Others who had comment removed

There were some other comments from that Guardian article also removed. Some are more innocuous than mine.  They're civilised comments - just dissenting.  Why were these removed?:





Update: I had a look at the Guardian posting policy and it's ambiguous enough to edit whatever they want.  See here:

1. We welcome debate and dissent, but personal attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), persistent trolling and mindless abuse will not be tolerated.

OK, so my post said: Mirror mirror on the wall who's that scariest scare monger of them all, re: Hansen?  I guess that was a personal attack on the author, although it's fairly vague.  I mean, where do you draw the line between dissent and insult?

2. We acknowledge criticism of the articles we publish, but will not allow persistent misrepresentation of the Guardian and our journalists to be published on our website. For the sake of robust debate, we will distinguish between constructive, focused argument and smear tactics.

6. We will remove any content that may put us in legal jeopardy, such as potentially libellous or defamatory postings, or material posted in potential breach of copyright.

Point 6 I can agree with cause the UK has very strict libel laws.

censorshipRuss

27 Dec 2009, 8:35PM

The theory about CO2 and climate was a minor scientific hypothesis which was hijacked by many vested interests.

Mainly the oil companies (Carbon credits) and banks (Carbon trading).

lorenztl

27 Dec 2009, 8:16PM

CO2 is not a pollutant, however it is plant food. Without CO2 the earth would not be green! 





In a June 23, 1988 testimony to Congress, "Dr Hansen writes "that the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350 ppm (parts per million) and it may be less. Carbon dioxide amount is already 385 ppm and rising about 2 ppm per year." 





"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it?s not a pollutant, it?s a product of every living creature?s breathing, it?s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it?s a product of all industrial burning, it?s a product of driving ? I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

I always laugh when I read a newspaper article which expresses, "the experts are surprised" Why are experts surprised when computer models do not predict a correct outcome?

ngavc

27 Dec 2009, 7:51PM

Yes, people must make changes in the way they live.

Not until you guys face up to Phil Jone's attempts to hide missing source data, blacklist publications and dissenters, and FOIL freedom of information law requests. A full and complete investigation conducted by scientists most people trust with their lives (Like those employed by Exxon-Mobil) must be conducted immediately.

MAGB1

27 Dec 2009, 7:48PM

The theory about CO2 and climate was a minor scientific hypothesis which was hijacked by many vested interests. Among these, governments were interested in more taxes, and gaining trade advantage. Copenhagen has shown that the trade idea is dead. Fortunately, countries have to compete on tax, especially for corporations. So left-wing activists should lower their expectations that high carbon taxes will re-order society according their old-fashioned and discredited socialist ideas.

houlio

27 Dec 2009, 7:39PM

Thought i should mention that we have moved on - it was global warming, then it was climate change, it is now "climate instability." Please, we really need you all to keep up. We all need this change because the temp has not kept up with the models(it hasn't changed in 10 yrs) and we have too much invested in the theory too abandon it now.

Thankyou for your cooperation. You will have a place in our new world society

once we purge the malcontents.

WEREFEAT

27 Dec 2009, 7:26PM

The guy who wrote this article actually thinks that a world government is a good idea. And he thinks that humans are affecting the climate. Don't believe him for a second. None of that is true.

plaasjaapie

27 Dec 2009, 7:24PM

It does not speak well of the Guardian to publish the spewings of a known liar and fraud like Hansen.

noglobalwarming00

27 Dec 2009, 7:12PM

each time i read about M.M.G.W.

i'am reminded of the great quotation,

''IF YOU TELL A LIE BIG ENOUGH AND KEEP REPEATING IT,PEOPLE WILL COME TO BELIEVE IT''

thats how i feel about man made global warming and it gets repeated

all the time.

chiefwiley

27 Dec 2009, 6:58PM

Here's the solution.

http://www.freecarbonoffsets.com/home.do;jsessionid=6869B3989EDDD9CB6D8F3B01A98B4043

FreeCarbonOffsets.com

Save the world with a simple download of a certificate. Indulgences and dispensations were never so simple before!

censorshipRuss

27 Dec 2009, 6:17PM

Hansen is nothing more than a gullible little rent boy for George Soros.

AntonyIndia

27 Dec 2009, 3:52AM

By the way, the graph above is another strange one, after the hockey sticks.

Developed countries are show separate, but developing countries are bundled together with "shipping and air". Looks misleading to me.

My post that was rejected on the Guardian

Post on Guardian newspaper article from The Observer, Sunday 27 December 2009: Copenhagen has given us the chance to face climate change with honesty  by James Hansen.

It happens a lot for me and I'm used to it.  My recent post on James Hansen's article at the Guardian was removed by a moderator.  I kind of expect it.  I mean, I comply with the basic rules like no profanity or ad hominem attacks etc.  But I think it's just too politically incorrect.  In some cases I probably put myself up for libel under UK laws and perhaps the moderators are protecting me I don't know.

My last Guardian post mentioned that Prince Phillip co-founded the WWF and they are interested population reduction and it got removed.  Or perhaps they're concerned about other things like all the links I make to references?  Anyways here is the post:

CarbonFooledYa

27 Dec 2009, 10:42PM

James Hansen is a major researcher on the effects of aerosols and has stated that human made aerosols such as sulphates can reflect sun energy back into space offsetting global warming by more than 1C. Strange that there's no mention of this in this article. Hmm that is very peculiar, until you realise that Hansen has always vehemently promoted AGW. He says earth is heading for a tipping point and we've only got a few years left to act. Yet surely he is aware that the MWP was warmer than today with no tipping point - no Greenland ice sheet melt leading to Al Gore Waterworld (AGW). That ice sheet has survived 5 interglacials so far, but a few decades worth of warming is suddenly going to melt them? Wow, Prof Hansen, wow!



