George Monbiot is showing his willy. It isn’t the first time and doubtless, it wont be the last. Trouble is, he’s not being Abu Graibed into doing it. It’s entirely voluntary. It’s a flacid willy, so there ins’t any “Ron Davis on the common” head-of-sexual-steam excuse for it either. And I’m not going to do metaphore by doing the ‘size’ thing, although if I did, it would be Karma considering his ‘deck of cards’ top 10 climate change deniers post.
Seasoned people who pride themselves in examining political coincidences of great consequence, i.e. conspiracy examiners, will be familiar with the shameless attempted to flick yellow stars upon people by using the word denier, but then again, that Monbiot does it shouldn’t come as a surprise. He is after all a mainstream journo.
Remember, by Monbiot’s own admission, the only thing that would get him to disbelieve in AGW is something utterly preposterous, penned by the Knights Carbonic no less. {tip: think deeply and read my previous article before you jumping for your keyboard to tell me he was being satirical}
Lets ‘look’ at George’s willy display.
First off, the title:
Pretending the climate email leak isn’t a crisis won’t make it go away.
At this point George’s Willy of Media Deception is rightfully encased in his shorts, but within the blink of an eye, he’s starkers! :
Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That’s why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of science.
I’m too busy laughing to comment on that gem.
He continues….
It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can’t possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science).
Who claims the climate is NOT changing? Isn’t the debate about what is causing the climate to change? Sneaky opening George, but I’ve seen straight through it.
Then Georgieboy says ALL of these Nazis deniers (of the phantasmal kind), say it’s the end of global warming, and the death of climate science.
Oh George, not only are you showing your todger, but you forgot to wash it too! What I’m looking at is making me queasy. Nobody is saying it’s the end of climate science. How could the study of the climate ever ‘end’? unless…. and this is quite possible – that climate science is in GM’s eyes only for the purpose of ramming home AGW. Hummm. As for the end of global warming, errmm George, I hate to say this (ok, actually I don’t) but isn’t the crux of the e-mails that the DATA showed a decline in temperature? In which case the DATA itself shows global warming has come to an end, and it was this DATA that they tried to spin/hide/’dissappear’
George says:
emails are very damaging….a real crisis
Yet he dares not open the Pandora’s box by discussing in any reasonable and warranted degree in a scientific context as to HOW they are damaging in terms of science. This is common. If your on dodgy ground, here’s what you do: Distract, distract, distract.
apologising where appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again.
Well George, didn’t you previously ridicule people who said there was DATA showing the mainstream media depiction of climate change was wrong, and indeed you are still ridiculing those who discuss the implications of climategate who differ from your naive spin on it.
It is true that much of what has been revealed could be explained as the usual cut and thrust of the peer review process, exacerbated by the extraordinary pressure the scientists were facing from a denial industry determined to crush them.
This is a near exact re-casting of what would be said by apologists for the Abu Graib guards, the Mai Lai butchers, and much more besides, It’s not the fault of these scientists caught red handed, no! The wrong doing lies and dirty tricks lie squarely at the door of the AGW sceptics. Just like it was the Vietnamese children who are to blame for theie bodies getting in the way of US Napalm.
George has some fine company that he’s crawling in the gutter with.
But surely George is being polemic for it’s own sake, sniggering in the toilets at the response his writings will cause. Unless of course he really thinks the power of sceptics is so immense {Errrm, that would be the sceptics GM always portrayed as an insignificant irrelevant non-representative group – with accusations of shades of nazi’sm hurled for good measure} that it can force people to do such underhand acts. Wow!
GM references Phil Jones as writing:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
to which GM comes to Jones’ defence claiming
One of these papers which was published in the journal Climate Research turned out to be so badly flawed that the scandal resulted in the resignation of the editor-in-chief.
Now that may be true, I don’t actually know, but I’m more than inclined to believe Monbiot has NEVER accepted ANY report questioning doubt on AGW no matter how truthful that DATA was. George is more than welcome to show otherwise.
Jones knew that any incorrect papers by sceptical scientists would be picked up and amplified by climate change deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry
And /how/ Monbiot ‘knows’ this is …. ???. Here again GM does the dirty painting ALL AGW sceptics as being funded by the oil industry.
From the AGW sceptics I’ve met and read about, I’ve not heard any of them say things favourable to big oil. Is George picking up on the negative perceptions people hold of big oil and using it as a stiletto against the AGW sceptics? Thing is George, the AGW sceptics are unhappy that their scepticism seems favourable to big oil, but they don’t junk that scepticism for political reasons and lie to themselves.
