Posts Tagged 'George Monbiot'

Monbiot and Monbiot’s willy.

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.


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?
Purloined E-mails Don’t Change the Facts
Friday 27 November 2009
by: Eugene Robinson, Op-Ed


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:


George Monbiot et Wattsupwiththat a la CRU UEA

This blog has received relatively quite a bit of extra traffic looking for George Monbiot.

The reason is clear, Monbiots dismissal of climategate.

I am honoured that quite a few people would come here for some commentary on it, although others, here and here too, plus here have done a far better job of it than I could possibly do.

The sterling effort of others plus the fact I haven’t read any of the e-mails in their entirity are couple of reasons why I’ve not commented, and to be honest, the small amounts of the e-mails I have read are exceedingly boring!. So thanks to these concerned citizens who have taken up the tedium on my behalf and that of others.

What I did read was Georgieboy’s dismissal of the e-mails leaked/hacked e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia(UEA) UK  ( By the way, these e-mails are now being said to have been stolen. Does the legality of theft apply to e-mail?. IA breach of privacy perhaps, but theft? Hummm…

Back to Monbiot… Read his article hosted on a numb er of sites including

Now, Monbiot is being clever yet at the same time his attempt to do so actually turns into the sword of Damocles (albeit with the sword containing a fair % of rubber). You see, if queried about what he wrote, Monbiot would obviously protest he was simply beng funny when he dressing his comments up in satire, but actually, that is precicesly what would be needed for him to believe it. By applying lashings of satire upon it, it helps him to aviod a serious discussion on the matter. Al Franken did the same thing about 911 when he wrote in his book that he too got one of these reported warning phone calls on the morning of 911 before the planes hit. {actually the book is very good at fulfilling its intent, but it an exercise is extreme bipolarisation – one of the major problems afflicting so called democracy today}

BEFORE climate broke, Monbiot dismissed the anthropogenic global warming (man made via CO2 global warming) skeptics as he seemingly always does when evidence of a whatever conspiracy – but a real conspiracy, backed up with hard factual evidence – arises. And like all coincidence theorists, in damage limitation mode, he puts it down to a few rotten apples in the barrel. Kinda reminds me of the filthy killers of the USUK army and the kill for $ mercs, of the racism – the institutional racism – in the UK police force.

Well Gerorge, those rotten apples were operating with noone in their peer cirle pointing the finger to them calling them rotten. No. They were I woul say with little doubt representitive of the CO2 AGW scam.

Then there’s Monbiot’s apparent duality. He says of climategate:

“It’s no use pretending this isn’t a major blow.”

and then pretends everything’s alright. Well, if it is just a few rotten apples, why is it a major blow?

And I don’t know if anyone has notices but his ‘what it would take e-mail’ is written with quite a strong smell of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Is this accidental? One of the many coincidences people of Monbiots mind constantly witness as global events unfurl? I say not, for this readon: Georgieboy can’t quite hack it with the tired and quite redundant ‘antisemite’ label in this case but he’s alluding to it here. It’s the same old put a yellow star on it and then denouce those who point it out technique.

Am I wrong? Well perhaps if GM actually discussed the ‘hide the decline’ part of climategate, then I could well be, but he didn’t. The word decline doesn’t feature even once in his whole article, something that pro-governmnet 911’ers do rather a lot of.

Georgieboy says:

“They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence.”

Am I once again shouting at empty bustps when it seems to me George starts off with the numbers 3&4 then instantly after wards the numbers whittle down to 1&2. Of course he’s talking about a different issue, but he would have written this:

“They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. “

Do you think those two statements are quivanet? Does the rising numbers in the alternative wording not have a different mental imprint in your conscience or perhaps more validly, your sub-conscience? And wait, when you reverse it you might notice something interesting. How can there only be one ‘or perhaps two’ {as Monbiot puts it} bits of evidence yet have three or four scientists involved? Is the single piece of evidence, written words, split between (on average) two scientists??? Hummm… Well frem reading Monbiot’s article, we’ll simply never know because (remember the technique?) he doesn’t mention them!


 “To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. “

Again George doesn’t treat us to what he according to his values and ideas would be the ‘wider’ conspiracy, which brings me to another point…. wider conspiracy. Wider is a relative term. His use of the term ‘wider’ actually says what happened was a conspiracy. But such things and how they are allowed to occur amongst the “man is to blame pro-AGW” circle again don’t appear inportant to Mr. Monbiot.

