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
Here is one of my comments:
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Idiots quoting idiots only proves both are idiots. Problem is, idiot recognition is by definition poor.
You had me all the way up to “Guardian”.
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.
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.
Hate to point this out, but you post stuff from the GWPF all the time. Pot, kettle, black.
Rattus, the crowd at desmog has never seen a course of climatology in their life… So get lost!
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 . . . !
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.
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
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 …
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!
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.]
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.
The Guardian comment moderators must be on leave, there is an avalanche in progress …
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
Norway Rat,
Listen to Tom Rude’s excellent advice.
Yeh right, if I am going to click on a Gruniad link.
I have standards…!
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.
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.
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.]