Saturday
Jan042014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Guardian: is totalitarianism the way forward?
Guardian Eco is, yet again, trying to set out its stall as the new home for totalitarianism in the international media, in an article questioning whether things would be a whole lot better if we didn't have freedom of the press any longer:
Should Australian newspapers, like Fairfax, publish opinion pieces that deny or seek to cast doubt on man-made global warming?
As the Guardian Media Group's financial black hole grows, its journalists will steadily be replaced by NGO activists. We should therefore expect more of this kind of thing in future.
Reader Comments (143)
To post illogical or obnoxious comments, in the hope of disrupting the thread and/or getting banned, is the very definition of a troll. These people really need to grow up.
I’ve just been watching a progamme on Al Jazeera about the Edward Snowden affair, which showed Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger before a parliamentary committee, having his patriotism questioned by the despicable Keith Vaz.
I’m sure all libertarians here will agree that we need a newspaper like the Guardian to defend us against the all-seeing state. Here’s hoping they sack their creepy Orwellian environment team and continue their two century-long campaign in defence of human rights.
(Oh, and Katabasis is right about their censorship)
I expect they'll close that thread soon- too many recommends for the 'wrong' comments.
Geoff:
What perturbs me is that the Guardian seems to be giving their readers what they want (no different really from other news outlets). No longer being a UK resident I subscribe to the Guardian Weekly which is useful for keeping up with world affairs. However the articles dealing with CAGW are atrocious; mostly anecdotal information leavened with dollops of hype. Despite the likely intelligence of the readership, the GW letters page reflects similar views. Having read the White article perhaps the GW simply refuses to print letters from "climate denialists".
HaroldW,
Dr Glassman has some interesting points on CO2 estimates and Henry's Law here:
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html#more
http://www.smh.com.au/business/gina-rinehart-continues-fairfax-media-crusade-20131107-2x2mk.html
"GINA RINEHART OWNS 19% OF FAIRFAX"
-Why that comment matters.
Gina Rinehart, Australia's richest person, could buy Fairfax 'out of petty cash' tomorrow, but for the moment is content with just under 20% and a representative on the board.
White, and the other warmists at Fairfax, know full well that the 'sword of damocles' thus hangs over them.
Gina can do without the complication of owning 100% of this loss-making group, but her holding and the presence of her representative on the board will prove a sobering influence when they are reporting the story of the "Ship of Fools".
The fact that a 'balanced' article appeared in a Fairfax paper is therefore more likely to be on Mrs Rinehart's insistence.
APOLOGIES
Alexander White does not work for Fairfax but for equally 'green' Guardian which is trying to establish itself in Australia.
Had this piece been in a Fairfax paper this veiled attack on Mrs Rinehart would probably not have seen the light of day.
potentilla
Agreed the articles in the Guardian (and therefore in Gurdian Weekly) on climate change are atrocious. This leads many here to wish a speedy demise for the Guardian (and the BBC). They’re wrong. We need a varied press.
Thirty years ago, I moved to France and was illegally refused a residence permit, against all the rules of the Treaty of Rome. An article I read by chance in the Guardian Weekly by junior reporter Alan Rusbridger explained why. MI5 was keeping a list of people who voted for fringe parties (Trotkyists, the National Front, etc.) and yes, I’d once voted for one of the naughty naughty parties which MI5 didn’t like. I was on a list.
Rusbridger is now the editor of a paper which
a) takes great risks in publishing Snowden’s revelations about the infringement of basic human rights
b) imposes a Pravda-like censorship of contrarian views on climate change.
I despise the paper for the latter. I admire it for the former. I defend the right of the Guardian to exist, and I expect libertarians here to do the same.
No one is saying the Guardian doesn't have a right to exist. We need publications like the Guardian to remind us how out if touch the left is with the real world.
We also need money loosing publications like the Guardian to hemorrhage dry it's leftist subversive pinko tree huggin alternative lifestyle commie traitorous b@stard owners of all their money! There, I said it! :)
Regards
Mailman
One of the things the Guardian article is trying very hard to imply is that the Fairfax paper printed the story because of pressure from Rinehart.
This could lead one to speculate:
When the left loudly accuse their enemies of some dubious practice, it usually means they have been doing it themselves.
The Guardian is apparently short of money
The warmist Cause is backed by vast amounts of money.
It is common knowledge that the BBC is the ideological twin of the Guardian. and in the last few days the BBC has bombarded national and regional News bulletins with the new buzzphrase 'extreme weather events' and deployed camera teams all over trying to find dramatic footage to underline it. The Biased BBC Blog has its own weather eye on BBC mischief, and yesterday noted what I suspect most of us have also fliched at:-
'In the space of a few minutes on the Today programme this morning, we had two egregious instances of BBC climate change hype. First, it was claimed that 2013 was the official warmest year ever in Australia. As it happens, I was in Australia last year for a few weeks, it wasn’t that warm but the BBC managed to add that such extreme heat “fitted into the global pattern”. Really? Then two minutes later, we were treated to all the flood warnings that have accompanied the approach of a low pressure system. Again, the term “extreme” weather was causally deployed. This is not accidental, it is the BBC trying its best to inculcate the notion that global warming is still with us. They are apostles for AGW despite the facts, truly remarkable. The only “extreme” I see is their bias.'
