellow must live in. I am reminded of the Blorg of Star Trek fame. They all seem to be wired together, each one following commands from the Queen Blorg to spew their stuff. I can almost see this Alex fellow meeting with his mates down at the pub after deadline time chuckling how he did it to the bad guys, and all his mates chortling about how he did it tright.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Borg not Blorg.
    Thier catchphrase was “Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.”

    Funny thing is, once the controlling links between them get broken, they go back to being individuals.

  30. Nik Marshall-Blank says:

    So this is how it went.

    We do not agree that all Global Warming is Anthropogenic.
    They then relabel us by calling us Deniers, Denying Global Warming is really happening when we agree it is warming but not all of it is Anthropogenic.
    They then ban anybody who is a Denier from speaking out.

    Faultless logic!!!

  31. Unmentionable says:

    Valid 00Z Sun Jan 5 2014 – 00Z Tue Jan 7 2014

    ***Record-breaking cold expected over much of Eastern U.S.***
    ***Snow and wintry mix with a developing surface low***
    ***Most of the Western U.S. will have quiet weather***

    The coldest weather in years will be making its presence known from the
    Upper Midwest to the Mid-Atlantic region for the beginning of the work
    week. The polar vortex, a mid-upper level cyclonic feature normally
    present over northern Canada, will be displaced unusually far to the south
    over the northern Great Lakes and southern Ontario. Owing to the deep
    layer of the cold air mass, this will provide for an incredibly strong
    surge of bitterly cold Arctic Air along with gusty winds. The Upper
    Midwest will be affected first by Saturday night, and the brutal
    conditions will continue pushing southeastward to the Ohio Valley and
    Mid-South by Monday, and to the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic by Tuesday.
    Particularly noteworthy will be the extreme wind chills and nearly
    unheard-of daytime highs that are forecast. Wind chill warnings are in
    effect for many areas with wind chills on the order of -30 to -50 degrees
    expected! Afternoon highs on Monday for parts of the Midwest states and
    the Ohio Valley will fail to reach zero degrees! The good news is that it
    will be a quick event, and moderating temperatures are expected to return
    by Wednesday.

    http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/discussions/hpcdiscussions.php?disc=pmdspd

  32. Jason says:

    Good on you – below is my reply to Alex and your comment

    realcoldoutcom TomHarrisICSC
    05 January 2014 8:02am

    That may involve some real journalism Tom, something which Alex seems to be advocating against with his ‘right-to-free-speech-and-opinion’ smear campaign.

    Why would the question of refusing ‘deniers’ the right to publish even come up? Surely the ‘overwhelming’ evidence of wamists should shine bright amidst the deniers darkness? If the theories were water tight, then there wouldnt be any place for doubt and confusion to be spread.
    Its the very fact that there arent any solid facts backing humans solely being the cause of cimate change that questions and holes can be poked in this flimsy theory.

    “The fantastic thing about peer reviewed papers is that when they contain errors or questionable findings, expert peers note them”

    Funny that, I dont remember any peers coming forward during the 3 years that followed the unfounded statement of the IPCC’s 2007 report which stated that the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035, until of course a New Scientist journalist exposed this to the world.

    “However, surely newspapers should aim for objectivity rather than balance, especially if one “side” is just plain inaccurate.”

    Is Alex inferring the Warmist theory is accurate and therefore the ‘denier’s is inaccurate? This is a huge assumption considering the relatively small amount of data the assumption is made on. In my opinion the whole idea of calling those who question this climate change theory a ‘denier’ is absurd. Its like calling those who dont believe in the Loch Ness Monster, Nessy deniers – both are yet to be proved. It is also not yet science if half the scientific community is divided on this – its just a theory.

    Until we can address both sides of the theory and work together without prejudice, we are far away from getting this right. Maybe Alex should be taking a leaf out of his own article, being objective, as at present he is smelling of subjective pureism.

    Alex – Stop trying to be smug and right, and focus more on doing some journalism.

