Posted by Tim Lambert on August 26, 2010 Hey, remember how the Sunday Times retracted that bogus Jonathan Leake story which was based on “Research by Richard North”? Now the Sunday Telegraph has retracted and apologized for a bogus story by Christopher Booker and Richard North alleging that Rajenda Pachauri was making millions from his links with carbon trading companies. George Monbiot has the details.
Anyone noticing a pattern here?
Anyone noticing a pattern here?
That Booker & North are, and always have, been complete c**ts and are to journalism what ghonorrea is to human health?
Here’s a bunch of denialist blogs that continue to broadcast the Telegraph article, despite the fact they themselves were forced to take it down:
Top of the list – the Heartland Institute:
http://www.heartland.org/environmentand … hauri.html
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4713
http://www.prisonplanet.com/questions-o … hauri.html
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/the-m … -to-answer
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/the-m … a-pachauri
http://informationliberation.com/index. … comments=0
- and this from the supposedly respectable Roger Pielke
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/the-m … f-interest
and more along the same lines from “Watts up with that”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/11/i … onflicted/
and more in the same vein from Fred Singer and Lord Monckton’s ‘Science and Public Policy Institute’:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/origi … _fool.html
Fama, malum qua non aliud velocius alium
Not forgetting another retracted North/Brooker story published in The Telegraph:
[Tata- an Apology](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7818375/Tata-an-Apology.html)
In reports in December 2009 we said that Tata had used the carbon trading scheme to transfer steel production from Redcar to India, pocketing £1.2 billion in carbon credits at the cost of 1700 jobs. We accept this was wrong.
Is there some kind of award for bad journalism that we can nominate North for?
Memo to North,
DFWT– Don’t F&*!k with the Truth.
PS: People may be familiar with North saying in public “DFWN” (Don’t F&*!k with North). We did, and you lost 
It takes time, but the truth ultimately wins.
PPS: Romm’s coverage of this sad and despicable sage perpetuated by Booker and North is especially insightful.
“Is there some kind of award for bad journalism that we can nominate North for?”
As a matter of fact, yes, named after North’s partner in bullshit:
What’s even sadder than their (Booker, etc) fairly flagrant dishonesty and the Sunday Tele completely taking leave of its journalistic credibility, is the fact that they peddle this nonsense on a particular section of the public which happens to be naive and all-too-willing to believe anything which might discredit anyone associated with the IPCC.
One step forward, two steps backward. The zombie attacks just never end.
Recently the Guardian gave space to Richard North because of a PCC ruling that went against them and Monbiot over something Monbiot wrote about North.
So in the blog afterward a number of us took North to task and boy does he scrape, not letting go in arguments with those he disagrees with. He revealed during the toing and froing on this Guardian Cif blog that he has put in a 32 page complaint to the PCC about the Times retraction of the Johnathon Leake story. I went a few rounds on the Cif blog with him and he don’t let go, he could bring Tony Abbott out of his terminal shyness and teach Jo Nova how to stop pulling her rhetorical punches.
…..The PCC is the UK press complaints council……
We all know what a lying SOS North is, but what I don’t get is why he’s still allowed to use a sock puppet, and it’s even the same name he’s used before. This is an internet “crime” just about anywhere, isn’t it?
I hope that Pachauri pursues the threatened libel action. Why else would scum like North ever stop when they can keep telling lies forever about someone when they are never punished? The rag that publishes their libellous drivel *might* be forced to publish an apology eventually, but so what? The lies have been round the world a million times and will be repeated by denialist blogs as long as their authors have blood flowing to their fingers.
Is there really no way to stop someone lying again and again and again?
Well TS @8,
Prison time might help.
I see North is not backing down. From CP:
“North has reacted to it with a new blogpost, also widely reproduced on the web, in which he refers to the Sunday Telegraph apology as a “non-apology”. He claims: “the article was sound, all the substantive facts are correct and the paper stands by them.”
He goes on to suggest that Pachauri was indeed “corrupt or abusing his position as head of the IPCC” and maintains that the accusation that Pachauri has made millions of dollars “stands uncorrected”. North fails to provide any evidence to support this falsified claim.”
9 MapleLeaf,
I think that time in the slammer only happens when someone refuses to pay the fine/costs but we can hope.
Yes, North is denying it, just as he denied the falsity of his* “Amazongate” claims even after the paper (Sunday Times in that case, IIRC) published a retraction.
*Attributed to Jonathan Leake but the “research” was by North.
I sent Monbiot an angry email urging him to come clean about Phil Jones and East Anglia.
Recently the Guardian gave space to Richard North because of a PCC ruling that went against them and Monbiot over something Monbiot wrote about North.
Is that really he case? That might be the spin being given on things on denier blogs, but I don’t think it is true in reality.
North made a complaint to the PCC in July about a Monbiot article and also about the wording of the S Times retraction of his bogus Amazongate story, but I am pretty sure the PCC has not ruled on his complaint, at least I have seen no evidence of it – just wild claims from the usual suspects.
