NOAA Jumps The Climate Shark

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

The Guardian, that endless source of climate activism, expoundeth as follows:

15,000 sq km of coral reef could be lost in current mass bleaching, say scientists

Noaa predicts third-ever global bleaching event could cause a 6% global reduction in coral reefs in less than two years.

A massive coral bleaching event currently ravaging coral reefs across the globe could destroy thousands of square kilometres of coral cover forever, US government scientists have said.

bleached coral

In figures exclusively released to the Guardian, scientists from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) said about 12% of the world’s reefs have suffered bleaching in the last year. Just under half of these, an area of 12,000 sq km of coral, may be lost forever.

Say what? NOAA is releasing secret results exclusively to the Guardian? What’s wrong with this picture?

So I have emailed the NOAA folks as follows:

Dear NOAA Folk, and Dr. Mark Eakin:

In the British magazine The Guardian, I noticed the following:

15,000 sq km of coral reef could be lost in current mass bleaching, say scientists

Noaa predicts third-ever global bleaching event could cause a 6% global reduction in coral reefs in less than two years.

A massive coral bleaching event currently ravaging coral reefs across the globe could destroy thousands of square kilometres of coral cover forever, US government scientists have said.

In figures exclusively released to the Guardian, scientists from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) said about 12% of the world’s reefs have suffered bleaching in the last year. Just under half of these, an area of 12,000 sq km of coral, may be lost forever.

Is the Guardian is telling the truth? Is NOAA secretly giving exclusive results to a foreign newspaper before releasing them to the taxpayers who paid for them? The “Coral Reef Watch” section of NOAA is credited with being the ones responsible for this underhanded action. Is this true?

And if so … what on earth are you people thinking of? That would be a blatant misuse of your authority, knowledge and power.

In any case, I call on you to immediately release whatever secret exclusive results the Guardian is referring to. They are using it to alarm the populace WITHOUT ALLOWING US TO INSPECT THE DATA, and you are complicit in their action.

I request that you send me by immediate email a copy of the exact results the article is referring to, and I call on you to publicly declare an end to such underhanded secret release of data. The Guardian is noted for its fire-brand alarmist climate rhetoric. And that’s fine for them, but you, on the other hand, are alleged to be scientists.

So I ask you to act as scientists, to permanently eschew such “exclusively released” figures, and to state publicly that in future your results will be available to all, rather than secretly given to your favored journalists.

My regards to you,

w.

PS—Please be aware that I have raised the issue publicly [with link to this post].

Should be interesting to see how this one plays out. I’ll report back when there are developments.

My best to all,

w.

As Always: If you disagree with something that I’ve written, please quote the exact words you disagree with so we can all understand exactly what you are objecting to.

Advertisements

118 thoughts on “NOAA Jumps The Climate Shark

      • The Guardian
        Wrong on everything. All the time.
        It may surprise you to know that it was once considered a great newspaper.
        It will not surprise you to know that its circulation is a mere 175,000 (one tenth that of The Sun) having fallen by 9.5% over the past year.

      • It is sad that this rag calls itself a “News”paper and that it is English owned. Used to be respected when named “The Manchester Guardian”. Started going downhill when it called itself the Grauniad.

      • That barbecue diatribe is total unmitigated B/S. Caucasoids have been having summer cooking festivities since at least the time of the Windmill Hill culture in southern England. To this day we still have cookouts and show the same rise in conception rates as the people get together and mingle. The US shows a spike in conception rates in June-July with it’s largest spike in November. The Åland Islands, being quit Nordic and really keen on celebrating Midsomer, has it’s peak in June. One other item we share with Windmill Hill culture is the propensity of hanging trophy heads in our places of residence.

  1. Wow they’ve really streamlined the alarmist propaganda pipeline, they now bypass all other media outlets and go straight to the Communist Chairman of lefty lie rags ‘the Guardian’.

  2. Is the Guardian telling the truth?
    The Guardian wouldn’t recognise ‘the truth’ if if came up and bit them on the arse!
    It’s hilarious…they STILL can’t bring themselves to admit that they were wrong about the Euro!

  3. But But But………..You’ll just want to find something wrong with our data. Good try Willis, hopefully there will be a reply

  4. I am soooooo worried that an Asteroid COULD impact the earth in two years. Our only chance to save the earth is to instill almighty fear into the public psyche to beg the governments to save us, thus enabling world governments to enact totalitarian polices – for our children’s future.

