Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Interacademies report coming | Main | Zorita on McShane and Wyner »
Friday
Aug202010

Progress...

Some changes have been made to Bob Ward's article.

More news soon, I hope.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (34)

What happened to the earlier versions, how did the article evolve?

Does this mean that a documented history of article revisions make Bob Ward an unreliable commentator?

Aug 20, 2010 at 3:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

ZT

I'm not sure Bob has been involved in the corrections.

Aug 20, 2010 at 3:12 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Will the changes include retractions and apologies? ;D

Aug 20, 2010 at 3:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterBernie

Revisionism has been revised.

Aug 20, 2010 at 3:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

From the point of view of the reliability of the commentator, is the salient point the fact that Bob Ward's article needed revision - not who made the revisions?

Aug 20, 2010 at 3:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

The truly cynical might observe that the changes to the article have meant that all the previous below the line comments (approx 200) have been deleted. They showed pretty overwhelming support for the Bish in the 'Recommends'.

But in the interests of accuracy and fairness, these have now been expelled from cyberspace. How very convenient for the warmist cause.

I would post this remark at CiF myself, but, in the interests of accuracy and fairness, I too was expelled from cyberspace for not obeying the warmist line. 'Comment is Free' in the grauniad as long as it is the right (sorry left) sort of comment.

Aug 20, 2010 at 4:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

I see that the potentially libellous headline has been removed...

Aug 20, 2010 at 4:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterPogo

Well, the lefties are well known for revising articles/posts/statements in blogs after valid criticism has been published. It is the only way for them to get rid of any criticisms, abolish arguments, short-circuit debate and make themselves feel victorious in one fell swoop.

It's the modern way of getting rid of former comrades by deleting their photos in official publications ...

Aug 20, 2010 at 5:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterViv Evans

I don't see that many changes, but I do seem to be able to comment there now. Not sure how long that will last.

Aug 20, 2010 at 5:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

Amazing!!

A true cynic might imagine that somebody from the grauniad has been reading this blog, since all the previously removed comments have miraculously reappeared.

A true miracle.....it must have been an 'administrative oversight' earlier. I know because the fairies at the bottom of my garden told me so.

But anyway - those of us not already cast into the outer darkness can have their opportunity to annoy the 'moderators; there once more,

Aug 20, 2010 at 5:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

they asked a libel lawyer :-)

Aug 20, 2010 at 5:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterLuca Turin

I just reported abuse at The Guardian...
Ie in response to to a mod. closing down for the night.


"Why will you not let me comment.

2 posts today, followed the rules, yet disappear into moderation. I merely linked to bishop Hill's website and suggested he be allowed to respond.. He is apparently blocked at Cif, from commenting, as apprently, am I.

Aug 20, 2010 at 7:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Latimer, Barry
I’m not sure that “annoying the moderators” is making the best use of the opportunity provided by the comment threads at Guardian Environment. A few simple points:

1) Everybody writes there. Stern, Schmidt, Mann, Ward and a host of others. You can grapple with the mighty of the World of Warming and your arguments will be read by thousands. All the more reason to stick to the rules and try to influence the debate in the wider world.

2) “Recommends” on comments are running roughly 5:1 in favour of sceptical comments. This despite the fact that most of the sceptics are new names to me (presumably many of the old guard have been banned) and many of the warmists are experienced old hands. This is a fantastic advantage to our case, and must drive the editors mad with rage.

3) The moderators are just obeying orders. Despite having been banned for life on a trumped up charge, I don’t believe it’s the fault of the moderators. If you post frequently, and use words like “idiot” too often, a warmist can “report abuse” and you’re on moderation.

4) Alternatively, any mention of moderation is also a reason for banning. Jeff Id has just had two comments removed, presumably because he threatened to set his thousands of readers on CiF if his comments disappeared. The moderator probably doesn’t know or care who Jeff is. If all Jeff’s republican-voting fans invade the thread tomorrow when it reopens, with comments about lefty marxist watermelons, this will just confirm the worst prejudices of the Guardian faithful.

5) If His Grace gets a right of reply, or if there’s any kind of follow-up article, it would be nice to see a mass of reasonable intelligent comments of the kind which grace these pages. This means avoiding replying to provocative warmist trolls, and tackling the article itself.

Aug 20, 2010 at 8:29 PM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

What changed ?

Aug 20, 2010 at 8:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterFred

@geoffchambers

I fear you took my comment about 'annoying the moderators' too literally.

To explain - I used it as shorthand for presenting a non-warmist viewpoint. Hoping that this slightly flippant expression might raise a wry smile among those with a sense of humour.

But clearly failed. Tittered ye not.

Aug 20, 2010 at 8:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

I have never used the word idiot, or any disparaging remark, I have been polite, and followed the house rules to the letter.