    **More about what I was getting at here – http://realcoldout.com/nature-not-nurture/

  33. tango says:

    GOD bless them for they no not what they are doing

  34. Unmentionable says:

    Love this Title:

    Snow falling. In Australia. In summer. That is all
    http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/snow-falling-in-australia-in-summer-that-is-all/story-e6frflp0-1226775945701

    er, this is just an anomaly cobbers, pay no attention to this, tis is not unusual at all, we all know it routinely snows over multiple Australian States during Summer … move along now … don’t make me post a heat wave.

  35. dp says:

    Are self-confessed censures a legitimate source of opinion? Sure, and further, I think they and their opinions should be spread far and wide by those of us with open minds just to demonstrate the difference. To that end I think WUWT’s editorial policy of giving these idiots enough rope is first rate. If WUWT were to mirror the notion offered by this self-cloistered buffoon I’d never have learned of it. He is the basis of the golden rule of ignorance. To create a real world perspective – what if everyone did this? It would be the end of thinking. I am utterly unsurprised it came from the unthinking camp. They’d not have noticed the passing of discourse.

  36. ANH says:

    I see the Tom Harris comment to the Guardian piece (shown above) is not there now. In fact there is a big time gap in the comments between 1.13 am and 4.00 am on 5th Jan.

  37. Peter Miller says:

    Let’s think of some of the names on the long list of organisations which ban(ned) dissenting views, because they were so obviously ‘correct’

    Taliban
    Soviet Union
    North Korea
    Spanish Inquisition
    National Socialist Party of Germany
    Pol Pot’s government
    Any government of the -ism variety
    Christian and moslem fundamentalist sects

    When you are knowingly trying to sell a lie, it is just human nature to ban, censor or even worse anyone who has a dissenting view, especially if it is factual or realistic.

  38. Christopher Hanley says:

    The founders of The Guardian, originally The Manchester Guardian, were greatly influenced by the liberalism of Jeremy Bentham and would be positively gyrating right now.
    Bentham was a close associate of James Mill and a profound influence on his son John Stuart Mill.

    “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. [ … ] But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error”.
    On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill.

  39. ConfusedPhoton says:

    The Guardian seems to be publishing any old nonsense these days. Anything from environmental activism to conspiracy fiction. Is it surprising it is losing readership. It will soon be a comic for extremists with only a few people buying it. Or it will simply go out of business.

  40. bullocky says:

    Alex has plenty of qualities to pick up the coveted ‘CLIMATE PRAT of the YEAR’ award so dearly deserved and cherished by the current holder, Dana Nuccitelli, and he knows what company to keep.
    Has only performed well in inferior company thus far, but responds well to training.
    The Guardian hasn’t produced a winner before and they’ll be keen to give him plenty of work.

    Could be worth a fiver at 20/1 if you can get it.

  41. Txomin says:

    Brute dixit, the end justifies the greens.

  42. Sleepalot says:

    @ Christopher Hanley
    That excellent quote needs to be added to the Gruaniad* comments.
    * So named for their attrocious spelling.

  43. Andrew says:

    Interestingly, they published a d*n!er article themselves (accidentally).

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate

    They cherry picked an early climate forecast (although, 13 years into the forecast period it was half hind cast) that actually turned out pretty close. But, not being capable of high school maths they missed the fact that the “accurate” model predicted only 1.3K/century. Imagine if Tony Abbott666 had issued an official statement saying the govt’s policy is henceforth informed by the view that GW is only 1.3C/100y! Everyone from Tom Foolery down would be howling about his den!ialism, with the Guardian mocking him hourly.

  44. Andrew says:

    BTW scroll below comments to see the astonishing amount of brainwashing. 21 CAGW articles in a 3 day period, most on a single day! No wonder leftist readers of articles by innumerate journos don’t have any idea what the truth is.