  5. As CAGW appears to be more religious than scientific, perhaps there has been a typo and they meant ‘Noah’ rather than ‘Noaa’ with their use of lower-case for the abbreviation rather than the usual upper-case ‘NOAA’.

  6. Members of the Executive Branch of our federal government no longer consider themselves “servants of the people”. Better guard that lip, Willis. Antagonizing your masters is rift with onerous consequences. With AGW having been declared “a national security issue”, lose lips could sink ships (of State).

  7. The highest court in my State has ruled that (to put it politely) misrepresentation is acceptable exercise of free speech in politics. I am thinking that it is equally possible that the Guardian just made the NOAA release up. These people are ideologues, they know that the truth in politics is what the people believe and has no necessary linkage to reality. That game plan is why these people are so creative and effective..

    • That’s the first thing I thought as well, the very moment I saw “In figures exclusively released to the Guardian..” my BS-O’meter registered a 9.0. They need to be held to account on their statement.

      • Ummmmm…how?
        We’ve lost most means to hold anyone accountable for anything these days. Politicians, federal employees, media outlets…

  8. Just in time for the Climate Summit of the Americas starting today and going on through Friday in Toronto, Ont. Canada (oh the shame). Rehearsal Dinner for COP 15.
    http://10times.com/climate-summit-americas
    Of course “deny, deny, deny” comes to mind along with the “blind leading the blind”. Another nice freebee for bureaucrats and a chance for industry to follow the money – money sniffing blood hounds will abound. Politicians are falling all over themselves to be seen as “Green” leaders. Course a lot of other people see them as “Green” leaders too – the folding kind you put in your pocket or under your mattress.
    Nice catch Willis. With many countries like Canada in recession, the gravy train is ramping up.
    The rhetoric is already deafening in our national media – all versions of it. Sock puppets everywhere.
    Well, I gotta go get ready for my colonoscopy so I wish the folks at the Climate Summit of the Americas all the downstream effects of what I am about to accomplish ….

    • Wayne: I think that Paris is considered to be COP21 (not 15) – which, as I have previously said stands for ‘Continuation Of Pause [in the] 21st Century’
      (with apologies to those bored with this ‘joke’)

    • Of course they are holding this summit at one of the most expensive hotels in Toronto.

  9. NOAA seems to be going down the same road as a certain hero of the Battle of Saratoga who decided to betray his country by giving the British an exclusive on some sensitive information. He was the original Benedict Arnold. Perhaps NOAA envies his infamy. /sarc

    • I was just reading about him in the best-seller, America’s Hidden History. On page 177, Washington’s biographer JT Flexner wrote of him, “A genius at leading men and at fighting, Benedict Arnold was, in fact, the greatest combat general in the war on either side.”

      • And betrayed by the Congress critters, on all sides, especially the Adams wing. Long before his own betrayal.

  10. The Guardian claims it got exclusive data from NOAA, but given its history of miniscule acquaintance with the truth, how do you know IT isn’t making this up too? I hope you sent a similar letter to the Guardian asking for clarification.

    • Thanks, Gary. I did not write to the Guardian. I figure once NOAA answers, I’ll be in a much clearer position. If they deny giving any exclusive data to the Guardian, then I can write to the Guardian and have NOAA’s denial in my pocket.
      The game is afoot …
      w.

      • How can that work?
        NOAA have to ask every single one of their employees if they were the source of the exclusive information.
        But some will be on holiday, some will be busy on other things and some won’t recall who they were talking to about El Ninos.
        So they may well say “We didn’t give an official press release but cannot disclose all our communications”. Indeed, it’s hard to see what else they could say.
        And without asking the Guardian to name their source… that’s the end of that

      • @ M Courtney: All NOAA has to do is search its email database for the past month for emails sent to the Guardian in the past week, and/or for certain keywords.

      • Might want to consider immediately filing a FOI request to back up your email request, seeing’s how there’s historically been a complete lack of willingness to release any data.

    • Thanks, Felix Martinez. The CRW website does not even try to explain how corals, that like living in tropical waters, would die from an El Niño, nor how they have survived El Niños from the beginning.

    • From the structured abstract
      “Warming and acidification of surface ocean waters will increase proportionately with cumulative CO2 emissions (see figure).”
      Oh ya? That’s the assumption most alarmist make. I’m not sure what evidence these people have been privy to but if I’m not mistaken, that’s the crux of the debate.
      Seems sensitivity is much lower that the modellers have assumed.