The PCC operates very slowly and I would be surprised if they announce a ruling on North’s complaint before mid-October. The Guardian gave North right of reply, possibly as a tactical move to ensure his complaint with respect to the Monbiot article fails (or at least is treated by the PCC as ‘Resolved’). I recall the S Times tried a similar move with Dr Simon Lewis’s complaint about the Amazongate story, but Lewis wanted a full retraction and declined to take up their offer.
The Guardian was just being ultra-cautious in giving North right to reply. I don’t think his complaint has much chance of being upheld, and probably has no chance now The Guardian has spiked his guns. What a fool.
12 lord_sidcup,
I don’t know about The Grauniad being cautious. It has a long history of publishing articles by people it disagrees with. All part of the liberal tradition (actual liberal, not the strange US meaning).
Mik @ 6,
Interested in what u say about S Telegraph reporting.
Can u supply a link?
> Anyone noticing a pattern here?
Not sure if it’s a trend. We need to wait for McIntyre to audit it.
Marion Delgado:
> I sent Monbiot an angry email urging him to come clean about Phil Jones and East Anglia.
What about? You do know that Monbiot admitted that he’d got it wrong and retracted his call for Prof. Jones’ resignation… albeit he did it rather begrudgingly?
Rajenda Pachauri should sue North and others for every cent they possess. Apart from hanging, nothing so concentrates the mind as the prospect of bankruptcy and the very public process of being humiliated in a court of law.
Dr Pachauri has a thankless task which he performs well. Is it not time the UN recognised that fact by paying him?
DavidCOG
“rather” begrudgingly?
Try, DISHONESTLY weaselish. Try “Nixonian.”
Try, he’s never even acknowledged that the heart of his so-called principled attack on Jones was support of a DOS attack.
Try, he’s never acknowledged the DEGREE to which Jones was attacked – much moreso than Pachauri.
Try, he’s never acknowledged that all Jones’ colleagues, co-writers, and anyone else who’s had to work with him described him exactly the way he describes Pauchari.
Okay, he GRUDGINGLY changed his mind on DEMANDING Jones’ resignation.
I’ll follow suit.
I, very grudgingly, retract my demand that George Monbiot resign from the Guardian and go back and do something with his Zoology degree, given he acknowledged a smidgen of reality in that case.
I’ve always thought Jones should sue the worst offenders in his case, and the UK tabloids and RW press have deep pockets.
It seems it’s easier for public figures – especially people who were made public by the same people that slandered them – to sue in the UK.
Dellingpole would be a nice start. Pretty unambiguous.
Probably Pachauri and Jones could go in on funding lawsuits against, roughly, the same people and publications.
for Dean Morrison — in the list above, was there supposed to be a link for “this from the supposedly respectable Roger Pielke”?
I think lord_sidcup has the right take on the North vs. Guardian/Monbiot “case.”
It’s also tit for tat because some science denial outrages are being taken to the UK’s PCC.
@21 Hank
Sorry! messed up all those links – they’re all here:
> He claims: “the article was sound, all the substantive facts are correct and the paper stands by them.”
IANAL.
If it is true that, as it appears at first glance, the paper has unreservedly retracted the claims – I wonder if there are grounds for the paper to sue North?
But either way it seems like Pachauri should – one suspects that North’s latest blog post would provide additional weight to his case.
@15 – I assume you meant my comment @7 about S Telegraph reporting.
Sorry, I was getting confused with the Sunday Times, which by now must pretty much have a “standard retraction” paragraph they use when it comes to climate reporting.
So much bad reporting in so many newspapers to choose from, it all eventually becomes a blur!
Sidcup
I thought the Grauniad and Times were two separate complaints by North………. It could be that the PCC will be needing to set up a separate department for Richard North complaints submissions much like the HoL needing to set up a separate office to handle enquiries about Monckton’s non existent membership
North is [sticking by his allegations](http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/still-not-sorry-head-of-ipcc-cleared-of-fraud-allegations-gets-apology-but-denier-calls-it-bullshit/), ludicrously saying it was not really an apology (saying “intelligent” people will see it as a “non-apology”):
*”As far as the paper goes, however, it is actually a non-apology – as a careful study of the words will reveal to anyone with a modicum of intelligence (a dwindling band, one fears)…”*
And he stills call Pacharui a liar:
*”Booker and I might have intended to do so, and I certainly did on this blog – and more. I called the man a liar, and stand by that. But we are not the paper. And it is the paper that is taking the rap as the publisher…”*
That’s fighting words, and one suspects good cause for libel.
These people will admit no error.
you forgot my good friend Tom Fuller, of course.
notice this gem on the [blackboard:](http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/when-will-panchuri-step-down/)
Tom Fuller (Comment#31175) January 26th, 2010 at 7:54 pm I’m not entirely sure, but I may have been the first to actually predict Pachauri’s resignation, saying about 10 days ago that he would be gone by June 30. I do think it will be agenda driven. Typically at this level, the resignation is agreed on fairly early and there is considerable lead time, and the actual announcement is timed to either support or follow up a media event or major announcement. Anybody have a calendar of activities for these guys?