It wasn't just the Today programme, it was Main News, Fiona Bruce with serious face et seq..
http://biasedbbc.org/blog/2014/01/03/extreme-weather-bias/
NW
Gina Rinehart bought a sizeable stake in Fairfax and placed a representative on the board solely in order to influence policy.
It appeared at one point that she would make a bid for the lot, but has since reduced her holding so that she is NOT obliged to do so.
The uproar in Australia if she did take over the whole paper is more than she would want at present, but Aussies know that 'you don't mess with Gina' and too many stupid and unbalanced articles about the 'Antarctic Heroes' might make her change her mind !
Mike Jackson
Indeed, there are ways of saying things ...and there are ways......
I don't actually actually think saying "who will free me of this turbulent priest"? is actually actually an order to murder him.......That would be wrong.....
He just wants to be free of the turbulent priests....
That's all....
Andy
84% of Guardian.co.uk website hits are from USA & only 1.8% from UK, 10% from Holland
(Alexa webstats owned by Amazon) http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/guardian.co.uk
.. possibly too strange to be true ?
anyone know any different ?
It wouldn't surprise me if Turney wasn't planning to cash in by writing a book about this farcical escapade in the Antarctic. He's already written a book about the start of international polar exploration in 1910 and the success of Amundsen in 1911. If a book is planned the Guardian may well have bought the rights. Is this all about ego and money? We'll see.
Pharos said, "... it was claimed that 2013 was the official warmest year ever in Australia. As it happens, I was in Australia last year for a few weeks, it wasn’t that warm ...". Oh how priceless! What is the point of temperature monitoring stations and statisticians when you have Pharos all seeing eye!
Jan 5, 2014 at 2:07 AM | Unregistered Commenter Chandra
-----------------
Indeed, the BoM in Australia has been in the recent habit of meddling with past temperature data by cooling the past ... no doubt a practice learned from Hansen in the USA.
Being a resident of the tropical region in Australia, I must say that I was amused to read the claim that 2013 was such a warm year as I really can't recall any period of 2013 any noticeably warmer than any corresponding time prior.
However, one must understand that the term "ever" is used to describe the short period in history since the temperature data was last tortured.
Chandra, you wouldn't be a junior bureaucrat would you? ... your writing style is so similar to that of a junior government worker.
Whatever "communication and campaigning skills" Alexander White might have (and - at least according to him - they are many), it is perhaps worth noting that:
I think it's also worth noting that - not unlike Lewandowsky and his sidekicks Nuccitelli and Cook - there is absolutely nothing in White's academic background which would suggest that he has the expertise or knowledge to be able to assess the validity of the science cited in the so-called "gold standard" assessments of the IPCC.
But, alas, expertise and knowledge do not seem to be prerequisites for those who are given a platform to spout their pernicious nonsense and willful misrepresentation of the arguments of their opponents at the greenest-of-em-all Guardian these days.
And while I'm here ...
Jan 4, 2014 at 5:31 PM | Registered Commenter Mike Jackson:
Seems to me that the ever-chirping thread-derailer, who calls her/himself Chandra, shares much in common with her/his slightly more knowledgeable predecessors here - including a lack of civility while honing their skills at the game of willful misrepresentation.
White, Chandra and Gore. Birds of feather flocking together on a planet of alternate reality. Methinks that God may have passed them all by when She handed out the "common sense" (and "common courtesy") genes.
A somewhat belated Happy 2014 to all, btw :-)
84% of Guardian.co.uk website hits are from USA & only 1.8% from UK, 10% from Holland
(Alexa webstats owned by Amazon) http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/guardian.co.uk
.. possibly too strange to be true ?
anyone know any different ?
Jan 5, 2014 at 1:24 AM stewgreen
------------------------------------------------------------------
There is obviously something odd as the figures you quote are for The Guardian's .co.uk site. If you look at The Guardian's .com site figures they are very different:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/theguardian.com
On the .com page the USA and UK are almost equal with percentages in the mid 20s. Given the relative populations that's maybe more plausible but still, to me, surprisingly high for the US.
Why the proportion of the .co.uk visitors should be so much higher for the US than the UK seems odd, though it may have something to do with redirects. I'm in the UK. If I type in .co.uk into my browser I get redirected to .com/uk (to get the UK front page, which is different to the US and Australian versions). My bookmark however takes me straight to .com/uk.