  11. Just read the article in the Guardian. The claim the data comes from a Nature paper from folks at James Cook U. The abstract for that article states that 12 of 21 reefs severely bleached recovered. The factors? Being in deeper, cleaner waters with a pristine fish fauna. Well, duh! Systems in “healthy” states can and do rebound from what really are natural perturbations. Overfish them and dump all kinds of crap on them and they will not. Unfortunately, the obsession with the CO2 boogeyman has stolen valuable resources that would have been better spent addressing the real impacts on coral reefs!

    • Felix Martinez July 7, 2015 at 9:14 pm

      Just read the article in the Guardian. The claim the data comes from a Nature paper from folks at James Cook U.

      Thanks, Felix, but nope. They claim they have “exclusive” data from NOAA, and Nature is not exclusive, so they must be talking about something else.

      The abstract for that article states that 12 of 21 reefs severely bleached recovered. The factors? Being in deeper, cleaner waters with a pristine fish fauna. Well, duh! Systems in “healthy” states can and do rebound from what really are natural perturbations. Overfish them and dump all kinds of crap on them and they will not. Unfortunately, the obsession with the CO2 boogeyman has stolen valuable resources that would have been better spent addressing the real impacts on coral reefs!

      Indeed, and well said. Healthy reefs are what are needed. The problem is not bleaching, that’s been going on since forever. The problem is located elsewhere, in things like coral mining, effluent pollution, overfishing, dynamiting, killing of parrotfish … the number of ways to damage a reef is large.
      All the best,
      w.

      • Noaa predicts third-ever global bleaching event
        =========================
        “third-ever” implies that there have been only 3 global bleaching events since the beginning of time. “Noaa predicts” implies that it hasn’t happened, rather it may happen in the future.
        Predicting harm from bleaching is like saying bird are going extinct in the Northern Hemisphere in September, because they migrate south for the winter.
        Coral reef bleaching events are a completely normal, especially in staghorn coral as pictured above. The Red Sea has some of the warmest waters on earth, and some of the most fantastic corals. If warm water was harmful to corals, why do most of the hard corals on earth life only in the tropics?
        Clearly corals prefer warm water, as there are very few coral reefs outside the tropics.

      • Another danger is from sunscreen:

        “Four common sunscreen components can activate dormant viruses in coral’s symbiotic algae, known as zooxanthellae, that live within the reef’s tissues. The UV filters implicated are butylparaben, ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate, benzophenone-3 and 4-methylbenzylidene camphor. These ingredients, commonly found in many chemical sunscreens, are touted to cause complete coral bleaching at very low concentrations.
        These sunblock chemicals stimulate viral replication until coral’s zooxanthallae explore, releasing viruses into the surrounding seawater, where they can infect neighboring coral reef systems. Claims have been made that about 4,000 to 6,000 metric tons of sunblock from swimmers wash-off into the world’s oceans annually, and that up to 10% of coral reefs are threatened by sunscreen-induced bleaching.”

      • Even WWF puts CO2 and “acidification” at the bottom of their list of threats to coral reefs. Pretty much proof activists know they are pushing a line of bs.

  12. The Best of British Luck sir! (And I look forward to the response, but I may be looking forward for quite a while…)

  13. Yes, the ‘exclusive data release’ to the Guardian leapt off the page at me as well. I doubt NOAA would be as inept as that. I suspect the Guardian is just ‘making stuff up’ as usual and you can call them out on that until the cows come home but nobody on the alarmist side, or even governments, will give a toss

    • Perhaps … we’ll see how it plays out.
      As to whether anyone will give a toss, I give a toss, and I’m unwilling to sit quiet and let the foes of transparency win out without at least registering my strong objections. Call me quixotic, but there it is …
      Regards,
      w.