Tom Fuller is always wrong, so the fact that he was blogging about this subject already determined the outcome.
has June 30th arrived already?
ps: that these liars can continue to produce such stories is testament to the incompetence of the media, a sign of the powers that stand behind them and a tribute to the stupidity of the conservative audience.
These Northern ripostes are redolent of my 6-year-old’s antics when he doesn’t want to hear something: eyes screwed shut, fingers in ears, loudly emitting “Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah” sounds. Of course, he may be correct in his assertions, but the grown-ups almost certainly know better.
Sod: ” …a tribute to the stupidity of the conservative audience.”
It’s much worse than that, though: often, anyone who doesn’t spend their time on these blogs or directly involved seems to think all these things are true. I’m sure we’ve all had experience of people we know have no problem with the science shaking their head at the CRU “fraud”. This is what scares me. I might go ask some friends and see what they think of the CRU now, or Pachauri. I’m betting they’ll either have no opinion, or they’ll have picked up the fraud meme.
I think North is actionable, too.
As with all the other lies from the Right that have been exposed, this sadly won’t change anything. Pachauri’s reputation will always be linked to this lie in the minds of the masses. And for those that oppose the whole AWG theory, this will simply reinforce their belief that it’s all a great conspiracy. Even KPMG are in on it now apparently.
Is much to be gained by suing North? Judging by the way he whinges about how little he was paid for this story he isn’t a wealthy man (extraordinary that he even whinges considering the story turns out to be worthless). The court case will drag on for ages and in the meantime North will milk the publicity, portray himself as a martyr, and probably make further false accusations. North is a bit like Monckton – publicity is far more important to him that the rights or wrongs of the case, and like Monckton he probably thinks he can bluff and bluster his way out of any situation.
It would be better to pursue The Telegraph in the courts, but I don’t know if that is possible given that they soon removed the story and have apologised. A big newspaper being sued for libel in a high profile court case might make media outlets think twice before publishing these smear stories and put “journalists” like Brooker and North out of work.
“Is much to be gained by suing North?”
The only think keeping misanthropes and other carbuncles on societies’ backside from erupting to the detriment of us all is the consequences of their actions being visited on them.
This is, after all, the complete justification for jail time and the entire criminal justice system, is it not?
So what would be gained? North would have to deal with the consequences of his actions. Just as a burglar or murderer has to deal with the consequences of their actions.
And you can go to jail for failure to pay court fines (contempt).
@Wow
As I understand it, in the UK the only redress in defamation cases are financial damages. If the defendant can’t pay those damages he goes bankrupt but he can’t go to jail (regrettably in the case of North).
someone on Monbiot provided this very interesting quote and [link](http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/its-all-lies.html)
But he dare not. If he chose to sue, we could demand full disclosure of his financial affairs, through the courts. And then the millionaire businessman would have some explaining to do – not least how he is booking his business expenses to the IPCC. And yes, I do have the evidence.
reminded me a little of this gem:
We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad. Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003
Marion Delgado:
> Try, DISHONESTLY weaselish. Try “Nixonian.”
Yeah, I feel your frustration – but at least Monbiot *has* admitted he kind of got it wrong. I think the guns would be better aimed at Fred Pearce. His output since Prof. Jones, CRU and everyone else has been exonerated of all charges has been *disgusting*. His continuing rhetoric, innuendo and self-justification is worthy of WattsUpMyArse or McFraudit.
And Pearce has been enabled by the Guardian with prominent sidebar ads for his nasty, little book.
A shameful episode in journalism from the one MSM outlet that has otherwise been a reliable source most of the time.
—
For those calling for court action against the main offenders, it’s a double-edged sword. Imagine the howls of “Censorship! Intimidation!” that would come from the lynch mob if North, et al were nailed in court.
“As I understand it, in the UK the only redress in defamation cases are financial damages.”
Sir Jeffrey Archer won quite a wodge. He hadn’t financially lost anything.
There is also still the option of contempt of court charges if you refuse to pay.
Tom Fuller is just a Matt Drudge wannabe.
The piece of crap he “writes for” is nothing but a bunch of vanity sites put up by a Murdoch rival who happens to own one of the crappiest magazines in history, the Weekly Standard.
It’s Carly Media Group’s attempt to simply mimic the online version of real papers without having a real paper involved. Its content is typically that of a more amateurishly written Washington Times, verging on WorldNet Daily status.
In all seriousness, Fuller and all the xxx.examiner.coms are much less harmful without anyone ever going to one or leaving comments, or even discussing, e.g., him without simply saying he’s a completely unimportant and valueless source of denialist boilerplate.
To treat him as a journalist is, in my opinion, a real crime against real journalists. We might be guilty of a myriad of sins, but Thomas Fuller is not one of them.
DavidCog:
You definitely have a point re Pearce vs. Monbiot.