At this point, George is now beginning to stroke his willy having the audacity to say:
[sceptics] all sorts of dirty tricks to advance their cause.
Monbiot is as rich as as a Plutonium laced Christmas pudding.
those who campaign against taking action on climate change
Once again George’s deliberately mischaracterises the AGW sceptics as ‘denying’ (as he puts it) GW, so that they can maintain their lifestyle. Again deplorable behaviour. I’m an AGW sceptic – like most others, not funded by the oil industry – but I advocate a very big change to the way we live and the distribution of resources. Monbiot with his high energy use lifestyle knows this but doesn’t care.
those who campaign against taking action on climate change: that the IPCC process is biased.
Isn’t it biased. Heard of the Seattle petition??? What of the people who Protested in Bali last year (or was it 2 years ago?) What of those past IPCC members who didn’t agree with some of pro-AGW direction in the IPCC report? What data has ever appeared in the IPCC reports that seems to offer an alternatice message to the pro-AGW narrative? What sceptical AGW scientist has been allowed to write in the IPCC report?
However good the detailed explanations may be, most people aren’t going to follow or understand them. Jones’s statement, on the other hand, is stark and easy to grasp.
Pathetic. GM has just tried pulled off a trick in front of your eyes. Here’s what he wants you to think… Jones -> pro-AGW -> message easy to grasp, then “on the other hand” – i.e. on the oppositie pole, AGW sceptics cannot present technical information to the public in a easy to grasp fashion. He’s (wittingly or not) saying the easier message goes down the best.
I’m wavering between thoughts on Monbiot as being a village idiot or some devious sod who knows exactly what he’s doing or even someone who is just sub-consciously talented in selling fools gold.
Monbiot then tries to use the few filthy politicians squatting in Westminster as cover or as deliberate distraction. It’s too ugly to enter that arena. He later says:
If you take the wording literally, in one case he appears to be suggesting that emails subject to a request be deleted,
Why shouldn’t it be taken as such? Was the recipient of the e-mail expected to shower the e-mail in virtual lemon juice and wave a virtual candle beside it.???
But I know that opaqueness and secrecy are the enemies of science.
Monbiot of course wrote this long ago in the National newspaper while the CRU refused to publish data while the whose pro-AGW was running smoothly on the tracks. Oh no, that’s right, he didn’t! Strange that.
Actually I can no longer stand and ‘look’ at GM’s prolonged willy exposure.
Fin.
Last words on this. Compare and contrast these two other reports. Which one, if any, actually focuses on the area of concern and which one, if any, distracts x3?
http://www.truthout.org/1127093
Purloined E-mails Don’t Change the Facts
Friday 27 November 2009
by: Eugene Robinson, Op-Ed
–
and
–
Climate change: the worst scientific scandal of our generation
– Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash
By Christopher Booker
The Telegraph
November 28, 2009
Hosted on Atheonews: http://alethonews.blogspot.com/2009/11/climate-change-worst-scientific-scandal.html
–
–
–
–
–
–
Living with the Conspiracy 24-7 
Good article. I’m sceptical about climate change too, especially as global temperatures now seem to be cooling. I think we would be much better concentrating on the damage we are doing to as humans to the biodiversity of the planet. That is obvious for all to see.
But the question I keep turning over and over in my head and can’t seem to answer is “why?”. The leaked emails show that there is at least some form of conspiracy to make the data fit climate change theory, but for what purpose is it being done? It damages business and industry, so why would governments in the pockets of corporations choose to sell us this lie? Is it about wealth re-distribution to poorer countries? This doesn’t make sense either. Why are they doing it?
If anyone has an answer to this, I’d love to hear it.
Thanks for the comment. I’m not cold to environmental issues, in fact, I have a soft spot for them. Wnen I was younger, for some time, I wanted to be part of the ‘Greenpeace warrior’ on board ship, going around the world taking action against polluters and whalers etc. {I am aware of numerous reports that suggest these ‘Green movements’ are not quite what they appear to be, so eveyone… no need to write in about that tq}.
Biodiversity is very imporant. While the cities may be a flourishing jungle of strange mosses, moulds, fungi and lichens, they are very sterile and the the planet is being hacked and mangled very much to all peoples disadvantage.
As to why is there an apparent conspiracy to force the consequences of AGW down out throuats, I’d say most if it is misplaced concern. On a more political level, it’s about powerful governments being able to have more (or continued) power over other countries and people. Cap and trade ot any other ‘scheme’ needs very little imagination to realise just how devistating it can be. It’s equivalent (or worse!) to a colonialists standing army of occupation.