  14. Thank you, Willis!
    Any data generated by NOAA is for the sole benefit of the taxpayers that paid for it, providing such data disclosure doesn’t jeopardizes national security, which I can’t possibly see being an issue with such innocuous coral reef data…
    Having many friends that have worked, or still do work for the government, I’ve heard it’s quite common practice for government agencies to codify documents as “classified” as a means of CYA, when such codification is very difficult to justify. Depending on the code given to a document, the data is stored on designated servers which require individuals to have a certain security clearance level before they can gain access to the information.
    Such security protocols make perfect sense if they are used judiciously, but if they’re used capriciously for CYA or to hide potentially embarrassing unclassified information, then obviously it’s blatant fraud, and is an actionable offense.
    NOAA classifying coral reef data as “Secret” certainly seems to be an example of fraud, as it is in violation of FOIA regulations, which is an illegal and actionable offense.
    It will be very interesting to see how NOAA responds to Willis’ e-mail.
    You da man, Willis!
    P.S. I just hope Willis doesn’t mysteriously get a letter from the IRS saying they’re going to conduct an audit on him…. The US government hates irritating protruding nails and have ways to pound them down…

  15. As coral reef bleaching is a response to changes in temperature and other factors and is usually temporary as the corals adjust their symbiotic zooanthellae, I wonder where they get the completely unfounded idea it would be permanent. Or are they planning a huge chemical spill somewhere. More sheer fabrication from nothing.
    As increasing CO2 has been enriching the world’s corals, with them growing faster over the last 50 years, and warming water makes a larger portion of the oceans amenable to corals, there is no downside to the global warming they are predicting.
    It’s ocean cooling that is the major danger to coral reefs, as calcium carbonate is more soluble in cold water than warm. Cold water and, for humans, cold air are killers.
    During the great majority of the last 600 million years, both CO2 and global temperature was much higher than they are now. And the Cliffs of Dover were NOT laid down during low CO2 periods. Corals clearly thrived back then, when it was warmer and CO2 much higher.

  16. NOAA issued a press release about this July 6. When the Guardian says it has exclusive information it means that, rather than simply following its usual practice of regurgitating climate communist handouts it has telephoned the NOAA press office for a quote. This is then labeled ‘exclusive’.
    Maps at NIAA’s coral-reef watch page show that the El Niño of the past couple of years is the culprit.

    • Lord Monckton,
      But do you mean the 2014-2015 El Nino that NOAA/NCDC “Karl-ized” out of the history books?
      It didn’t happen. Down the memory hole.

    • Monckton of Brenchley July 7, 2015 at 10:04 pm

      NOAA issued a press release about this July 6. When the Guardian says it has exclusive information it means that, rather than simply following its usual practice of regurgitating climate communist handouts it has telephoned the NOAA press office for a quote. This is then labeled ‘exclusive’.

      As usual, Lord M., your insights are likely correct. If so, I want to highlight the practice.
      Thanks,
      w.

      • Thank you Lord Monckton. I’d still say that by describing a telephone response from the press office of NOAA as “… figures exclusively released to the Guardian”, “figures” given they imply by “… scientists from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) …”, the “Grauniad” is guilty of misrepresentation. I hope Willis keeps the heat on them.

  17. Even though I agree that releasing information exclusively to one news outlet before “going global” (no pun intended) is not very appropriate behaviour from a research institute, I assume NOAA has intellectual property rights on the information they produce and therefore have the liberty to do this and the liberty to ignore anyone demanding they share their results. So I do not expect them to meet your demands and don’t think there is any grounds for them to do so. Scientific research can be very competitive, which is why I would expect it is up to NOAA when they share and with whom. Demanding a research institute to make their results “available to all” could very much damage their competitive position.

    • Aran July 7, 2015 at 10:36 pm

      Even though I agree that releasing information exclusively to one news outlet before “going global” (no pun intended) is not very appropriate behaviour from a research institute, I assume NOAA has intellectual property rights on the information they produce and therefore have the liberty to do this and the liberty to ignore anyone demanding they share their results. So I do not expect them to meet your demands and don’t think there is any grounds for them to do so. Scientific research can be very competitive, which is why I would expect it is up to NOAA when they share and with whom. Demanding a research institute to make their results “available to all” could very much damage their competitive position.

      Thanks, Aran. First, NOAA is not a “research institute”. It is a branch of the US Government. So all your claims about what a “research institute” might or might not do are not relevant.
      Next, I haven’t a clue what you mean by their “competitive position”. You seem to think they are a private organization or an NGO. Who is NOAA in competition with, the British Met Office?
      Finally, no, they are not free to do whatever they wish with their findings. Like all government agencies, they are covered by a complex web of rules and regulations.
      So … if indeed they exclusively passed such information to a foreign newspaper, is it illegal for them to do what they did? Heck, I don’t know, and if you asked three lawyers you might get four answers.
      On the other hand, is it ethical for them to feed their results exclusively to their pet alarmists?
      Absolutely not.
      w.