As for North, I think he’s tossing down the gauntlet, for whatever reason. Most libel law is aimed directly at his sort of unrepentent and persistent defamatory lying. Not that you’re wrong about his reaction: I’ve been to his site, and he’s ALREADY depicting himself as a pre-martyr before anyone’s even filed against him. And all the comments from his followers are assuming that, as well.
In the States we’d call his followers Teabaggers, or more politely, Tea Partiers. My guess would be the UK equivalent in his case is UKIPers. (and “you kippers” sounds funny to me so I’m keeping it).
“I’ve been to his site, and he’s ALREADY depicting himself as a pre-martyr ”
So what if he’s a martyr? Do we give up on the IRA because they could become martyrs? Hamas? Baader Meinhof?
No, because if they are ignored, they continue to act with impunity.
It’s not like we’re actually going to have him nailed up somewhere, so he’s engaging in histrionics.
As usual.
Drama queen that he is.
Respect to Pachauri, he sounds scrupulously clean.
Legal action over claims of fraud, conspiracy and so on is one thing. I hope it doesn’t spread to the science.
Dan @30,
You wrote “I’m sure we’ve all had experience of people we know have no problem with the science shaking their head at the CRU “fraud”. This is what scares me.”
That is exactly the situation that I encountered with some of my colleagues in recent months, fortunately I had the opportunity to set the record straight. It is incredibly disheartening to see how this misinformation campaign is, and you don’t necessarily have to be ignorant to be misled.
The great speed these lies spread is astounding, that and how they become ingrained in the denier meme.
What I do not get is why the newspapers continue to aide and abet liars like Booker and North? Anyhow, have the newspapers undertaken some cost/benefit analyses which demonstrated that the pros gains (sorry pros) far outstrip the cons for printing lies?
An aside, Pearce needs to do a u-turn and fast, or else he will end up being likened to discredited “journos” like Fuller.
#13, #26 etc.
I was one of the people who complained about the Leake/North ‘Amazongate’ article in the Sunday Times back in January. Hopefully I can clear up a bit of confusion.
The published S. Times correction, and removal of the original article from the S. Times website, were brokered by the UK’s Press Complaints Commission. Had the S. Times not come to an agreed remedy then my complaint would have gone to an PCC adjudication panel to decide if the S. Times had broken any PCC rules.
I believe the S. Times in that case came to agreement because they might lose (no certainly though, the panel is notoriously weak and shy of rebuking newspapers), but also did not want to disclose how and why the article was re-written at the last moment, nor the level of involvement (whatever it was) of Richard North and his ‘research’.
In response to the publication of the apology in the S. Times Richard North wrote a very, very long complaint to the Press Complaints Commission jointly complaining about a Monbiot Guardian blog and the S. Times published correction.
In the case of the Guardian, I’d guess that giving him a right to relpy will mean if that part of his complaint goes to adjudication (likely as North is belligerent), they will not uphold his complaint as the newspaper gave him a prompt and lengthy right to reply (they bascially offered appropriate remedy at the first opportunity).
In the case of the S. Times apology, it is unclear which PCC rule the apology is supposed to have broken. Given the article doesnt mention him, and he never asked for a right of reply when the piece came out, plus writing an apology is de facto an article where care is taken to accurately report peoples views as stated to the newspaper, which is all the PCC asks of journalists, the adjudication panel is pretty unlikely to agree with North views.
Simon Lewis
Marion Delgado,
thanks. Can you believe what Monbiot wrote:
Has anyone been as badly maligned as Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)?
Has that man no shame? Or no memory, more likely? The Alzheimer school of journalism?
Yeah, Pearce is worse. There’s always somebody that’s worse.
Remember when Monckton bragged about how he was going to get Pachuri arrested as a “fraudster”?
Good times…
We all have our white whales. Mine’s Marc Morano. Ted Bundy making good.
@Simon Lewis
Great to hear from you. I overlooked the fact that North wasn’t named in the S Times apology and therefore, under normal PCC procedures, has no basis to complain in the first place. Hah!
Marion Delgado:
> My guess would be the UK equivalent in his case is UKIPers.
Yup. That’s the closest we’ve got to the ‘*Dare to be stupid!*’ movement that is the Teabaggers. No surprise that Monckton is rumoured to be taking charge of it. Fortunately, the party is about as popular as a fart in a lift (elevator!) with the UK electorate.
> (and “you kippers” sounds funny to me so I’m keeping it).
> We all have our white whales. Mine’s Marc Morano. Ted Bundy making good.
My fantasy prison combo would be Marc Morano locked in a cell with Jeffrey Dahmer.
~~~
MapleLeaf:
> An aside, Pearce needs to do a u-turn and fast, or else he will end up being likened to discredited “journos” like Fuller.
He’s already there in my eyes: [Climategate: No whitewash, but CRU scientists are far from squeaky clean](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jul/07/climategate-scientists). I was so angry at that article that my ‘forthright opinion’ in the comments earned me a place on the pre-moderation naughty step. So I created a new account and [toned it down a little](http://www.guardian.co.uk/users/clippings/add?commentId=3f7a35ee-bfe9-4e9a-91ab-a121721272e4&commenterUserName=VenusianVan&r2ContentIdForSSP=364647054).