  45. tango says:

    there is no need to worry the Australian news papers are on there last legs nobody are reading them anymore , they are full of crap

  46. bobl says:

    Personally I wouldn’t care too much if fairfax did alienate 5 of their remaining 10 readers by refusing to publish their letters. That would only speed up the eventual demise of Fairfax and it could be raided and it’s individual media assets sold off to new and varied owners that might treat their readers a little better than mushrooms.

  47. Rhys Jaggar says:

    Look, people need to get over their delusions that newspapers are now purveyors of news, fulfilling some deep service to society.

    They are pimps whoring page impressions, nothing more, nothing less. They get their rocks off giggling or collapsing in fits of laughter as the still credulous bloggers foam at the mouth at all their distortions.

    Some violence is going to happen in a newspaper soon and the journalists who get it will deserve it.

    They know what they are doing, but seem to think that they won’t suffer any adverse fate in return.

    Sadly, the world doesn’t usually work that way……..

  48. nevket240 says:

    FairFax in the 60’s up were know as the Spencer Street Soviet. Heavily pro left.
    Even now they are so pro AGW you will never see a rebuttal to some Voodoo science wackery that they give big, bold, headlines too.
    The world is stuffed.

  49. Mods:

    Quote: “[Note: Mods should only snip/delete comments that clearly violate site policy, and then with a short explanation. ~ Sr Mod.]“

    I do wish you would e-mail your views to those censorship crazed people at The Guardian newspaper. They had a progressive, anti-war writer on board for a while: Glenn Greenwald. They promised him that they would be very light handed with their moderation in his threads but even with Greenwald fighting them the newspaper was totalitarian in its deleting of comments. (yes, that Greenwald, who broke the NSA story)

    And they never tell you why! The just say “violation of community standards”!

    I think that the moderation policy here at WUWT is a large factor in the appeal of this site to so many people. The articles are great, but the free discussion of them after publication is a big draw in my book.

    Many thanks to all the volunteer mods who make this possible. (and Happy New Year to ya)

    — Mark

  50. onlyme says:

    I often see mention of a ‘theory’ of anthropogenic global warming. For a SWAG* to actually be a theory doesn’t it need to have a stated premise, a stated expected outcome, a null hypothesis and some means of being falsified?

    It seems that current “consensus” Climate Science operates under the assumption that no matter the outcome, there can be only one cause; humanity, and no amount of data nor any observed outcome whatever is capable of falsifying the consensus SWAG.

    *(Scientific Wild Assed Guess)

  51. mem says:

    Sorry to be picky Alex, but Mother used to say that you could always measure a man’s worth inversely in proportion to the size of his shoulder pads.

  52. Mindert Eiting says:

    This call for censorship was already done in my newspaper in 2009 shortly before Climategate. The argument of the author was:

    1.The science is settled.
    2.In science we do not have democracy.
    3.Newspaper comments by amateurs seed doubt among the uninformed.
    4.It is not good to have doubts about settled science.
    5.Newspaper comments by amateurs should be censored.

    Therefore, he did educate the uninformed about the settled science, the last time by showing that the IPCC summary for policy makers was a triumph of that science and everything he wrote since 2009.

  53. bobl says:

    Looks like the Guardian has lightly moderated that story, perhaps to gauge real opinion on a plan to do just as they describe, but the sceptics own that particular conversation, and based on it, any editor would be very wary about moving down that path.

    I’d give sceptics 100 warmists 1…

    What really amazed me is among the protests at the Guardian there was very little or no real science discussed, just ranting and appeals to authority, frankly I dont think I saw a number other than 97. For a frequenter of WUWT where real science is discussed all the time, I found this dialougue rather childish. Aint no way the Guardian is getting my email address just to join that rabble.

  54. bobl says:

    Oh, and sometimes I wonder if they write this crap in order to pilfer pageviews from sceptic blogs to tout to advertisers.

  55. troe says:

    Agree with those posting that the push to close off debate is a sign of desperation. Not certain if it’s well-know that Dr. Nathan Allen is engaged in special pleading. His main work for Dow has been in Department Of Energy funded hydrogen fuel cell technology. One of the primary motivations given for taxpayer funding of his research is AGW. That he has benefited should not preclude him from commenting but it’s something he should declare.

