The 'Media Suppression' of Global Warming 'Truth' Meme

Here's one you hear a lot; how the media is suppressing the 'truth' that global warming is not real/is a scam/is a communist plot/is not all badf etc and so on. For example in the banner 'Global Warming Censored':

Consistently viewers are being sent only one message from ABC, CBS and NBC: global warming is an environmental catastrophe and it’s mankind’s fault. Skepticism is all but shut out of reports through several tactics – omission, name-calling, the hype of frightening images like polar bears scavenging for food near towns and a barrage of terrifying predictions. The Business & Media Institute analyzed 205 network news stories about “global warming” or “climate change” between July 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2007. BMI found a meager 20 percent of stories even mentioned there were any alternative opinions to the so-called “consensus” on the issue.

And there is more examples here and here.

Boo hoo! Only 20% of stories give the sceptics point of view! Wah! Wah! Compare this to the Iraq war (e.g. here and here) when 20% of anti-war voices would have been amazing coverage; the right seemed silent about the disparity then? Still lets take the issue on; so what should the media present? Represent the debate within the scientific community? Well 90% of scientist accept the consensus, with 97% of climate scientists agreeing. While some sub-groups dropped lower (e.g. petroleum geologists) it still seems that 20% is an over generous amount of coverage.

Let's also not forget that a number of very major news outlets give fawning, uncritical coverage to denialists and their claims while leaping on any issues that emerge with the consensus position; these include (but are not limited to):

- Fox News
- The Telegraph
- The Daily Mail
- The Express
- The Australian
- Washington Post
- The Spectator

With all those outlets on-side, it's hardly censorship is it? Here's more on the subject of how the media not only is not censoring the denialists, but giving them coverage not justified by thier credentials, knoweldge, evidence or bias...

Climate Denial: Failing Science 101 (Again)

The was one single peer-reviewed paper from Australia that went against the consensus on climate change. Now that one single one has been removed; so now there are zero. The story itself is interesting but one of the comments was quite fun - in an odd way. What the commenter is trying to do is justify where there are no peer reviews papers that support denialism...

There is NOT ONE SINGLE CENT of grant money to do any research into climate effects not being caused by humans at [the University of New South Wales] (or anywhere else for that matter!)...

I did laugh - and I'd recommend the commenter to look at the science for Non-scientists bit cos he is falling down at the first hurdle; if you are going to criticise something, at least understand what it is first. Science 101 is that you do research according to the principles of the scientific method then your conclusions are led by what you find. Then you share this with others who can then critique it (peer review). The commenter seems to be confusing science with opinion; it does not work that way. The reason why the science is all coming out supporting the consensus on global warming is because that is what all the evidence shows.

To do science to support one point of view is to ruin your experimental process before you've even begun. Big-ass doh! DOH!

Plus; how do you prove a negative? You can't - it's a logical fallacy. Helpfully, another commentator takes the idiot to task..

The money for research is granted equally for papers that would show the presence of AGW as for papers that do not support AGW. This is because the funding is for papers that look at evidence and use scientific methods to show support for or against hypotheses. The fact that the evidence shows that AGW is indeed occuring is the reason why there are no papers that demonstrate any great error in the AGW hypothesis.

The Climate Logic Bomb

Here, in a nut-shell, is the most important point that the denialists sceptics fall over on:

It's almost certain that you can't put a trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere without something nasty happening. This is going to resolve itself and global heating is going to come back on stream and it's these [sceptical] bloggers who are going to be made to look weird when it does. When something like this happens again, they'll say we had all this before with 'Climategate'. But there's a danger that you can go off too strong, like they have. They are not sufficiently aware of the longer-term consequences.

As I have said time and time before, sceptics assume there where there is uncertainty in the projects (which there is lots) that it must mean the stated consensus much be wrong in their favour; i.e. not as bad as the consensus. This is fantasy; there is no reason to suggest execpt via their cognitive bias that this will be the case; it is just as possible that the impact could be much worse that predicted.

Still, try telling that to Lorddy Monkton, despite having no science training at all and being poo-pooed by the scientists who's work he relies on, is trying to say that; a trillion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere won't be a problem. Nope, It's all cool. Carry on pumping.