If Pearce came out tomorrow and said, “*I’ve re-examined the evidence and think there are some serious flaws in the global warming story.*” it would not surprise me in the least. The Guardian should send him out to pasture before he damages their reputation any further.
Hi Dave @ 49,
I fear that you may be right about Pearce. As for “The Guardian should send him out to pasture”, maybe NewScientist should do the same….I doubt very much that they will though.
I undestand many of you don’t Pearce, but I think we need his book as a remedy to those who think that Mosher and Fuller’s is the only account of the CRU affairs, until a better book is written.
Excuse me, I meant to write “I understand many of you don’t like Pearce, …”.
So, Cootie, we should have Pearce’s book of trivial fiction to read until someone somewhere finds SOMETHING to complain about that isn’t mired in lies and BS, is that right?
Why?
And why can’t we get A Crowley’s texts to counter the Christian Bible in our schools, at least until we find out the problems in the Bible..?
Kooiti Masuda:
> I undestand many of you don’t [like] Pearce…
For good reason. We didn’t all wake up one morning and spontaneously decide that Pearce was a big poopie head.
> …we need his book as a remedy to those who think that Mosher and Fuller’s is the only account of the CRU affairs…
We need a really bad book to counter a truly shite book? Does not compute.
> …until a better book is written.
I’ll write it now: All allegations against the scientists were without merit, concocted by rancid, rabid ideologues who are bankrolled by vested interests. The end.
~~~
Hey MapleLeaf,
Yeah, we can add New Scientist to the blacklist. :/
~~~
P.S. I FUBARed that earlier link to [my comment on Pearce's article](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jul/07/climategate-scientists?showallcomments=true#CommentKey:3f7a35ee-bfe9-4e9a-91ab-a121721272e4).
Kooiti – no thanks, I prefer DavidCOG’s account – brief, accurate and to the point.
Sorry,Mr Lambert
Your entire series of threads on Jonathan Leake and the allied Gate threads (all tagged Leakegate,Samantagate etc) had no substance in science. I read most of them as they were posted. I re-read the whole thing, via Google’s search function – any diligent reader would be really hard-pressed to have access to all information as you had, and yet reach conclusions you did – “Leake is bad, North is evil, the IPCC is an angel etc etc”.
Congratulations for being such nice props for the WWF in their maniacal crazed-eyed efforts.
Ah yes, it is indeed very maniacal to insist on facts, rather than a false narrative…
“Your entire series of threads on Jonathan Leake and the allied Gate threads (all tagged Leakegate,Samantagate etc) had no substance in science.”
Well, since the claims these gates proposed were not scientific, I don’t really see how this is a problem.
Or do you refuse to accept reports on, say, the latest fashion since the piece has no substance in science?
Simon Lewis
You opinions on the North PCC submission are highly valuable indeed.
Your 31 page long letter to the PCC and your long post at RealClimate – both do not establish any scientific credibility to the IPCC Amazon statement. In fact, they served to delay a clear understanding of the underlying issue. Dr Nepstad clearly stated that the IPCC statement originated in a defunct website, which was the only premise of Jonathan Leake’s interview with you, as your letter and attached emails clearly demonstrate. If the IPCC was on shaky ground employing WWF reports, the fact has only worsened with its claims originating in speculative science put out in website pages. As science writer for the ST, Leake is as entitled as any of his contemporaries, at taking editorial jabs at the IPCC for this reason alone.
While you clearly agreed and reiterated that non peer-reviewed sources of information be not used by the IPCC, your only basis for a lengthy complaint against Leake and the ST, therefore becomes the sole fact that the article changed after it was read to you. This, does not at all come across like a convincing reason to withdraw the article.
Your main criticism, in your emails, was the fact that the IPCC ought not to rely on non peer-reviewed sources, especially in a rich field of research where more than adequate peer-reviewed material is available. North’s complaint, worded as it may be after his fashion, reaches similar conclusions. The Times article which was retracted, carried the same opinion. I am sure the readers of this blog will agree as well, that employing peer-reviewed literature will only strengthen the hands of the IPCC against criticism.
Your repeated defence of the WWF and the quality of its reports, while admirable for its evenhandedness, served only to cloud the issue that while good reports may be put out by environmental pressure groups, their work rather not be included in the IPCC reports.
It would be of assistance, if you could provide readers and interested observers with a copy of the version of the ST article which was provided to to you as final, before its actual publication.
Mr Wow
Here’s how one can examine whether my statement above is correct – the one you quote in #58.
Just examine all posts tagged Leakegate. See if there is an explanation of what exactly Jonathan Leake’s error, his terrible crime, was, in the article that was retracted.
wow, just wow.
instead of admitting that he was wrong many times about Pachauri, Fuller has written a new post on WuWt, requesting that he resigns.
well, if you are always wrong, as Tom Fuller is, you have to deploy some tactics to get around minor problems like facts.
so when Fuller’s prediction that Pachauri would be gone in June didn t turn out true, he simply keeps asking for resignation in September
when he was cleared by an investigation, Fuller simply invents a new line of attack: lack of leadership, not adapting to the internet age fast enough.