Mirror, mirror on the wall who's the scariest scare monger of them all?



There's a grotesque distortion in the article. The graph shows human "carbon" emissions (of course not elemental carbon but gases containing a carbon atom) but not natural emissions. It also ignores the number one greenhouse gas water vapour! If you include natural sources of carbon human contribution is only 2.33% of the whole. If you include water vapour and all else humans only contribute 0.28% of greenhouse gas.



Seeing as the transit time for CO2 in air is only a matter of years, not decades there is almost no remaining CO2 from human output decades ago, hence rich countries don't owe reparations to poor countries.



Just typing in Hansen to the East Anglia search engine...hmmm, 38 results, seems James Hansen is a major player in the hockey team. Seems every discussion they have of observed cooling it is regarded as a "problem". So, we're paying trillions to politicians to save us from a 2C rise but when climategate scientists discover cooling it's regarded a bad thing to be covered up. To wit, most environmentalists would be very sad and angry if you told them global warming was over. I guess without catastrophes they're nobody and it makes them mad and insecure.



@calmike 27 Dec 2009, 4:45AM. Well said. There is a technical solution to the energy crisis, but instead they're more interested on how they can get a clamp on the people. And to @hix1050 27 Dec 2009, 6:13AM as well. You've identified how much of a fake this worldwide AGW conspiracy is. It is nothing to do with science and everything to do with control.

Googlegate

I load the front page of Googlenews many times a day every day. Even though the number of stories definitely warrants it climategate hasn't appeared on the front page once since the scandal broke. Is it being censored?

BBC: Anatomy of a Deception

Take a look at this prime example of a propaganda piece from BBC scaring people into believing anthropogenic global warming:

Climate change: Copenhagen in graphics 

24 November 2009, BBC

subtitle: "Where do greenhouse gas emissions come from?"

"Which countries are most responsible for causing human-induced climate change?" 

They say "most" but it excludes natural sources of CO2. It's trick that most people will be unaware of.  As I show in my summary page humans emit 26 billion tons of CO2 and nature 700 billion.

fig 1

So, nature emits 27 times more CO2 than humans but this crucial qualifying fact is swept under the rug by these charlatans.  Here comes the first dodgy graphic:

fig 2

 

It contains a very clever device which would go unnoticed by many.  This is a graph of CO2 "equivalent".  Most will read it as just CO2 but the figure is boosted from 26 billion to 47 billion tons by assuming these following radiative potentials:

CO2  1

CH4  21

N2O  310

We emit a tiny amount of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) but taken as the CO2 equivalent it looks much scarier because it's multiplied by those values.

Next graphic:

fig 3

A total distortion cause they leave out natural sources of CO2, NH4, N2O, but most importantly: H2O, the number one greenhouse gas.

Here is the real proportion of greenhouse gas contribution including H2O (fig 4).  But the BBC doesn't want you to know that cause the BBC has an agenda.

fig 4

 

Third graphic:

fig 5

Again, same trick as before.  This pie chart is the breakdown of the sliver of 0.28% in fig 4.  Now you see the scale of the deception.  The BBC purposely ignores 99.72% of the greenhouse effect to achieve their objective.

With that put in context you can see how silly the rest of the article becomes.

This is an outrage but we know why it is so.  In a guideline circulated June 2007, ironically titled "Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st century" the BBC stated that they would no longer be presenting a fair and balanced assessment of AGW but would instead only  promote the pro-AGW case.  An excerpt from the BBC guidelines:

"The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus."

This is why we must now go to Russian TV for real news.  The BBC is the new Pravda.  But socialists love it.  They love being owned and done over by the the Socialist New World Order.  Greenies love being told what to do, cause it's for the "environment" don't you know?

The solution to climate change: voluntary reduction system.

There are still about a third of people who believe in AGW.  If all of them stop using electricity and eating most foods like meat, and stop showering etc (which shouldn't be too much of a concession for many of these sorts) it will reduce more greenhouse gas than a 20% reduction amongst everyone would.  (With the caveat that their reduction in carbon footprint might be mitigated by their BO.)  It all depends on their green religious conviction and willingness to rebel against the modern lifestyle.  Of course law enforcement and security will have to be beefed up in case any of them get jealous of us sceptics as we continue with our normal way of life and drive around in even larger SUVs just to rub it in.

The real AGW agenda revealed

Lord Monckton on the stop light of global warming: they call themselves green cause they're too yellow to admit they're red.  See them at this Copenhagen rally here.  



One of them is asked:  "What do you think is causing climate change?" His answer: "I really don't know actually I'm not a scientist." Hah, hah, of course he doesn't know; it's not about the science.  AGW is a political movement end of story.

See Hugo Chavez get applauded by the communistas at Copenhagen.

Australian article

Andrew Bolt blog

Chavez in Copenhagen

AHH, so anthropogenic global warming was about the political agenda and nothing to do with science after all.

Check out Lord Monckton

Check out Lord Monckton interviewing this Greenpeace activist who trusts Greenpeace as a matter of faith but would have to verify everything Lord Monckton just told her.

Her first statement is "We're here...for the people who negate climate change."  They really think that by paying their tax they can stop hurricanes, wind, storms, tidal waves and other things that they would, no doubt, classify as climate change. They literally think they can pay to stop bad weather.  It's a type of insanity isn't it?