And yet the media gives him a platform. Unbelievable.

Cosying up to Communism

I liked this little comment about the rabid Fox news network and it's pushing of the Obama=Socialism and Fox News=Freedom memes...

...Then there is Google's commendable withdrawal from the Chinese mainland because of censorship, which is certainly in keeping with Obama's stand on human rights in China. I mention this because while Rupert Murdoch's Fox News network in the US has been spewing out daily dose of mustard gas on the health bill, talking about freedom of choice and messy European socialism, another branch of Murdoch's unlovely empire – MySpace China – happily complies with the censorship of a socialist state.

Indeed, though it's a communist, not socialist state. Fox News's parent company is cosying up to the nasty authoritarian cousin of Socialism, Communism.

Flogging the Scientists

There is another amazing video up a Crock of the Week. These videos are great at poking huge holes in the denailist wingbags...



Watch and share!

Celebrity Scientists

I knew this girl who thought that the paperback copy of the Necronomicon she owned gave her the power of call spirits from the earth. Now it is unlikely that many people would think that her views were correct. However, imagine she was famous, had been on reality TV or was a sports star; then perhaps she might be given prominent media space to shout her Cthulhu-views. Sounds crazy, I know but in Australia, a ex-footballer has been given a platform to wax lyrical about evolution. I shit you not. Our sport-literate, but science illiterate writer starts with some truth at least...

I openly confess to being no scientist, nor will I try to pretend to be one...

So why give this guy a platform? Why not give an evolutionary biologist a chance to talk about the debates and issues at the cutting edge of biology? Nope - famous people get to talk down to us 'cos they are famous and we are not...

The fact is that fossil records do not support Darwin’s theory. Experts have come to realise that the gaps in the fossil records and the absence of precursor and intermediate forms are such that they can no longer be ignored or his theory be taken seriously. It was Darwin, the author of the theory of evolution himself, that confessed in a letter to Ossy Gray on September 5, 1857 that “one’s imagination must fill up the very blanks”

What experts? Football experts? FFS. Of course there are gaps in the fossil record because each time a new one is discovered; new gaps open up. Doh! This does not make the evidence weaker but stronger with each find because each find always fits into the pattern evolution predicts.

Also the quote-mining of Darwin; first off he knew there were gaps in his understanding - DNA being the biggy, but are time has gone but to quote a guy from 1857 as if no evolutionary science has been done since then is shocking. 'cos when you consider DNA, the mapping of DNA provides us with the strongest evidence yet for evolution; indeed it is so strong that many experts (evolutionary biologists, not footballers) think that it alone more more than enough to carry the theory of evolution.

Fucking flat-earth idiot. Stick to football until you've got more than a idiots knowledge of biology.

$6 Billion Later, Afghan Police Force is a Mess

Not unlike the billions lost in Iraq, the same malaise cause by a mixture of Imperial hubris, lack of transparency and the privatising of war: another nation building cock-up. This time round after sinking a staggering $6 billion (and that is just since 2002) into the Afghan police they have fuck all to show for the money and effort:

America has spent more than $6 billion since 2002 in an effort to create an effective Afghan police force, buying weapons, building police academies, and hiring defense contractors to train the recruits—but the program has been a disaster. ... The worst of it is that the police are central to Washington's plans for getting out of Afghanistan. The U.S.-backed government in Kabul will never have popular support if it can't keep people safe in their own homes and streets. Yet in a United Nations poll last fall, more than half the Afghan respondents said the police are corrupt. Police commanders have been implicated in drug trafficking, and when U.S. Marines moved into the town of Aynak last summer, villagers accused the local police force of extortion, assault, and rape.

Wow - extortion, assault, and rape; and we're not even on to the war crimes of the Taliban. What comes across in this article is that the local sort-of trust US forces, they sort-of trust (at least they know where they stand with..) the Taliban but the Afghan Cops are the worst of the lot. Here is another shocking bit of the story:

More than a year after Barack Obama took office, the president is still discovering how bad things are. At a March 12 briefing on Afghanistan with his senior advisers, he asked whether the police will be ready when America's scheduled drawdown begins in July 2011, according to a senior official who was in the room. "It's inconceivable, but in fact for eight years we weren't training the police," replied Caldwell, taking part in the meeting via video link from Afghanistan. "We just never trained them before. All we did was give them a uniform." The president looked stunned. "Eight years," he said. "And we didn't train police? It's mind-boggling." The room was silent.