“one can examine whether my statement above is correct – the one you quote in #58.”
One can also examine whether this has anything to do with those stories and it doesn’t.
The Amazon story had no science. The CRU hack had no science. The Leake op ed had no science and so on.
Therefore though your comment may be correct, it is pointless. It’s rather like saying “there’s no latvian in this thread, therefore please stop”.
But I suppose you have no science to rebut the counters to these denialist attacks on the science therefore your post at #58 contains no science only a poorly thought out whinge.
And “Mr”???
What I don’t understand is, if North and Booker are openly libelling Pachauri, smearing his reputation with baseless accusations, why doesn’t Pachauri simply sue the pants off them?
Just asking…
Mind you, and lest I give the wrong impression, Monbiot is the best cite on this so far.
” why doesn’t Pachauri simply sue the pants off them?
Just asking… ”
Because for decent men and women, amicable resolution is possible and should be an avenue exhausted before other avenues explored.
And North is already being hailed as a martyr being sued by “teh establishmunt” to silence him before any lawsuit is made.
This reluctance to hit people with solicitors may come as a culture shock to some USians, but is still very much the norm for most of the world.
Even if only because using solicitors is seen as too cruel.
Tell you what I’m asking: why hasn’t North shown the Sunday Telegraph his evidence so they wouldn’t have to retract North’s assassination screed?
And Yob-Soggoth or whatever your name is, the reason why the leake piece was retracted and what his crime was was LYING.
Making sh*t up.
Telling porkie pies.
Being ecumenical with the truth for nefarious means.
This is generally considered wrong.
But maybe the ancient evils of the dark like yourself do not understand common human decency and the truth.
“both do not establish any scientific credibility to the IPCC Amazon statement”
This would be because the piece was about the lying scumwad Leake.
“While you clearly agreed and reiterated that non peer-reviewed sources of information be not used by the IPCC”
Which wasn’t. That limitation only is enforced in the WG1 where this Amazon element was not present.
Moreover, your post has nothing to add scientifically proving Leake’s smears.
This is not unexpected since Leake himself could not manage to do so either, as evidenced by the retraction of the piece.
“As science writer for the ST, Leake is as entitled as any of his contemporaries, at taking editorial jabs at the IPCC for this reason alone.”
However, this is not a pedestal for making unsupported accusations and outright lies. Such actions are an abuse of his position and should be taken away from him if he cannot show the correct decorum.
And you will note that the IPCC carried the unsupported and unscientific work from a few denialist “scientists”. Their work is far less researched and far less supported by facts independently verifiable than the WWF reports that have been used.
Yet, for some reason, despite all the long words and heartrending anecdote you post here, you do not care if there is a low quality report included in the IPCC as long as it refutes significant climate change from human activities.
You are partisan to an extreme.
wow – ” why doesn’t Pachauri simply sue the pants off them?
Just asking… ”
“Because for decent men and women, amicable resolution is possible and should be an avenue exhausted before other avenues explored.”
I’m sure Carter-Ruck solicitors would disagree with you.
http://www.carter-ruck.com/Media%20Law/Recent_Work.asp
So please explain how this decent man and his amicable Carter-Ruck solution have not yet managed to muzzle either North or Booker? Enquiring minds would like to know…
“I’m sure Carter-Ruck solicitors would disagree with you.”
~So you start off complaining that Pachuri hasn’t sued, then complain that he’s retained solicitors to sue North.
Ah, two faces. Or more!
What a complete wally.
“~So you start off complaining that Pachuri hasn’t sued, then complain that he’s retained solicitors to sue North.
I didn’t complain. I asked why he hasn’t sued Booker and North directly and therefore stem the source of the accusations. A perfectly civil question.
“Ah, two faces. Or more!
What a complete wally.”
How nice. An ad hominem attack. I’m impressed by your eloquence. So the answer to my question is…?
“I didn’t complain.”
Yes you did.
“How nice. An ad hominem attack.”
Nope, my assessment of your abilities. If I said “you’re wrong because you’re a wally”, THAT would be an Ad-hom.
But, like every single denialist IN THE WORLD, you have NO CLUE what an Ad-hominem attack is (whilst spewing plenty out yourself).
Which merely reinforces the presumption of your abilities given earlier.
What a wally.
“you have NO CLUE what an Ad-hominem attack is (whilst spewing plenty out yourself).”
Obviously I don’t know what ad hominem means. Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out my multiple ad hominem attacks so that I can avoid such a faux pas in the future? It seems I’m just too simple to understand that I have made one. I wait to be further enlightened by your good self.
PS Your erudition really is delightful.
FWIW, having extracted the retraction, Pachauri has a much stronger case against North and Booker
“Obviously I don’t know what ad hominem means.”