  56. ROM says:

    One of the most interesting attitudes of the alarmists / rabid greens / ecoloons / warmists / catastrophists and all the other assorted leftist do gooders such as the rabid Green renewable energy proponents who continually advocate the suppression and censorship of opinions that do not coincide with their own beliefs and ideology, is their apparent inability to even contemplate that they also will be just as severely affected and suffer just as severely along with everybody else if their own censorious policies are ever implemented.

    These latent left wing totalitarian promoting goose steppers seemingly live in some sort of a completely parallel universe where the policies, actions and consequences they so vehemently demand should be applied to all others who fail to or refuse to fall into line with their particular brand of a totalitarian ideology, will just simply pass them and they seemingly continue to assume that they themselves will continue to enjoy the quite lavish life style they currently demand and expect as their own inalienable right..

    What goes around, comes around as the old saying goes.
    So often throughout history influential individuals and groups have arisen usually created in debate over some contentious cause and who first just want to right the percieved wrongs and promote the “cause” as the solution to all those past wrongs or those wrong beliefs as they see it.
    When others come out and oppose the “cause” the advocates and believers in the “cause” resort to ever harsher and increasingly severe retribution agaist those who oppose the advocates of the particular Cause.
    From there the progress in historical terms is a fast moving trend to an all out totalitarianism and often a full blown Tyranny with ever harsher measures against those who only appear to oppose or even just question the now tyrannical new regime.

    In their unbridled hubris, arrogance and complete ignorance and in the unshakeable belief that they and they only are the blessed ones who know the real TRUTH, the climate catastrophe believing totalitarian advocates and warmista advocates of the suppression of free speech just seem to completely fail to recognise that throughout history the pitiless and ruthless policies that many totalitarian regimes and tyrants have moved to inflict on all those who oppose them has more often than not been applied to the very same advocates of those measures when the great tides of fortune, time, history and politics once again reverse course as they always have.

    They also in their ignorance and the shallowness of their intellect totally fail to realise that in advocating censorship of those who do not agree with their own ideology of catastrophic warming of the planet, they themselves might one day be on the receiving end of that very same censorship.
    And if history is any guide then when censorship is first used it soon degenerates into ever harsher and into an ever more despotic regime which eventually has no qualms or inhibitions in physically eliminating anybody or anything that opposes or questions it..

    To the advocates of the censoring of skeptics or worse, much worse as has been recorded. ;
    1 / Be very careful indeed as to what you might wish for; You might just get it.

    2 / There is also an old saying; “A revolution devours it’s children”.

    Perhaps that is what we skeptics are seeing today as happening to the global warming ideology and it’s rabid advocates as they demand ever more and ever harsher measures against those who dare to question their ideology and quasi cult like beliefs.

    To cap off. Why would anybody in their right mind have any sort of belief in anything that the . Desmogblog promotes and publishes.
    “Alexa” as usual tells the real tale and it provides a good indication that if the Guardian writers cannot find a warmista site that gives an honest and realistic appraisal of the global warming / catastrophe belief situation that has more credibility in the eyes of the web reading public then Desmogblog then the warmists are in very deep, deep s**t indeed .
    The world Alexa web ratings as of today;[ smaller numbers are higher in the global rankings ]

    WUWT = 10,348
    GWPF= 79,835
    JoNova = 82,735
    Climate etc = 85380
    Bishop Hill = 87,142
    SKEPTICAL SCIENCE = 101,746
    NoTricksZone =115,842
    DESMOGBLOG = 147,511

  57. hunter says:

    The author is a union activist and “progressive” organizer. He has no scientific background and so has, under his own definition, no right to an opinion on climate. It is notable that “progressives”, when not in power, demand tolerance of their views and positions. Yet as predictable as the sunrise, seek to impose censorship the moment they are even close to power.
    He is a hypocrite- at best.