Perhaps regular UK readers (due to bookmarks etc) never normally get to the .co.uk site, even to be redirected, whereas new American visitors (and there are probably more new US readers than UK ones) might assume the ending will be .co.uk and type that before being redirected.
Not convinced that this is the whole story but it must make some contribution.
The end justifies the greens.
@artwest cheers mate for checking that, yep it's skewed by Guardian switching to com from .co.uk
1. I was aware that the Guardian had rebranded itself away from being A liberal UK newspaper, with a small catchment into a global Green Left newspaper heavily targeting the US green/left niche & advertising
2. I was not aware that they seem to have pushed Guardian.com over .co.uk as part of that process
but when I google Guardian the top of the list are 2 paid links to Guardian.com
strangley. The actual Guardian doesn't appear on the first page of real results
on another browser same except Guardian Facebook and twitter also appear.
Wonder if something is strange with the ranking system
..really only 15 sites in UK are more popular than Guardian ?
OK they will excude porno sites, but bbc, mail, facebook, twitter, and reality TV stuff should all rank higher and some specialist sites also, amazon, ebay, banks etc.
toad said:
"Gina Rinehart bought a sizeable stake in Fairfax and placed a representative on the board solely in order to influence policy.
It appeared at one point that she would make a bid for the lot, but has since reduced her holding so that she is NOT obliged to do so.
The uproar in Australia if she did take over the whole paper is more than she would want at present, but Aussies know that 'you don't mess with Gina' and too many stupid and unbalanced articles about the 'Antarctic Heroes' might make her change her mind !"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Err, no, toad.
Gina Rinehart's motives for buying into Fauxfacts are obscure, but having a single Board member among many is not a mechanism for influencing editorial policy. Her current holding is around 19%, hardly decisive. Further, company policy is that the editors are independent of the Board.
I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but the reality is that her minority stake is clearly having no influence at all. Fauxfacts publications, along with the ABC, remain staunch supporters of all things "green", with the occasional dissenting opinion published to prove how "balanced" they are.
Yeah Streetcred I'm sure that polishes your street cred with the Bishop's boys and girls. Blaming the BoM for manipulating temperature records and wondering how your personal in-built thermometer could possibly fail at measuring average continental temperate is just up their street. Pharos has a pretty accurate thermometer too, so maybe you two could compare notes.
Streetcred: I have surmised that Chandra is probably a junior researcher for a second-rate politician; it is interesting how we both reach similar conclusions.
Chandra: have you never wondered at the motives of these organisations to “amend” historical records to further support their arguments? If not, then you are a lot more gullible than even I had thought.
By the way – do you have any evidence of aquifer contamination by hydraulic fracturing?
Please stop feeding the troll. They clearly have no interest in enlightening or educating themselves outside if their cissy cultish religious beliefs! Starved of the oxygen of attention they quickly go elsewhere to reinforce their own opinions of themselves (like skeptical science!)!!
Mailman
Radical Rodent,
Ref your 3% human emissions. I found this on my travels at WUWT:
Steve Keohane says:
June 7, 2010 at 6:18 am
Good analysis Willis. My only concern is the relative amount of CO2, anthropogenic vs. not. I have the following stored from a few years ago, without the source, which seems to be the basis for the 3% anthro-CO2 contribution to the annual CO2 budget that is often quoted.
CO2 EMISSIONS :
1. Respiration Humans, Animals, Phytoplankton 43.5 – 52 Gt C/ year
2. Ocean Outgassing (Tropical Areas) 90 – 100 Gt C/year
3. Volcanoes, Soil degassing 0.5 – 2 Gt C/ year
4. Soil Bacteria, Decomposition 50 – 60 Gt C/ year
5. Forest cutting, Forest fires 0.6 – 2.6 Gt C/year
Anthropogenic emissions (2005) 7.5 – 7.5 Gt C/year
TOTAL 192 to 224 Gt C/ year
The table shows the range of estimates of natural CO2 and human production in 2005 (Gt C/year is Gigatons of Carbon per year). Accuracy has not improved since. Notice the human contribution is within the error range of three (1, 2, & 4) of the natural sources. The total error range is almost 5 times the amount of total human production.
I know it is standard practice to ignore the Trolls but watching them spin around the edge of their moibus ring of illogical reasoning before exploding in emotional overload when they run up against their own backsides does provide some of the best humour available. Chundra, Endemic and Zebedee have given me some of the most memorable out loud guffaws of my life.
Agreed they do cross the line sometimes but I'm sure most of the contributors and our host are more than resistant to and certainly mature enough to ignore the tiny barbs they flick around and indeed chuckle into their metaphorical beards.
Thank you, Alan, though I am not sure if you are supporting me or shooting me down for 3% being either underquoting or overquoting!