Yes, but since you know this was so obvious, why did you claim it?
What a wally.
Libelgate, [try here](http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html).
Lets take an example of the fallacious argument of Ad Hominem:
>A is a complete wally there for A must also be wrong.
Lets look an example that is not Ad Hominem:
> A is wrong, there for A must be a complete wally.
Dear Mr. Dr. Wow
You raise a lot of very similar points, and your argument is circular – namely that Leake was ‘lying’ and the evidence for that is the fact his article was retracted. Pretty weak, isn’t it?
It however can be done a different way – you could actually specify what Leake’s “lie” was, even in the changed article that was attributed to him.
And, to make things clear, for everyone’s benefit – Simon Lewis is on public record about the use of non-peer reviewed literature, not just from the WWF, in the IPCC reports. He doesn’t want them in.
The IPCC reports are not some big bucket of fish into which all the guppies that took the bait on “significant change from human activities” be just dumped into. The cited references have to substantiate the science put forth in the text.
>*What I don’t understand is, if North and Booker are openly libelling Pachauri, smearing his reputation with baseless accusations, why doesn’t Pachauri simply sue the pants off them?*
I’m not in any position to answer your question. And prior to your interation with WOW I assumed it was rhetorical.
“And prior to your interation with WOW I assumed it was rhetorical.”
Nah, it’s a common thing when you’re trying to smear someone with no evidence to back yourself up.
The Beckian Gambit.
“I wonder whether Obama is a Muslim? I’m only asking…”
It’s pretty shabby but the mouth-breathers who suck this sort of crap up because it’s comforting or is attacking “the enemy” and therefore “anything goes” do not care whether it’s valid, reasonable or even obvious BS.
They’ll accept it.
“Leake was ‘lying’ and the evidence for that is the fact his article was retracted. Pretty weak, isn’t it?”
Nope, pretty strong.
If it had been truth, then it would not have had to be retracted with an apology.
What’s weak is your continued support for the lies and the mental gymnastics you have to go through to do so.
“Simon Lewis is on public record about the use of non-peer reviewed literature, not just from the WWF, in the IPCC reports. He doesn’t want them in.”
And the WG1 doesn’t use them.
The Amazon issue wasn’t in WG1 so therefore there’s no issue with using grey reports.
I also note that the liberal use of “grey reports” in [this paper](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/a_new_hockey_stick_mcshane_and.php) goes unnoted by your eagle eyes and gripping hands.
Again, two faces there, Yob Shoggoth.
“The cited references have to substantiate the science put forth in the text.”
They do.
WG1 is the section with the science in.
But you never read it, just heard what you needed to say on Talk Radio and repeat it without understanding.
libelgate — “What I don’t understand is, if North and Booker are openly libelling Pachauri, smearing his reputation with baseless accusations, why doesn’t Pachauri simply sue the pants off them?”
You clearly have no idea what it costs to start a libel action in England, especially if the libellers have one of the UK’s biggest newspaper organisations to pay for their side of things.
Besides, the same could be said of Monckton. Yet to see anything happen there.
Dear Wow,
I am afraid you’ll have to up the argument a bit if you want to get anywhere with this. You are seriously harming your own side (which is the IPCC consensus AGW corner), if you say things like “WG1 is the section with the science” and such.
I am pretty sure that you are not up to speed with the entire background on the Simon Lewis/Leake/North chronology and details.
Secondly, if a retraction proves “lies”, then Monbiot’s public apology after his failed search box investigative journalism bit, and North’s article on the Guardian, proves that Monbiot was completely wrong. Or we are to suppose you don’t see it that way?
“seriously harming your own side … if you say things like “WG1 is the section with the science” and such.”
How? Or do you just want to throw that out in the hope that true believes like yourself will just accept it is so and live happy lives knowing they’ve “won”?
WG1 has the science in it. It hasn’t got grey literature in it.
“Secondly, if a retraction proves “lies”,”
Yes it does.
“then Monbiot’s public apology after his failed search box investigative journalism bit”
Where is this apology?
“North’s article on the Guardian, proves that Monbiot was completely wrong.”
Nope, that wasn’t a retraction or recantation, it was a right to reply.
Nothing more.
And a reply that merely allowed more lies to be spewed by North.
“In criticising Dr Richard North, below, for not having checked whether there was a reference to the claim that up to “40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation” in the WWF Report, I was unaware of, and therefore omitted to mention, that Dr North had himself later spotted that there was a reference to the 40% figure in the WWF report. His initial mistake had been corrected on another page (before the Sunday Times article had been written) and he had added a cross-link to the original page, which I failed to note. Apologies.”
-George Monbiot
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jun/24/sunday-times-amazongate-ipcc
It usually pays to do one own research, than believing in second-hand vapors peddled by others. It is also a good idea to do research before expending one’s energies blowing off steam, just to have facts behind one’s corner.
The tag name is Leakegate – take a look yourself patiently.
And that says nothing about lies.
All it says is there was an omission.
Not lie.
Omission.