  58. Katabasis says:

    Mark Stoval –
    “And they never tell you why! The just say “violation of community standards”!”

    – That’s if you’re lucky. If you watch the moderation over an extended period you will see they also have a ‘nuke’ option where all trace of the comment is removed and so not even a placeholder to indicate it was ever there or give viewers a grasp of just how much censorship is taking place.

    – I just noticed one comment that had received the ‘nuke’ treatment. The poster dared to point out that the use of “de*ier* was in fact a thoroughly nasty ad hom. There’s now no record of his/her comment ever having been there. I really fail to understand how this fits the Guardian’s “moderation” policy.

  59. Jimbo says:

    I read his piece yesterday and pointed out that the Sceptical comments were streaming in and having a field day. Some of the best hitters I have read in a long time. I too wondered whether the censors went AWOL. This really is not like the Guardian, they are letting their ‘standards’ slip. ;-)

    Expect mass deletions and bans ASAP.

  60. Jimbo says:

    Do check out the ever active sceptic Fernando Leanme on the Guardian. He is a persistent pain in their neck, he survives banning by being very polite. I cannot do this.

  61. katabasis1 says:

    Jimbo – did you notice you’ve been singled out on one thread as being part of some “conspiracy”?

  62. Sasha says:

    Patrick Hrushowy says:
    January 4, 2014 at 10:36 pm
    “… I am reminded of the Blorg of Star Trek fame…”

    It was the Borg.
    Very appropriate when dealing with the BBC, Guardian, Independent, etc… “Resistance is futile.”

  63. pat says:

    truly amazing!

    5 Jan: JoanneNova: Michael Asten’s novel idea – think first, spend later?
    It’s amazing what sensible things turn up in the holiday period. The Australian not only published Maurice Newman skeptical discussion: “climate madness, dishonesty and fraud”, but two days later they published a scientist talking about natural cycles. The scandal! He’s introduced a new term into the debate: …”residual” anthropogenic driven climate change. Instead of CAGW*, we have RAGW. It’s a term that I could grow to like.
    Michael Asten, professor of geophysics at Monash University, is suggesting the Australian government’s “Direct Action Scheme” ought to start with science. (How radical.) Before we spend $5 billion we ought to spend a small part of that on looking at whether we need to spend the rest of it. It’s a starkly obvious point, but almost never said. More than anything, both the environment and the people of Australia need some action, and it starts with reviewing the research…
    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/michael-astens-novel-idea-lets-put-science-into-climate-policy/

  64. Eustace Cranch says:

    Sasha says:
    January 5, 2014 at 5:22 am

    Patrick Hrushowy says:
    January 4, 2014 at 10:36 pm
    “… I am reminded of the Blorg of Star Trek fame…”

    It was the Borg.
    Very appropriate when dealing with the BBC, Guardian, Independent, etc… “Resistance is futile.”

    ——–
    Actually Patrick may have just coined a great new word. “The Blorg” = bloggers with no original thought, who mindlessly repeat talking points to infect/assimilate more bloggers, who mindlessly repeat talking points, etc., etc.

  65. michael hart says:

    The hypocrisy is high at the Guardian.
    In 2009, about a month or two before the release of the climate-gate emails, the Guardian complained about a legal injunction from a commodities trader forbidding them to report on a question raised in Parliament. The source of the story was, wait for it, based on internal documents and emails.

    The Guardian is also not embarrassed by off-shoring itself to the Cayman Islands to avoid capital gains tax in the UK after running stories about the tax avoidance of Barclays bank.

    The same Guardian brought you the attempt to discourage voters in Clark County Ohio from voting for George W. Bush, a campaign that backfired spectacularly.

    And then there’s the Guardian global-warming representation on a certain well known ship, currently trapped in Antarctic sea-ice…..