One level higher you get the global elite conspiracy – the creme de la creme (or more correctly the scums scum) wanting to enslave us all. One step even higher than that is the theological antichrist conspiracy, to which I do agree with.
It may damage some traditional industres but who’s best placed to conner the market in industroes/products that will necessarily evolve as alternaties to current day proactices? 1) The deadly Nuclear industry 2) Western technology companies. And of course were ALL going to have to pay a LOT more of all thise stuff in the future.
Hopefully that might give you some idea of all this.
Thanks for the answer, just what I expected. You’re very mixed up.
You should try looking closer to home for an answer.
“You’re very mixed up” – If you think that, may I ask for your help in describing how I am mixed up?
If I don’t recogninse the problem – how can I solve it?
You did ask ‘why’ – so therefore there is a reason yes? – towit I laid out some of those reasons.
“You should try looking closer to home for an answer.” – That is too cryptic. Would you be so kind as to elaborate. I.e. how will me looking closer to home provide answers to the purpose as to why there is “some form of conspiracy to make the data fit climate change theory”?
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
Collapse of the Soviet Union, death of the Left….. when Red becomes Green. This isn’t about the corporate rich my friend, it’s the ‘polar’ opposite to that. I think there’s more profit to be had from oil than there is from wind farms, don’t you?
“One level higher you get the global elite conspiracy – the creme de la creme (or more correctly the scums scum) wanting to enslave us all. One step even higher than that is the theological antichrist conspiracy, to which I do agree with.”
That’s what I mean by mixed up :)
I’m not talking about the collapse of industry. I Just hate they way they are allowed to give off massive pollution in the name of commerce. “Don’t pollute and Clean up!” is my message to them, not “close down.” And the economic system in which these mega industries can pop up and ultimately cause great problems is another great concern.
e.g. Paul Roberts – The End of Food
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4212613816403909417
“climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Rubbish. It allows the industrialised nations to maintain their domineering position.
AGW has nothing to do with AGW, but everything with neoImperialism.
The polar opposite to the corporate rich? “Collapse of the Soviet Union, death of the Left….. when Red becomes Green. This isn’t about the corporate rich my friend, it’s the ‘polar’ opposite to that. I think there’s more profit to be had from oil than there is from wind farms, don’t you?
What are you saying? The polar opposite to the corporate rich are the ordinary salt of the earth poor people. There’s more profit there? I’m sorry but your point is still obscured. you’ll have to spell it out. Please do. I really want to see if you are saying something I’m not able to see.
In your last paragraph you think I’m mixed up because I believe the global elite$ isn’t the conspiracy ceiling? Well, I’d hazard a guess you don’t believe in God, but you would surely grant me this: These ultra rich people were instrumental in shaping and maintaining the Imposter fake state of Israyhell? If you subscribe to theology the existence of a so called Jewish state is highly significant and has always been followed by momentus events.
Call me mixed up if you wish (without clear explanation) but I am very well versed on the whole Israyhell thing and I’m highly confident at all roads do in fact lead to Israyhell.
That you may not agree with me, doesn’t necessarily mean I’m mixed up.
Ok, I’ll spell it out for you:
THE CONSPIRACY IS AN ANTI-CAPITALIST ONE, NOT A CORPORATE CAPITALIST ONE.
Thanks. That’s what I needed to hear.
If that really is the conspiracy, then I can’t say I’m too disapointed.
What I understand by capitalism is along the lines of – the transfer/ownership of goods or control of services to pirvate hands. Anything that opposes this is to be welcomed.
Capitalism has proved to be the bane of many billions of people.
Capitalism isn’t the same thing as having or running a business. It’s far more sinister than that.
Do you see capitalism as something fruitful?
Anyway, thaks for your thoughts.
Then well done, you’ve just aligned your views with the great Moonbat himself.
case closed
You think so? I don’t see how. As far as I can determine, Monbiot’s priority in life is limiting/stopping CO2 production. Quite different to mine.
I don’t believe there is evidence that CO2 is causing climate change so CO2 away! In fact the data from the last 10 years indicates there is no effect OR the Suns effect is probably too great and swamps any CO2 effect.
It’s real pollution I’m worried about and the fact mega business is disproportionately favourable to the already wealthy. If Monbiot subscribes to the latter then perhaps I am Moonbatty. Isn’t my perspective virtuous?