“I was unaware of, and therefore omitted to mention, that Dr North had himself later spotted that there was a reference to the 40% figure in the WWF report.”
But since North has had several versions of Amazongate, each one knocked down one after the other while exhorting that it was still alive (ignoring that this new zombie gate was not yet visible to ANYONE else), this is no lie, not even really an omission. Just a change in situation AFTER THE STATEMENT.
Whereas North has had a single statement, the AR4, to work from and made shit up about it all the time, each one requiring another retraction.
“It usually pays to do one own research, than believing in second-hand vapors peddled by others.”
Pity you rely on the echo chamber of the RWNuts for your second hand vapours.
Dear Wow,
You asked “where is the apology” and here it is, two posts above this one. If apologies and retractions can prove the veracity of the opposing statement – your claim to begin with – we have established that Monbiot was wrong.
And secondly, Monbiot, by “omitting”, “being unaware” and “failing to note” that North put the right story out a day after Amazongate was outed, reached the dramatic conclusion that North and Delingpole were “fabulists”. That is the “lie” that you so palpitate ferverently for. And that is why Monbiot apologized – by using the word “Apologies”.
And let us remember – all this is to satisfy your unquenched curiosity, which can as well be done by reading through the articles in question in the first place.
But no matter, it does show that you can sift wheat from chaff if be needed, which is what we are interested in ultimately, and not just depend on retraction to conclude that an article contained ‘lies’ or otherwise.
Armed thus, could you please look into the retracted ST piece to reveal what the “lie” is?
“You asked “where is the apology” and here it is, two posts above this one”
It was supposed to be an apology for lying.
It wasn’t.
However, the Sunday Telegraph’s retraction WAS an apology for lying.
Summary of Telegraph’s record on climate reporting (hint – it’s bad).
http://anarchist606.blogspot.com/2010/09/another-denialist-talking-point.html
Mr Wow,
It is hard to find cures for petulantly evasive wankery.
You seem to use strong words like “lying” without the evidence to back it up – having us to take you less seriously by that same amount, in order to proceed. Still waiting for your substantiation
- of what Leake’s lie was,
- and where the *bad science behind Leake’s journalism* was discussed on this blog’s posts.
It helps to pay attention, and not chase one’s own tail. Circular reasoning is no good.
Indeed it is, but hopefully one day you’ll find one and get better, Mr Yog.
“You seem to use strong words like “lying” without the evidence to back it up”
No, I have evidence to back it up.
Just evidence you don’t like.
“Still waiting for your substantiation – of what Leake’s lie was,”
Pretty much the entire piece.
> The article “UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim” (News, Jan 31) stated that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had included an “unsubstantiated claim” that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall.
This was a lie. Retraction:
> In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence
> The IPCC had referenced the claim to a report prepared for WWF by Andrew Rowell and Peter Moore, whom the article described as “green campaigners” with “little scientific expertise.”
A baseless smear by a backstabbing slimebucket.. Aplogogy for the lie
> We also understand and accept that Mr Rowell is an experienced environmental journalist and that Dr Moore is an expert in forest management, and apologise for any suggestion to the contrary.
> The article also stated that the authors’ research had been based on a scientific paper that dealt with the impact of human activity rather than climate change.
Also a lie. The proof:
> In the case of the WWF report, the figure had, in error, not been referenced, but was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) which did relate to the impact of climate change.
“and where the bad science behind Leake’s journalism ”
There wasn’t any science behind leake’s scurrilous lies.
@ 63 Libelgate
“What I don’t understand is, if North and Booker are openly libelling Pachauri, smearing his reputation with baseless accusations, why doesn’t Pachauri simply sue the pants off them?”
Having won a retraction from the original publication Pachauri and TERI have restored their reputation. They are not obliged to chase down every single person on the internet who repeats such a libel, and I’m sure they have better things to do. North can shout ‘come and get me’ as much as he likes, but as he himself points out – since he pleads poverty its hardly worth the effort and Pachauri would no doubt be claimed to be acting vindictively. The Telegraph is a paper of note, and allegations made there deserve to be treated seriously. North is an obscure right-wing blogger of little reputation, and what little might be left is further tarnished by this episode. He can say what he likes on his blog, but no doubt the Telegraph will no doubt be wary of taking any more stuff from him.
On the other hand Pachauri might just be letting North dig in deeper, in order to show a court that there can be no doubt as to North’s intention 
August 26, 2010
August 26, 2010
August 26, 2010
August 26, 2010
August 26, 2010
August 26, 2010
August 26, 2010
August 26, 2010
August 26, 2010
August 26, 2010
August 26, 2010
August 26, 2010
August 26, 2010
August 27, 2010
August 27, 2010
August 27, 2010
August 27, 2010
August 27, 2010
August 27, 2010
August 27, 2010
August 27, 2010
August 27, 2010
August 28, 2010
August 29, 2010
August 31, 2010
August 31, 2010
September 1, 2010
September 1, 2010
September 1, 2010
September 1, 2010
September 2, 2010