I have merely tried to comment there. Nothing I try is allowed. Zip..

Aug 20, 2010 at 8:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

They've closed off the comment thread.

Aug 20, 2010 at 9:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

But recommendations still work.

Aug 20, 2010 at 9:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

Latimer, Barry,
sorry to take it so seriously. Having been banned for life from CiF, I’m jealous of those of you who who are still only at the premoderation stage. Gather ye rosebuds, and keep up the good work.

Aug 20, 2010 at 9:35 PM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

uummm I think I will have to take a screen shot of everything I read in the Guardian. That should fill my 5megabyte h/d just before the planet bursts into flames.

Aug 20, 2010 at 11:12 PM | Unregistered Commentermartyn

I love Ward's postscript at the bottom of the page:

This article was amended on 20th August 2010. Changes were made following a complaint from Andrew Montford.

Too bad Ward didn't have the cojones to print the truth:

This article was amended after Andrew Montford caught me putting a ridiculous spin and playing loosey-goosey with the facts.

Aug 21, 2010 at 2:23 AM | Unregistered Commenter"Dr." Karl

A continued pas-de-deux between Warmist scientist and Warmist media, as depression and desperation grow in the abodes of the guilty.

Aug 21, 2010 at 3:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

Comments closed on the Bob Ward article “for the night” about 7pm yesterday, and at 10.30am have still not reopened.
What changes were made to the article, apart from the intro?
And what about the headline, which still manages to pack three misleading nonsequiturs into nine words.
“Climate sceptics” - but the article mentions only one - your Grace
“mislead the public” - but the article treats only a difference of opinion over the a minor part of the content of your book
“over hacked emails inquiry” which is not the subject of your book, or of his differences of opinion with yourself.

Aug 21, 2010 at 10:31 AM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

Geoff

We are still discussing these issues.

Aug 21, 2010 at 12:13 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

It's still possible to view the original article here. The differences appear to be as follows:

Original: "Andrew Montford who is conducting an investigation into the UEA inquiry has a history of omitting evidence to suit his arguments"
Revised: "Previous mistakes mean Andrew Montford is not the right man to lead an inquiry into the UEA climate emails"

Para. 5:
Original: "The choice of Montford is ironic given the serious misrepresentations and inaccuracies in his book..."
Revised: "The choice of Montford is ironic given the serious inaccuracies in his book..."

Para. 12
Original: "However, Montford simply omits awkward truths like this which would get in the way of his conspiracy theory."
Revised: "However, Montford simply omits awkward truths like this."

Para 21 (final)
Original: "Given such glaring inaccuracies and misrepresentations in his book..."
Revised: "Given such glaring inaccuracies in his book..."

Aug 21, 2010 at 1:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlex Cull

Oops, sorry my embedded link went horribly wrong, for some reason. The URL is:
http://woofeed.com/Climate-sceptics-mislead-the-public-over-hacked-emails-inquiry-Bob-Ward/environment/Guardian

Aug 21, 2010 at 1:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlex Cull

I bet you all a quid that I will be banned by the Grraudian after I added another "R" to the name so that I could make the following anagram (See Bob & Me thread)

Durian Rag.

Durian, in case you don't know is an oriental fruit that has a delicious taste, but smells absolutely foul.

I don't mind if you snip this Bish

Peter Walsh

Aug 21, 2010 at 1:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterRETEPHSLAW

Those changes, though few in words, look like quite a winding back of the rhetoric. Somebody (apart from us that is!) obviously also feels that Mr Ward had gone too far. It is rather dishonest however just to change the wording, even with a note that it has been changed. There must be a formal acknowledgement of the wrong.

Aug 21, 2010 at 2:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

This ruckus is eerily similar to something I recall reading from the GWPF concerning the Royal Society, quote ''The article ends with a quote from Bob Ward, demanding that the dissident fellows should reveal themselves, presumably so that the warmist PR machine can start the process of character assassination that is their usual response to those who do not tow the party line.'

http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/1039-we-should-watch-the-royal-society-very-carefully.html

Aug 21, 2010 at 3:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

Comments are back on at the Bob Ward article

Aug 21, 2010 at 4:16 PM | Unregistered Commentergeoffchambers

It looks like Dr Richard North's threat to sue Monbiot has made the Grauniad a bit more attentive. Rather an own-goal to have to admit to amendments, though!

Aug 21, 2010 at 9:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Great progress - now the word 'conspiracy' only appears twice.

Aug 21, 2010 at 10:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterPaulM

Woo Hoo ! Im still in the lead with 198 recommends : )

Aug 22, 2010 at 11:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterMicky D

I'm happy I can comment again and they accepted Josh's badge as my avatar. Looks nice on my profile :)

Aug 23, 2010 at 11:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>