A loss for Hansen:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jhQppI92Od59PEcGQ0ngnufuzMIg?docId=B39207811292337222A00005

The court didn't believe him, perhaps?

Dear Bish, Have you seen this?
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2010-12-13a.436.2&s=speaker%3A10290#g444.1

Read it and weep.

Just posted this on Monbiot's CIF thread.

I think it's self explanatory!

Norwegiangreen

14 December 2010 1:27PM

Read this carefully if you're interested in CIF moderation policy - and screensave it 'cos it probably won't be here for long!

This morning, I posted the item below,pointing out that a lot of multiple ID "astroturfing" was caused by the CIF mods' draconian censorship of non-approved opinions.

A couple of hours later, I logged on again to make a further point about the UK's only major organised astroturfing site - the hard left Medialens.

Guess what (I'm sure you have).

"Comment privileges for this account have been suspended"

That's it.

Greendodo flies no more.

It's gone to join the 'eavenly choir.

It's an ex-dodo

It's joined the choir invisible.

.........that's why I'm now going to be "Norwegiangreen"

For a few minutes anyway.

Thank you CIF moderators for helping me to make my point so eloquently.

You really couldn't make it up.

CIF = Comment Is Futile

greendodo

14 December 2010 10:01AM

I think I might be an "astroturfer",

- or, at least, a "sock puppet" - I'm not quite sure which.

A couple of years ago I discovered CIF and, being a bit of a small "c" conservative, was a bit depressed by the narrow, monolithic, left-of-centre worldview expressed.

So I signed up, with my sole email address, got myself a username, and waded in - mainly on AGW topics.

All went well for a couple of weeks, until I disagreed with one of the prominent AGW enthusiasts on a detailed point about missing heat in the upper atmosphere. He was doctrinaire, supercilious and quite rude - so I was polite but sarcastic in reply. My posts suddenly disappeared.

Late, on another thread after a similar exchange and a few disappeared posts, I was told my posts were being "pre-moderated" - which meant they seldom saw the light of day.

On one occasion, with another identity, I was told my "posting privileges" had been withdrawn for unexplained reasons.

Well, to cut a long story short, I've now worked my way through about seven email addresses and usernames so I must be well into "sock-puppet" territory.

But here's the thing - the numerous, evangelical and, quite often abusive AGW cheerleaders on CIF have never needed to change their identities.

The likes of "Onthefence", "Nelthon" and many others frequently resort to insult and abuse, and they get the odd post removed, but they're still allowed to post for year after year whereas, as far as I can see there are no long term "denialist" posters.

So, I think what we see on CIF is a lot of "defensive sock-puppetry" resulting directly from the mods prejudice and bias.

The only organised astroturfing I've ever see being organised is on hard left media monitoring sites like Medialens - where mass "mail-ins" are exhorted on a daily basis.

Did anyone else see Armstrong & Miller Sketch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-F8EO3qOVk

Probably not too far from the truth, although I'm not entirely sure which side their on (as with the RAF Pilots!)

George Monbiot think peopole are astroturfing HIM...

Plenty of people remind him about 'Skeptic Alerts' which do just that to Bishop Hill

George Monbiot:

"These astroturf libertarians are the real threat to internet democracy
As I see in threads on my articles, the online sabotaging of intelligent debate seems organised. We must fight to save this precious gift"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/dec/13/astroturf-libertarians-internet-democracy?showallcomments=true&msg=a#end-of-comments

http://www.realclimategate.org/2010/12/george-monbiot-complains-about-astroturfing/

I'm banned fom comments at CiF it appears..But a 'luke warmist' got through.......

http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/8800299
Jane Basingstoke

14 December 2010 10:09AM

George. You are forgetting the power of the internet to amplify, and the success of the lobbyists in recruiting real grass roots support. And there is one issue that particularly affects the Guardian and CiF threads.

Many grass roots sceptics are part of the CCC (Campaign against Climate Change) online army.
http://www.campaigncc.org/node/384

Warmist grass roots openly linking up with comparatively minor establishment figures can look like part of an establishment plot and makes some sceptics very angry. Here’s an angry Jo Nova getting angry sceptics to beat CCC by joining them.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/newsflash-the-fightback-campaign-against-sceptics/

And here’s Andrew Montford and a blisteringly angry Barry Woods
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/19/skeptic-alerts.html
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/11/29/cacc-notices-bishop.html

CCC also helpfully provides its online army of angry sceptics with a feed of Guardian articles on climate change. And lots of descriptions of sceptics guaranteed to get them really really angry and keen to post and post and post, including the d-word on many pages.
http://www.campaigncc.org/sceptics

Now I know that many trustees of Lawson’s GWPF are full voting members of the House of Lords. But this does not give warmist politicians such as Caroline Lucas permission to get involved in climate change politics.
http://thegwpf.org/who-we-are/board-of-trustees.html
(Note, trustees using the titles “Lord”, “Baroness”, or “Rt Rev” are all in the Lords)
(Note, Right Reverend Peter Forster is under C for (Bishop of) Chester rather than F for Forster)
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/

CCC is a great recruiting sergeant for online sceptics. Given this effect, I’d suspect CCC of being socks themselves, except…
http://www.campaigncc.org/whoweare

Oh dear, oh dear oh dear. Richard Black re-hashing this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen/8386319.stm

The ‘Cancun Package’, which the British took a key role in drawing up, suggests that all countries agree to cut emissions as part of a legally binding deal to be drawn up in the future.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8195841/High-hopes-as-world-moves-towards-new-climate-change-deal.html

Success is claimed by Louise Gray.
I would partially agree with her. By the time any legalaties are thrashed out the cold will have well and truly set in. The big downside of Cancun is the increase in the amount of money draining out of the country in aid when our own public services are being slashed.

Haven't seen any headlines about that yet!

@Turning Tide

It seems he stayed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8190330/Chris-Huhne-stays-at-Cancun-key-climate-change-talks-instead-of-flying-home-for-tuition-fees-vote.html

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/court-rejects-industry-challenge-to-limits-on-smokestack-co2/

American courts back EPA emissions limitations.

Perhaps I am a bit cynical but how far can legislation go. If I were a CEO of a power company and was under pressure from EPA or DECC to stop using coal as a power source I would suggest shutting down the power stations for two days a week to reduce emissions. If that doesn't bring reality in the conversation then I don't know what will!

Judith Curry's response to written questions that followed her recent testimony to the U. S. Congress' House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment are now up on her blog, Climate Etc. judithcurry.com/2010/12/09/testimony-followup-part-ii/#more-1469

She posted the questions and asked readers for their recommendations. Her response reflects many of the comments that were provided. It is an interesting read whether or not you agree with what she had to say.