      • Willis
        The Guardian was signed up to the climate science rapid response team
        http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2010/11/10/climate-scientists-form-rapid-response-media-team-to-counter-denialist-claims/
        Amongst the luminaries are John Abraham and Scott Mandia.
        Assuming this group and the Guardian still have a relationship they might be the place to go to get a rapid response to your question. Scott used to post here on a regular basis of course.
        Tonyb

      • Willis: great answer. Ultimately the US taxapayer owns (or should own) the information, and the NOAA should be accountable to the US taxpayers for its use of it. If it does sloppy work; if it fails to keep good records; if it fails to share those records properly; if it shares them first/only with certain parties, espcecially foreign for-profit parties.
        These are serious questions. I will be interested in NOAA’s answers, but I won’t; be holding my breath.

      • Tony,
        “Amongst the luminaries are John Abraham and Scott Mandia.”
        In other words a dim bulb and a cape wearing clown.

      • I am not familiar with the exact way science is organised in the USA, so I can not comment on that. But yes, in general research agencies or institutes or whatever you want to call them (I basically mean anybody producing scientific output) are in competition with each other. For funding, prestige (which may lead to funding), intelligent people (who may again lead to funding) etc. The place I work for at the moment gets part of their funds from government and the rest from cooperation with commercial partners. The latter often obviously don’t want to give all their internal information to their competitors, so non-disclosure agreements and the such are quite common. My previous employer, on a different continent, was exactly the same. By demanding scientific research organisations to give away their findings to anybody who asks for is, is basically weakening them enormously.

      • @Aran
        You seem to be stuck on this “research institute” idea. NOAA is not like Pfizer or Merck or any other private entity conducting research on drugs or whatever, and it is NOAA that’s the topic of this post. NOAA’s work product is the property of those who paid for it, ie, the people of the United States. There are no intellectual property rights conferred on NOAA separately from the people of the United States that can exclude public access to their work product. Likewise, they are not free to divulge their work to some and not to others, publication in the usual scientific journals not withstanding.

      • I am talking about any entity producing scientific research. Not just private institutes. The most stringent intellectual Property regulations I have seen so far were actually within a government-funded organisation. Again, I don’t know the American situation, but I would be very very very surprised if NOAA’s output really would be considered property of all American people. That would be an extremely socialist policy. Not even Cuba would go that far

    • Is NOAA supposed to have a ‘competitive position’ and, if so, with whom?
      Aren’t they a government funded institution whose remit is to undertake research for the benefit of the populace that fund them?

  18. One minor nit-pick. The Guardian is a daily newspaper (Mon-Sat), not a magazine. Its Sunday publication is called The Observer which, like many of the UK’s Sunday newspapers, has at least one glossy magazine supplement.

  19. Excellent, Willis. Though I would say that the term ‘exclusive’ is being used whenever a publication feels like it. I often see it on car websites as ‘Exclusive pictures of new Ford’…then see the same pictures on a rival website, at the same time. It joins ‘pause’ and ‘acidification’, as not necessarily what their dictionary definition is.

    • Add “climate” to your list. Only the high priests of Global Warming know what they mean by “climate” and “climate change.”

      • CAGW does know what they mean. Anywhere it is warm or hot is a result of climate change made by man. If it is colder anywhere that is to be expected and is only weather. Great Lakes freezing over or 3.5 meters of snow that’s weather, drought and heat in California is climate change.

  20. “Follow the money.”
    This means, find the “Who” at the Guardian who payed Pounds Sterling (at a nice exchange rate into even more Dollars) to the “Who” at NOAA, Washington, D.C. who pocketed the Pounds Sterling in to a local bank account in D.C. or Montgomery County or Prince George County, Maryland or Fairfax County, Virginia.
    That means Bank of America, Chase, or Wells Fargo! Who of these has the quickest and easiest international money exchange?
    Cha Ching!
    Ha ha

  21. That will be the Guardian which lives off the earnings from “auto-trader” and so doesn’t care a damn about its readers (if there are any left?)
    A bunch of hypocrites living off the income it got from fossil fuels whilst telling everyone else to divest from them.

      • The only reason the Guardian can keep printing all the rubbish it does is that it doesn’t need any readers because it is living off money gained from fossil fuels.

      • Lots of advertising for Big Oil still, and occasionally sponsorships from them as well for various crusades. But they are The Guardian, so that’s OK.