“There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.”

Og dear. George Moniot’s bad hair day.

In his effort to deny at all costs that he has bought into the somewhat ‘good concerned citizen’ thing, Monbiot points out that THERE IS DATA THAT POINTS TO A DECLINE. Once again, a discussion of that data away from all the AGW conspiracy isn’t important to ?Monbiot.

Heck! Isn’t that what is supposed to take centre stage?


I’ll end now by saying. Industrial pollution, pharmaceutical/chemical waste and radioactive pollution are FAR FAR more important that stupid CO2 and AGW > even it is true!

And lastly, not so long ago people were saying the temperature on Mars. Venus was rising and that explains why the earth is experiencing higher temps too. anti-AGW’s never addressed that point.

This world is nuts!


George Monbiot gains promotion into premier league

War criminal and killer, the particularly nasty neocon,
scumbag supreme John Bolton

I’ve scaled back overall web activities recently due to work commitments and coming week won’t be much better as I’m heading off home to Manchester. Farewell Asia major, hello errrm Asia minor lol.

As a result, I’ve didn’t have time to read up on this little ditty…

Alleging War Crimes, George Monbiot Attempts Citizen’s Arrest on Former UN Ambassador John Bolton.

George ‘lionheart’ Monbiot.

George you darling. Well done. Your activism is inspiring. Next time someone tries this we need a big posse to stop the offender from evading arrest and justice.

I’ve been critical of Gergie baby in the past, and his ‘explanations’ of 9-11 are baseless, but efforts like this, even if as critics may say was just a stunt, should deserve our respect.



David Ray Griffin v. George Monbiot — 11-29-2007 (spidered)


Just had to photocopy this here but it’s just a partial copy.
Please go here : for the full monty…


David Ray Griffin | George Monbiot | James Whale

EDIT: Even though Monbot was an egregious twit, please thank James Whale for hosting this debate, and offering a non-hostile, non-Mockingbird venue:—11-29-2007—James-Whale

On November 29, 2007, UK radio jock James Whale hosted an informal debate between David Ray Griffin and George Monbiot. In a childish display of ill manners, Monbiot can’t help but blurt out and interrupt Griffin, when Griffin begins to give answers at the beginning of the debate. Later in the debate, when Griffin returns the favor, Monbiot gets all in a snit and acts wounded when Griffin turns the tactic on him. What a sod!

Monbot (sic) gets it wrong in lots of ways, including top-down demolition, so here is an example of top-down demo once again, just for the Monbot!

He’s also wrong about the length and breadth of a hypothetical conspiracy. Some blogger by the handle of GeorgeWashington says 9/11 could be argued as a 7-man Job. The irony inherent in Monbot’s position, as with all other debunkers who take the same position, is of course that they see no problem with just 19 guys pulling off 9/11. According to them, then, the official conspiracy theory is impossible! It would have taken hundreds! Thousands to pull it off!

It’s just sad.

Thanks to VAB for getting this out there so fast, here are more options, including the full three hour program which features further interviews with Tim Sparke and Dylan Avery. (The Griffin/Monbiot bit ends abrubtly, but that’s all there is.)

-1st hour:
-2nd hour:
-3rd hour:

D/L while it lasts:

Viva Palestina – break the siege:

Viva Palestina - break the siege

This blog supports victims of western aggression

This blog supports victims of western aggression

BooK: The Hand of Iblis. Dr Omar Zaid M.D.

Book: The Hand of Iblis
An Anatomy of Evil
The Hidden Hand of the New World Order
Summary Observations and History

Data on Fukushima Plant – (NHK news)

Fukushima Radiation Data

J7 truth campaign:

July 7th Truth Campaign - RELEASE THE EVIDENCE!

Recommended book: 3rd edition of Terror on the Tube – Behind the Veil of 7-7, An Investigation by Nick Kollerstrom:

J7 (truth) Inquest blog

July 7th Truth Campaign - INQUEST BLOG
Top rate analysis of the Inquest/Hoax

Arrest Blair (the filthy killer)

This human filth needs to be put on trial and hung!


JUST - International Movement for a Just World


Information Clearing House - Actual News and global analysis

John Pilger:

John Pilger, Journalist and author

Media Lens

My perception of Media Lens: Watching the corrupt corporate media, documenting and analysing how it bends our minds. Their book, 'Newspeak' is a gem.

Abandon the paper $cam:

Honest and inflation proof currency @ The Gold Dinar
May 2022