(Wish I could remember where I got the original 3%, but it seemed plausible, which is why I retained it… I know, I know – it does show that my own abilities at science are also suspect, that I do not note sources, etc… but that involves work!)
RR said, "The perversity of it all is that even the AGWistas confirm the idea - even they conclude that human-produced CO2 comprises about 3% of the total increase. So what makes this 3% so powerful?"
I very much doubt that any warmist says that. If 3% has any validity, it might be that anthro-emissions make up 3% of the natural carbon sources, but that ignores natural sinks. The net natural flow is though to be around zero, which is why the 3% of the sources would actually be huge. But that is all very different from saying they are "3% of the total increases"; they make up 100% of the total increases (unless you believe Salby).
BTW, maybe the Aussie contributors should set up their own temperature network. They could do a daily conference call - imagine it: "Hi Pharos, Streetcred here. Hows the temperature looking?", "Normal, I'd say, mate. How about you?", "Yeah, normal too, mate. Although I'd say yesterday was a bit more normal. Johanna, you there? Hows it cooking over there?", "Hi boys, yeah its so normal you could set your watch by it. Haven't seen it so normal my whole life, in fact mate". Streetcred: "Okay well put it down as normal, shall we? Great! Talk to you guys tomorrow."
And the great thing is that it wouldn't need any databases or statistics. Each month you could just junk the data and write "Normal". Job done. Who needs scientists, eh?
Mailman, the premise of this thread was a lie so I am unlikely either to enlighten or educate myself here.
Radical Rodent,
IPCC prefers that the natural sources and sinks remain balanced in perfect harmony so all increases are Anthro. Some observe that many sources and sinks are quite unconnected with each other and wonder at this marvellous juxtaposition of circumstances.
Yeah, they tend to be the conspiracy theorists among you. People who don't deny that CO2 has remained stable for thousands of years realize the inevitable: sources and sinks are in equilibrium. The fact that sources and sinks are "unconnected" is irrelevant. If anyone on this blog had any interest in the science on these pages being correct they would have put you right.
CO2 has remained stable for thousands of years?
That's one I hadn't heard before. Is there evidence for that anywhere?
Mike Jackson,
Well, the sinks are just as poorly estimated so maybe the error in one source is cancelled by another - or in a sink. Shouldn't ask apparently. Of course, CO2 (and temperature) was rising naturally after the LIA but apparently its easier not to model that part now.
Well there's a turn up for the books, a prolific fake skeptic who openly asks us to believe he is a pudding-head.
Chandra,
You're safe here - no one is going to hurt you. I promise.
But you do need to stay away from the big boys and girls because they are busy and they won't understand when you are rude.
You would know all about being a pudding-head, Chandra, but I have some difficulty with the "fake sceptic" bit. How does that work exactly? In your universe, that is.
Alan Reed
I've probably mis-read what Chandra was driving at. It's getting more and more difficult to understand his abuse of the English language. Personally I think he does it deliberately so that he can then insult people.
The word 'Tourette' comes to mind but if that is actually the case then I apologise.
Alan Reed, what you write implies to me that you think the IPCC is wrong and that CO2 sources and sinks should not be in equilibrium (ignoring anthro emissions). Why is that?
Mike
God knows. When he first appeared I thought he was Asian and struggling with a second language. Then he became increasingly obnoxious. At New Year he drank too much, grew abusive and tried to chat up Johanna but left in the small hours after she flicked him off. The Bishop, having retired to his chamber the previous evening, spent the next morning clearing up the mess so the place was presentable to guests by lunchtime.
If he hasn't got an overlap on his hangovers, then I think he has passed his pen to another. This one seems younger, comepletely aimless and more bitter.
Obviously, I am not cross with Chandra - but I an very disappointed...
Alan Reed
Humph! I think it's time to activate the New Year Resolution. DNFTT. I know I keep trying and failing but I'll give it another go. It's just that I don't see why people with his standard of bad manners should be allowed to get away with it.
Mike,
Yes, I know the feeling and I am weaning myself off gradually. Some people arrive at this site and find it quite besmirched by such behaviour. Look at this thread. It started out about the 4th Estate on the 4th and ends up diverted to Source and Apps of CO2 by the 6th. I haven't helped, I know, but we can't expect his grace to sweep it out all the time.
So I'll chide you if you give them more than a crumb if you'll be good enough to do the same for me.
Alan Reed, I didn't change the subject - blame that on you, Radical Rodent, Pharos, Streedcred. I just responded to their diversions. I was happy talking about the subject of the thread and how it is basically a lie. Strange that others want to divert away from that...
If you are supposed to prevent your email with hacking or trying to reset password and faild many times so use Spectrum Email Customer Service to avoid any kind of mail issues Visit http://www.emailhelpdesks.co/spectrum-email-customer-service/ to solve all issues.