      • And more from the Bish
        http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/3/31/the-guardian-backs-big-oil.html
        “Barry Woods points us to the transcript of a most amusing Guardian podcast on the subject of that organ’s latest bit of posturing. It seems that the divestment campaign has yet to actually have any impact on the Guardian’s own investments:
        Amanda Michel: You know, there are big questions about asking people to do something that we ourselves have not done.
        Aleks Krotoski: What Amanda is talking about is sorting out the Guardian’s own pots of money, their investments.
        Amanda Michel: It will seem like hypocrisy.
        Alan Rusbridger: We have about £600 million invested at the moment, and I don’t think our fund managers could say exactly how much was invested in fossil fuel. But it is there, we haven’t said that it shouldn’t be, so we have got money invested. And so, if we’re going to be calling on people to divest, people are bound to ask “Well, is that what the Guardian’s going to do?”
        I have to say I agree with Ms Michel: it will indeed seem like hypocrisy for the Guardian to keep backing big oil in this way.”

      • Why doesn’t someone point out to the Guardian that they could truly help the environment by not wasting paper to print rubbish than will be used primarily as kindling to start a fireplace which will further add to their dreaded output of CO2?
        Oh I forgot……CO2 is not a pollutant and the Guardian knows it’s increase might help the planet.
        Could this have been their diabolical plan all along?

  22. Here’s the NOAA reef watch website
    http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/index.php
    The alert areas are mostly in the tropical Pacific waters impacted by El Niño.
    Here’s the latest update by Bob Tisdale: https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/07/06/quicky-early-july-2015-enso-update-nino3-not-nino3-4-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-reached-2-0-deg-c-last-week/
    I think the best way to understand the threat is to go back and see what happened to the corals in 1998.

    • Re: NOAA’s Reef Watch site
      It is interesting that government agency NOAA has a widget on its reef site that links to CO2Now.org. http://co2now.org/This-Site/
      Yet doesn’t NOAA run the Mauna Loa CO2 observation system? Why would they link to an independent non-profit for the data they generate in-house?
      And how do I get similar free advertising on government websites?

      • And how do I get similar free advertising on government websites?

        Just keep provide Oboma’s government the answers they want, the answers they need to support their agenda.