So Bush and Bliar/Brown poured money into and presided over a regime that was failing to train the police that were the bed-rock of the counter insurgency? What a fucking joke. They have left a massive shit-pile for their predecessors to clean-up; it it can be done at all? I can't believe we let these people run not just one war, but multiple wars from Iraq to Somalia.

I wouldn't let them run a fairground ride.

Finally! Evidence of the Climate Change Conspiracy...

Crazy smart commentators have told us time and time again that global warming is a huge conspiracy by the New World Order/Communists/etc to enslave/tax/etc us all. I have been asking for evidence of this, after all nothing to support this conspiracy turned up in the hacked emails.

Finally it is here...This painstakingly researched article shows an Australian government minster shows how they cower the scientists into fudging the results of research tpo support on the evil globalist agenda...



(Hat tip to watchingthedeniers for the link...)

IOP - A sticky mess of denial

You might remember the Institute of Physics (IOP) caused a mini-stink by submitting evidence to the UK parliament that attacks the scientists involved in the email hacking, then followed it up with another submission saying they supported the reality of human-caused climate change.

Then it was revealed that one of the authors of the original submission was linked to the energy industry...but the IOP refused to explain what was going on, even though the original submission was a call for greater transparency...

Well the sticky hole just got sticker and deeper. It turns out that the chair of the sub-group of the IOP also has vested interests; a speaker are the world's major climate change denial conference. Transparency?

And that she seems to use different titles to describe herself; One day she's a physics teacher and the next day she's a climatologist: Well there is a bit of a difference between the two, so some clarity would be nice. Interestingly she lists here qualifications as; MSc MPhil. - so she does not even have a full PhD - nothing wrong with that, but I am sceptical of taking the word of people who don't know the area. Plus she does not list what they are in, and I'd like to know 'cos in my experience when a denialist does not list this sort of information, it seems to mean that is breaks the narrative of them being a big-super-duper-expert.

It also might be the case the the IOP statement was coordinated with Lord Fuckwittinginton Monkton:

Monckton was touring Australia – perhaps still is – and during that tour he made some allusions to Climate Scientists being about to face criminal charges, and also to peak academic bodies having some very interesting submissions to make to the UK inquiry. I don’t know whether the IOP submission or Inhofe’s blacklist were already in the public domain when Monckton made his comments (as digressions in either his talks or interviews; I don’t recall precisely) or whether he was aware ahead of time, but I’ll say this: usually I’m up with the latest stuff very soon after it is made public, yet I missed these two rather big items.

Again - was this the case? Transparency? IOP? Hello? Transparency?

Give us Liberty or Give us Death (unless it's too hot)

This post on a blog made me chuckle. It's about a group of fundamentalists preachers getting together..

The National Patriot Pastors’ T.E.A. Party will meet on the Plaza of the Alamo where 180 courageous “Texicans” made the ultimate sacrifice to confront tyranny and to gain their freedom. The Alamo holds profound symbolism for all Pastors and Christians in America. We too, must be willing lay it all on the line for Christ and for revival.

The rally will take place in the morning before heat is a problem...

It's that last bit that made me laugh; bigging-up the Alamo and saying; "We too, must be willing lay it all on the line for Christ and for revival." Which clearly implies that they should be willing to die for god/jesus/whatever and then in the next line looking to the creature comforts of the participants. If you are not willing to get hot, how willing will you be to die, people? Get it together...

The War on the Poor

I was listening to some tunezzz today and I came across this quote by the lead singer of the great band Fugazi:

"I want to talk to you about the war, I want to talk to you about the war, not the war in the middle east. The war in the middle city, the inner city, the war against the poor... Washington DC over 700 people were killed last year. This is a war worth fighting."

