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.
Should Australian newspapers publish material counter to CAGW pseudoscience?
Too right they should, mate!
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.
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!
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.
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!!!
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
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/
GOD bless them for they no not what they are doing
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Brute dixit, the end justifies the greens.
@ur momisugly Christopher Hanley
That excellent quote needs to be added to the Gruaniad* comments.
* So named for their attrocious spelling.
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.
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.
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
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.
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……..
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.
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
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)