  23. The Guardian’s censorship is arbitrary, capricious and sinister
    Censorship definition: Suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a GOVERNMENT, MEDIA OUTLET, or other CONTROLLING BODY.
    Media censorship is the act of altering, adjusting, editing, or banning of any or all media resulting from the presumption that its content is perceived to be objectionable, incendiary, illegal, or immoral by the applicable legislative authority or Government. The ideology, methodology, and measures or determination regarding media subject to media censorship exists in conjunction to the vast expanse of the varieties of media in existence; this can include – but is not limited to books, publications, expressions, products, services, radio broadcasts, televised broadcast, Internet-based broadcasts, films, movies, pictures, images, videos, and speech.
    “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”– Noam Chomsky
    “Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them.”– Mark Twain
    “Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.” – Potter Stewart, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court
    Despite what some might see as its good intentions, the Guardian’s version of censorship has proved to be the wrong way to fight hatred. I am an advocate of freedom of expression. The majority of censorship is unnecessary and counter-productive to society even though certain material within certain contexts is inappropriate and harmful, and that some level of censorship is justified.
    Censorship in the name of political correctness is self-defeating. It drives away potential supporters, and substitutes linguistic change for social change. It replaces the desire to reform society with the desire to reform manners, and fails to understand that practiced hypocrites and seasoned manipulators can meet the demand to observe correct form with ease. Indeed, they will welcome political correctness because it gives them new opportunities to intimidate and control.
    The Guardian is where Victorian prudery meets PC piety and they unite to make common cause against all who say what should not be said. Half a generation of leftists have wasted their lives and everyone else’s time in petty and priggish disputes about language. They do it because it is easy, and struggles for real change are hard. They do it because correct form identifies social class and confirms your membership of a privileged group, as surely for the middle-class left as the upper-class right. They do not understand that the only way to judge a language is by its use. They do it because tackling social problems is difficult, while playing language games is what middle-class intellectuals are trained to do.
    The trouble is the Guardian is not a quality paper any more. I wonder if there are any quality papers left in Britain. The Financial Times, perhaps? The fanatical censors of the Guardian are busy deleting any comment that does not conform to their narrowing version of how things ought to be, whilst being prey to their delusions of political correctness gone mad. When it all goes predictably wrong, the Guardian walks away and wonders why conservatives are making such a fuss. Being of the Left has become a metaphor for “unthinking..glib…hostile…resentful…” – exactly the things they accuse others of being.
    Whenever a public forum for dialogue is established, rules arise, and the Guardian is no exception. The Guardian website maintains a list of its standards. The Guardian has no obligation to publish anything it does not want to, and there is no guarantees that they will respect freedom of expression. As a non-governmental entity, the Guardian can permit or prohibit whatever content it likes, just as any club can set its own rules for speakers and every newspaper can decide which articles it sees fit to print. If the Guardian wanted to, they could silence everybody that disagreed with them – which is exactly the way they are going.
    My experience of the Guardian’s regime has found their process to be neither rational nor transparent. The Guardian’s censors operate under a cloak of anonymity, with no accountability to its users. When the Supreme Court issues rulings, the justices present detailed, carefully reasoned (and often quite lengthy) written justifications for their decisions. So whether you agree or disagree with what the Court decides, you at least know the basis of their judgments. Not so with the Guardian. As powerful as the Supreme Court justices may be, they are no longer the most consequential arbiters of acceptable speech. While the justices’ decisions the whole country and establish legal precedents for decades to come, it is a rare individual who manages to publish something that rubs up against the diminished realities of the Guardian. Their judgments come swiftly—and, as far as anyone can tell, capriciously.
    When I made a comment in the Guardian about Prince Charles, it was that he said he supported science while advocating homeopathy, and that he wants everybody else to use less energy while running numerous luxury estates and giant residences himself. The Guardian deleted the post. When I made a comment about feminists who are constantly objecting to the fictional depiction of violence against women while saying nothing about violence against men, the Guardian deleted the post. When I provided the correct definition of the Guardian’s oft-used word “mysogeny” and said that every time that word was misused it diminished its power, the Guardian deleted the post. When I pointed out to the so-called “feminists” some relevant facts and hard truths, the Guardian deleted my post. When I complained about the Guardian deleting my posts – guess what? they deleted that post too. Numerous other deletions followed whenever I took a different line to the Guardian’s rigid orthodoxy, and none of them remotely offensive.
    No explanation accompanied the Guardian’s decision to delete my posts was ever forthcoming, other than their bland copy-and-paste statement which would appear (in place of my posts) that “This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.” The two pages in question: http://www.theguardian.com/community-standards and http://www.theguardian.com/community-faqs are nothing but the two tiny fig leaves they use to cover the censorship of all comments, information and ideas that do not conform to the Guardian’s intolerant agenda. There was nothing in my posts that could have been construed as not abiding by “our community standards…,” unless they are very peculiar standards indeed.
    And who, in any case, are these “moderators” (a fancy word for censors) anyway? They are safely hidden behind their keyboards in blissful anonymity, the very epitome of the secretive State censors the Guardian spends so much time decrying. And who are they to decide what abides by “community standards…” and what does not? It is for the community itself to say what is acceptable and not some fascistic, anonymous, God-like entity sitting in arbitrary judgement with a Delete button.
    In sum, as part of a public forum that embraces a sizable chunk of news and information available online, the Guardian owes its users genuine freedom and accountability.

    • The Guardian won’t let me write comments, and I can’t figure out why. I’m very mild mannered and never use dirty words. Maybe it was because I like to criticize the Venezuelan regime.

  24. “could destroy thousands of square kilometres of coral cover forever” … here’s some news for the Guardian … it’ll grow back! … just like it did during the Holocene Maximum … I’d be more concerned about the upcoming termination of the Holocene, and what that means for all coral reefs when sea level falls a hundred metres or more …

    • I think coral is fairly resilient. The Great Barrier Reef recovered from being 400 meters up the side of a mountain for about 150,000 years. When the water came back so did the reef. That is pretty tough in my book.

    • The death and injuries are a sad thing.
      However, all the hikers knew of the danger (unless small children were under the ice). I’ve visited the front of Emmons Glacier at Mt. Rainier [120 miles south of Big Four Ice Caves] . In warm weather such places look dangerous.
      Here is a local link to this story:
      Big Four Ice Caves collapse

  25. The guardian writes

    A massive coral bleaching event currently ravaging coral reefs across the globe could destroy thousands of square kilometres of coral cover forever, US government scientists have said.