  66. Gail Combs says:

    ANH says: @ January 5, 2014 at 12:43 am

    I see the Tom Harris comment to the Guardian piece (shown above) is not there now. In fact there is a big time gap in the comments between 1.13 am and 4.00 am on 5th Jan.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Sounds like the Guardian Censor did not get in until the morning shift and just deleted the whole block of comments. It looks funny if you leave in the Warmist responses to a Den!ers comment now doesn’t it? Can’t make the censorship too blatant or you might wake up a few of the useful idiots.

  67. Gail Combs says:

    ROM says: @ January 5, 2014 at 4:31 am

    One of the most interesting attitudes of the alarmists…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It is based on their philosophy that “reality” is not “real” SEE: The Hegelian Basis for a much better explanation.

  68. Jimbo says:

    The Guardian’s circulation continues down the toilet.

  69. Curious George says:

    The basic idea is “We the Guardian know the truth best”. What gives their opinion an absolute weight? Of course – the 97% consensus. (Never mind that it is a consensus of 75 out of 77 hand-picked respondents, or whatever the number happens to be).

    Back to Middle Ages! At Galileo’s time the consensus was that everything revolves around the Earth. The Guardian takes the position of the Great Inquisitor.

  70. DJ says:

    Their comment section was painful to parse through.

    The cacophony of zealots claiming that of “deniers” as being Big Oil, Republican, or 6,000 year flat-earthers, reminds me a lot about the claim of Somalia being a Libertarian utopia — or how humans are incapable of laying down asphalt and flattening it without the government’s benevolence (and your money).

    I really appreciate the work being done here. Life has progressively been getting much too expensive and these people are asking forcing everybody to sacrifice for their benefit. Too see the poor, who are the most affected, try to afford heat, fuel, and food with these carbon tax and trading schemes is disturbing, to say the least — and let’s not get started on the disastrous economics going on.

  71. RockyRoad says:

    I just want to know how all this anthropogenic activity has completely suppressed all natural climate change!

    I mean, is man totally rad or what?

    /peace

  72. RockyRoad says:

    Curious George says:
    January 5, 2014 at 8:27 am


    Back to Middle Ages! At Galileo’s time the consensus was that everything revolves around the Earth. The Guardian takes the position of the Great Inquisitor.

    Yet their real function was “Great Imposter”.

    Like now.

  73. RockyRoad says:

    DJ says:
    January 5, 2014 at 8:55 am


    — and let’s not get started on the disastrous economics going on.

    Why not?

    The world is currently $171 Trillion in debt–taking all CURRENT personal and government indebtedness, which is 3-4 times world-wide GDP.

    No problem there, right?

    /sigh

  74. lorne50 says:

    Maybe they get mad when you spoof them with stuff like this ;>)

    lorne50

    Red Deer Alberta Canada
    January 5, 2014
    Yes I really don’t know what is up with deniers they don’t believe in the loc ness monster or the moon landings or that 9-11 happened and don’t get me started on GMO’s or vaccine’s and really why would anyone be a denier of big foot ?

  75. lorne50 says:

    Sorry about the D-word mods but it was a fast track to get that published on that site where it was hard to hold down my breakfast . you put that word in your post and it goes straight through ;>)

  76. CodeTech says:

    I skimmed through the comment section at the guardian post.

    There is so much STUPID there that it actually hurts. Like kool-aid drinker “Rosemary A”, who thinks deniers should have their own little books and blogs and stuff but shouldn’t be allowed to participate in the political process.

    Yeah, because they actually believe that you have to search far and wide to find “a scientist” that doesn’t follow the party line.

    Too much stupid. Can’t have a battle of intellect when your opponent is unarmed.

  77. troe says:

    Should any media outlet claiming to be a general news provider publish pieces calling for the censorship of views shared by a large part of the community it serves?

    Those lying the most are hoping for the best in this attempt to nudge the MSM into line. A thank you for motivating us to redouble our efforts.

  78. Col Mosby says:

    Sorry Rattus,but calling GWPF similar, in any conceivable way, intellectually, financially or
    otherwise, amounts to nothing more than a public display of ignorance. And you don’t have to take sides to know this simple fact.