The war in the middle east was not the current Iraq war or proxy wars in Gaza or Iran. This was spoken in 1990 and the war was the first gulf war under the first Bu$h. But as time passes, sadly little changes: the more unequal society is, the more the poor suffer, the more all suffer. (Out of interest there is a book on this 'The Spirit Level' who's authors are up for a prize in Bristol, there are some other good books in the list, but this is best IMHO.)

Here's the video too:

The Pope vs Justice

I think we can all agree that rape is an abhorrent and violent act. I think we can then also agree that child rape adds a layer of violation onto this already abhorrent and violent act. So I think we can all agree that we would want to see the perpetrators of such acts brought to justice and stopped from repating such henious crimes.

That is unless you are the Pope, were it seems you answer to a higher authority. One that seems to think that child rape is ... well ... an inconvenience.

Let's start this sordid story with the crime in question:

In 1979, an 11-year-old German boy identified as Wilfried F. was taken on a vacation trip to the mountains by a priest. After that, he was administered alcohol, locked in his bedroom, stripped naked, and forced to suck the penis of his confessor.

So how did the future Pope, guided by God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, react to this crime of rape and torture?

The pope didn't report him to the cops. He did move him out of the community 'for a while' then the Holy Church returned him backing into circulation and the raping started again. While the priest was back raping, the future pope set about protecting him from justice...

Very much more serious is the role of Joseph Ratzinger, before the church decided to make him supreme leader, in obstructing justice on a global scale. After his promotion to cardinal, he was put in charge of the so-called "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" (formerly known as the Inquisition). In 2001, Pope John Paul II placed this department in charge of the investigation of child rape and torture by Catholic priests. In May of that year, Ratzinger issued a confidential letter to every bishop. In it, he reminded them of the extreme gravity of a certain crime. But that crime was the reporting of the rape and torture. The accusations, intoned Ratzinger, were only treatable within the church's own exclusive jurisdiction. Any sharing of the evidence with legal authorities or the press was utterly forbidden. Charges were to be investigated "in the most secretive way ... restrained by a perpetual silence ... and everyone ... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office … under the penalty of excommunication."

That's right - the most serious punishment the Holy Mother Church can impose - was reserved not for child rapists, but for people who might expose child rapists.

Sick; and they claim to be some kind of holy moral guardians? Fucking joke, so again we have to ask is the representative of God on Earth protects child rapists, then; what is the Catholic Church for?

Best thing they could do is disband it.

Even more Crazy Comments

YouTube comments are notorious for being bonkers (and nasty).

So it is no surprise to find bonkers-to-the-max comments... Imagine if you believed what they commenters claim at face value - all from a video discussing global warming:

nalcon1: Al Gore is the same guy that said he invented the internet. This zero to do with science and everything to do with global control over private industry. China and Russia are sitting back waiting for this to become global law. Goodby free world, hello communism!

Right; so global warming is about Al Gore promoting communism and assisting China and Russia, who are looking to use new global laws to spread communism. Got it.

BruceLeeKickYoAss4: The CROOK HYPOCRITE nazi U.S is trying to SCAM the world's developing countries again. Half of these fascist SPOILED ameriKKKans are driving the trucks and SUV that suck gasoline like the hungry whores, while they bulsittt lecture the developing countries about polution. The nazi U.S's scam tricks in this climate talk are: 1) To SLOW developing countries(China...) from progressing and become stronger. 2) Sell its so called "green technology" to developing countries at INFLATED price.

What? So it's not China and Russia nor communism, but the opposite. It's about the US trying to keep third world countries like China and Russia down so the US can promote fascism? Got it.

Zile77: Global Warming is the biggest bunch of B.S. ever invented. It is a total hoax created to literally force people to cough up more money... for NOTHING! Ever hear the song, "money for nothing"? Al Gore and all the globalist nutjobs should go to Alaska to see if the icebergs are melting. THEY'RE NOT. Yes, some do for a few days in summer, but it's natural, not man made. The lies of the left are getting a lot of folks really pissed off now, so they'd better be careful. Oblama is just a con man liar.

What??? So now Al Gore is not working for China and Russia but is instead working for the Globalists. So now it's not the US vs China and Russia but all countries the US, Russia and China must be under threat from the Globalists?