    I dont know how many times I’ve heard people say that AGW must be real not because any one piece of data/analysis is irrefutable but because there is so much of it.
    One piece at a time, Willis. WUWT has been addressing that one piece at a time and finally people are calling BS on that argument.

  26. I wouldn’t expect to get a straight answer from Mark Eakin, who says “it’s almost certainly being driven largely by global warming”. Climate Liars are allergic to the truth. The modus operandi are always the same; first, gin up the “threat” to something, and since he is the coordinator for Noaa’s Coral Reef Watch, of course corals are “threatened”. Job security and all that. Second, the go-to cause is always “climate change” due to manmade “carbon pollution”.

  27. Anything written that refers to “acidification” of basic sea water is not science to begin with. Sea water cannot be turned from basic to acidic without first becoming neutral.

  28. The story is so “exclusive” that all you have to do is type “NOAA coral bleaching” into Google and follow the link.

  29. So, we should know if this prediction is correct in “less than two years”? No doubt another failed prediction just like the millions of climate refugees.
    /snark

  30. “destroy thousands of square kilometres of coral cover forever”
    They must be using the “13 year old female” definition of “forever”.

  31. They were wrong, are wrong and have acknowledged it.
    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20131029_coral.html
    …….” corals have already adapted to part of the warming that has occurred.”
    “Earlier modeling work suggested that coral reefs would be gone by the middle of this century.”
    “coral reefs may be more resilient than previously thought due to past studies that did not consider effects of possible adaptation.”
    …” past temperature increases should have bleached reefs more often than has actually occurred, researchers looked into ways that corals may be able to adapt to warming and delay the bleaching process.”
    But they’re not about to abandon their CO2 religion. Conveniently, they remain mendaciously certain CO2 reduction is imperative to coral reef salvation.
    “The hope this work brings is only achieved if there is significant reduction of human-related emissions of heat-trapping gases,” said Mark Eakin, Ph.D., who serves as director of the NOAA Coral Reef Watch monitoring program, which tracks bleaching events worldwide. “Adaptation provides no significant slowing in the loss of coral reefs if we continue to increase our rate of fossil fuel use.”
    and
    “The article calls for further research…”

  32. Felix Martinez: “Just read the article in the Guardian. The claim the data comes from a Nature paper from folks at James Cook U. The abstract for that article states that 12 of 21 reefs severely bleached recovered. The factors? Being in deeper, cleaner waters with a pristine fish fauna. Well, duh! Systems in “healthy” states can and do rebound from what really are natural perturbations. Overfish them and dump all kinds of crap on them and they will not. Unfortunately, the obsession with the CO2 boogeyman has stolen valuable resources that would have been better spent addressing the real impacts on coral reefs!”
    Sounds right to me. And isn’t it convenient, if you are in cahoots with those wanting to, say, dredge a channel through a reef to let a cruise ship into your harbor, and then dump the spoil where it may suffocate other reefs, that you could point to Squirrel! Over There! With the CO2 bogeyman?
    And maybe even score some UN reparations for carbon crimes?
    Win-win.

  33. Why is it that watermelons think it is healthier for plants and animals to never be trimmed of their numbers? What science backs that up? I have walked into a fuel laden dying old growth forest that was never allowed the freedom of a forest fire. Not a pretty sight.
    We know little of how long term oscillations between warm periods and mini ice ages are actually beneficial. To force flora and fauna into a wax museum such that coral would never bleach again raises red flags to me that it would be far worse than the oft repeated episodes of mass extinctions, let alone the occasional catastrophic forest fire or even the occasional diminution of the three toed horned tailed yellow throated salamander.

  34. Don’t hold your breath waiting for a reply. After all,,you area mere taxpayer.

  35. AFAIK, bleaching of coral is an intermediate stage in a changeover of algal tenants. NBD.

  36. Hi Willis,
    Although not relevant to your main point, you missed the best part of the entire article:

    A huge patch of climate change-generated hot water, known as ‘the blob’, has been wobbling across the northern Pacific since this time last year.

    This is what makes me think it’s made up, with its ironic reference to The Blob (nickname for the amorphous bunch of special-interest groups, Big Green and supranational organisations). There was me thinking deep warm water was ‘generated’ by the Sun. Seems I got the wrong newspaper…

  37. Pamela Gray:

    the three toed horned tailed yellow throated salamander.

    Sorry Pamela, couldn’t help but think of this.

Comments are closed.