  79. Max Hugoson says:

    I new I saw a video showing the effort of arguing with the “True Believers” of AWG.

    Here it is: (Note: The true believer is on all fours.)

  80. Gail Combs says:

    Max Hugoson says: @ January 5, 2014 at 12:25 pm

    I new I saw a video showing the effort of arguing with the “True Believers” of AWG….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I have never seen my vet laugh so hard as when we used ‘Captain Spaulding’ a deep sea fishing net to catch pigglets. Darn things are FAST!

  81. M Seward says:

    How can a writer for The Guardian be anything but a clown? That he uses DeSmogBlog as a source is to be expected. I would love to know what The Guardian thinks it is guarding.

  82. negrum says:

    Rattus Norvegicus says:
    January 4, 2014 at 9:32 pm

    Hate to point this out, but you post stuff from the GWPF all the time. Pot, kettle, black.
    —–
    A feeble attempt. Overcoming your reluctance to point it out is laudable, though.

    There are certain relevant dissimilarities in the situations which might not be apparent to you. The host of this site does not purport to be a journalist. Nor can I see where he uses one blog to discredit another in this fashion. The fact that it seems that no attempt was made to get an opposing opinion makes it worse. As far as I recall The Guardian is supposed to be impartial and to provide a fair overview of the facts under dispute. Your view of their function and ethics might differ of course :)

    Want to try again?

  83. Felix says:

    I think newspaper editors should require opinion writers to document their claims, but not have a litmus test on which opinions can be published.

  84. Felix says:

    PS:If the writer is representing an organization the editors should insist on disclosure of funding sources.

  85. galileonardo says:

    bullocky says:
    January 5, 2014 at 1:19 am
    Alex has plenty of qualities to pick up the coveted ‘CLIMATE PRAT of the YEAR’ award so dearly deserved and cherished by the current holder, Dana Nuccitelli.

    As I noted in my comment about this story in Tips and Notes yesterday, Dana Nuttichili commented on the piece, perhaps a shot across the bow to let Alex know the PRAT title will be defended. As I noted there, it is no surprise Dana sides with the totalitarians who wish to silence skeptics.

  86. Jack says:

    Australian newspapers are waking up to the scam, except Fairfax. Fairfax backed the wrong end of the argument and is desperate for sales. They even give their papers away free to boost circulation figures.
    The electorate spoke and the left side of politics was handed a once in a hundred year defeat. People look at their outrageous power bills and realize they are being taxed for no result. On their own figures, it is 0.0034C difference in temperature. But since thermometers can’t measure that accurately, then the difference is effectively zero.
    People have woken up.
    Then we have Lewandowsky being caught out making up data and having to withdraw his paper and iother warmists doing the same. CSIRO has been caught out fudging data recreations.

    The point of this abysmal attempt to deny sceptics a voice is that it takes some expert to make a prediction and then it is magnified. It is a standard tactic in scaring populations into a stampede in the direction the scaremongers want. It has failed utterly here because our Prime Minister has openly said that warmists are environmentalists that have perverted environmentalism for their own socialist purposes. He has sacked the Climate CHange Department and is stopping the carbon tax. He is doing something called Direct Action, which is about getting more organic matter into soils but he says carbon to assuage the warmists.

  87. hunter says: January 5, 2014 at 4:34 am

    The author is a union activist and “progressive” organizer. He has no scientific background and so has, under his own definition, no right to an opinion on climate.
    [...]
    He is a hypocrite- at best.

    And these may be the least of his problems. According to White:

    He is a Climate Reality Project Presenter and was personally trained by the Hon. Al Gore in 2009.

    I would, however, respectfully beg to differ with those who would award White Climate Prat of the Year. It is early days, still; and while I don’t dispute that White is deserving of nomination, in my view (as I had noted in a recent post) Chris Turney’s Ice Follies would surely make him the hands-down winner ;-)

Comments are closed.