North reports the Press Complaints Commission to the Press Complaints Commission | James Delingpole

Recursive complaints

Is this a first? Blogger extraordinaire Dr Richard North has made a detailed complaint to the Press Complaints Commission, lambasting it for acting in breach of Section 1 of its Editors Code of Practice, viz:

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

If the PCC ignores this complaint, it will then effectively find itself sanctioning a breach of the second clause of the same Section:

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and – where appropriate – an apology published

You can read the great North’s letter in full here.

As we know from his ongoing case against the Guardian’s George Monbiot – who rather cavalierly accused North of “peddling inaccuracy, misrepresentation and falsehood” over a story which turned out to be entirely correct – North is not a figure to be trifled with. He has spent the last few decades acting as an expert witness in any number of complex court cases (involving everything from eggs to speed cameras) and has an almost trainspotterish obsession with the tiniest detail which, together with a grasp of legal procedure worthy of Tom Denning and crusading spirit worthy of Richard Coeur De Lion make him a truly formidable opponent of any manner of establishment mendacity, cover-up or bullshit.

This case, of course, concerns Amazongate – a complicated but important story which, as I reported on a previous blog (go there if you need all the links) can be roughly summarised thus:

The IPCC made a false claim in its most recent assessment report, passing off the propaganda of environmental activists as peer-reviewed science. Instead of admitting the truth and retracting its false claim, the IPCC and its sympathisers went into entirely characteristic cover-up mode. Activist scientists like Daniel Nepstad obfuscated; other activist scientists like Dr Simon Lewis of Leeds University exploited the ignorance and pro-Warmist bias of the Press Complaints Commission to bully an entirely unnecessary retraction of a true story on the subject by the Sunday Times; activist journalists like George Monbiot then boasted that they had been vindicated – a claim that was excitedly repeated throughout the ecotard blogosphere and among ecotard cheerleaders like the BBC. All of this energy in defence of a great, stinking lie.

I’d say North’s case is watertight. What the PCC did was force the Sunday Times to apologise for running a true story and then force it correct it with an untrue one. At the very least the PCC ought to force the Sunday Times to apologise for its apology.

Will this happen? Well, after three official whitewashes into Climategate I have long since lost what little faith I had in the liberal Establishment’s capacity to do anything other than cover up its incompetence, corruption and skullduggery. So I doubt the PCC will be any different.

One thing’s sure though: if the PCC refuses to act on this entirely valid and important complaint then, in the eyes of all fair-minded journalists and indeed non-journalists, it will have abandoned all claims to be taken seriously as a fair and independent arbiter of truth, decency and balance in the media.

Related posts:

  1. Press regulation only helps the bad guys
  2. UEA: the sweet smell of napalm in the morning…
  3. Climategate: Monckton and North spit-roast Pachauri
  4. Freedom of speech is dead in Australia

 

Moonbat + Amazongate = Prize Pillock

Shrill buffoonery

spat-acular

With thanks to Josh @ www.cartoonsbyjosh.com

There’s only one thing more satisfying than being right. That’s when a shrill buffoon you utterly despise dedicates an entire column in a newspaper you loathe to accusing you of being wrong, working himself up into an almost masturbatory lather of slobbering indignation, macheting himself to ever greater heights of ecstatic fervour like some Shi’ite penitent during Ashura, giggling at his jokes, crowing at his own cleverness, earning all sorts of smarmy plaudits from his coterie of sorry eco-fascist brown-nosers – and it turns out, after all that, you’re still entirely right and the buffoon – let’s call him Moonbat – has emerged looking an even bigger prat than ever.

I love you George Moonbat, no really I do. You’ve just made my weekend.

Don’t think George loves me, though. There’s a clue in this par here:

In the Telegraph, James Delingpole, who seldom misses an opportunity to make an idiot of himself, announced that these revelations meant:

“AGW [anthropogenic global warming] theory is toast. So’s Dr Rajendra Pachauri. So’s the Stern review. So’s the credibility of the IPCC.”In reality, as we will see, it’s Delingpole’s beliefs on climate change that the story has reduced to toast.

Anyway, let me explain what this is all about. Someone complained to the Press Complaints Commission about a story Jonathan Leake had written in the Sunday Times about Amazongate. The story concerned yet another piece of dodgy science from that supposed gold standard of climate expertise – the IPCC – which had quoted some statistics about the Amazon’s sensitivity to climate change which were a) inaccurate b) not peer-reviewed c) had been taken from a World Wildlife Fund press release. For some bizarre reason, the Sunday Times decided not to stand up to the Press Complaints Commission – despite the fact that the substance of the story was entirely correct. This, in turn, has given greenies like Monbiot an excuse to prance up and down like Muffin the Mule on angel dust under the insane delusion that this somehow demolishes the entire sceptics’ case against AGW. Which, it doesn’t.

Really, that’s it. If you’re interested in the (mildly dull) details Richard North tells the full story here.

The reason I can’t be bothered to repeat them myself is that I wrote up all these nuances back in January here and here. In the second story, I explain how the great North got his original story slightly wrong but how on closer examination the story turned out to have been even more damning to the IPCC’s credibility than we’d previously suspected. Monbiot clearly missed this subtlety, tee hee. Otherwise he wouldn’t be looking such a prize pillock now.

Related posts:

  1. Is Prince Charles ill-advised, or merely idiotic?
  2. Pen Hadow: Arctic Pillock – the comedy saga continues
  3. On Plimer, climate change and the ineffable barkingness of George Moonbat
  4. Great news: the people responsible for Amazongate, Glaciergate, and Africagate trousered £3 million of your tax money

4 thoughts on “Moonbat + Amazongate = Prize Pillock”

  1. John of Kent says:29th June 2010 at 7:57 amYes, it does turn out that there are no real basis in peer reviewed papers for the claims of the IPCC over the Amazon’s alleged sensitivity to warming. Besides which, this is all besides the point as mankind has no significant influence over the weather or climate, at all!!See the excellent Watts Up With that site for more information on the Amazongate debacle.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/27/booker-north-and-willis-on-the-ipcc-amazongate-affair/

    and this more detailled article that looks at the actual data.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/27/out-in-the-ama-zone/

    This shows the rainfall has not changed (other than noise in the data) over the last 100 years, in fact the past decade shows higher than average rainfall. So much for alleged warming threatening the Amazon by drought!

  2. Pete Hayes says:2nd July 2010 at 7:37 amNow Richard North has gone through 2 versions of the study and still found no 30/40% will the “Shrill Buffoon” be apologizing to Dr North, Mr Booker and yourself James?Trust me, I will not hold my breath but I bet he goes extremely quite on the subject.

    I am actually glad the Times did cowardly retract the article….as you said, “Moonbat – has emerged looking an even bigger prat than ever” LMAO

  3. John of Kent says:3rd July 2010 at 12:33 pmYes, it does turn out that there are no real basis in peer reviewed papers for the claims of the IPCC over the Amazon’s alleged sensitivity to warming. Besides which, this is all besides the point as mankind has no significant influence over the weather or climate, at all!!See the excellent Watts Up With that site for more information on the Amazongate debacle.

    h t t p://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/27/booker-north-and-willis-on-the-ipcc-amazongate-affair/

    and this more detailled article that looks at the actual data.

    h t t p ://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/27/out-in-the-ama-zone/

    This shows the rainfall has not changed (other than noise in the data) over the last 100 years, in fact the past decade shows higher than average rainfall. So much for alleged warming threatening the Amazon by drought!

  4. John of Kent says:3rd July 2010 at 12:33 pmremove the spaces between the h the t the t and the p. I had to do that to get the link passed the automatic moderator.

Comments are closed.