Man, conspiracy theories are hard work.... it's almost as if crazy people are making things up...

Avatar: The Work of the Devil

Face facts, Christianity is choc full of nutters. The this guy's three and a half minute rant against the evils of the film Avatar:



What. The. Fuck. Frib-shiterty. It's such an incoherent mishmash of 12th Century ideas wrapped in biblical fuckwittery - delivered via a 21st Century medium. What a massive twat. Apparently feeling connected to nature is a bad thing and he has 2 home cinemas so he must know what he is talking about. The very cool visual effects in Avatar, which I thought stemmed from the lead visual effects company was Weta Digital in Wellington, New Zealand. Turns out it was actually done by Satan. Man, that Satan, he has all the cool shit.

The whole talk is about the devils in your shoe-box and the demons living in trees and that your own skin in rebelling against you. The whole thing says to me: Welcome back to the dark ages of Christ.

Christ, what a prick.

Detriot: the first post-industrial US city

Brilliant, brilliant documentary about the US city of Detroit; famous for car production and Motown and now the first post-industrial US city. The city was built for 2 million people and run by the motor-Oligarchs like Henry Ford as a monoculture city. But when the motor industry failed, so the city failed - economic crashes, globalisation and dugs wars creating a 'slow motion Katrina'. Haunting images of factories being reclaimed by natures, burning cities and people turning the former factories back into farmland as the land goes into full circle:

Julien Temple's new film is a vivid evocation of an apocalyptic vision: a slow-motion Katrina that has had many more victims. Detroit was once America's fourth largest city.

Built by the car for the car, with its groundbreaking suburbs, freeways and shopping centres, it was the embodiment of the American dream.

But its intense race riots brought the army into the city. With violent union struggles against the fierce resistance of Henry Ford and the Big Three, it was also the scene of American nightmares.

Now it is truly a dystopic post-industrial city, in which 40 per cent of the land in the centre is returning to prairie. Greenery grows up through abandoned office blocks, houses and collapsing car plants, and swallows up street lights.

Police stations and post offices have been left with papers on the desks like the Marie Celeste. There is no more rush hour on what were the first freeways in America. Crime, vandalism, arson and dog fighting are the main activities in once the largest building in North America. But it's also a source of hope.

Tories sabotage anti-poverty bill

Like a wolf in sheep clothing, the Tories are trying to be positioned as the 'nice party' and not the 'nasty party' but it is hard for them to keep all the tentacles in the box. A party that has more than it's fair share of closet racists, anti-science climate change denialists and other wingnuts. Now we can add the sickening spectre of the Tories killing a bill to stop 'vulture funds' where developing nation debt is brought and sold then used to lever more cash from the poverty-stricken country into the hands of grasping financiers. Plus the duplicitous way it was done to hide the identity of the individual doing the wrecking is pretty sickening too:

The frustration has been compounded by the secrecy surrounding the events in the Commons last night. During the reading, three Tory MPs were seen to huddle together on the benches before one shouted the word "object!", which under parliamentary procedure effectively stopped the bill passing. Three Conservatives were in the chamber – Christopher Chope, Andrew Robathan and Simon Burns – but none has admitted intervening.

Nasty. So who did it? Who's going to own up to the nasty act? Nobody so far, but Chope seems to be getting the finger pointed at him. We should be told.

"Climate science has become a weapon in a war of disinformation..."

Philosophic heavy-weight John Gray has written about the issue of climate change. This is a welcome intellectual intervention - I admire Gray, he is a total realist and calls it like he sees it, yet takes a deeper view that most political thinkers. He's also unafraid to take a swipe at the right or the left.

Whoever hacked into the emails at the University of East Anglia fired the opening salvo in a new kind of dirty war. ... Environmentalists have always assumed that the threat of disaster will bring about an era of global cooperation. In reality, climate change is triggering another round of geopolitical conflict. Limiting the use of fossil fuels may be essential if disaster is to be avoided, but countries that in different ways rely heavily on these fuels for their prosperity – such as Russia and Saudi Arabia, China and the US – were never going to accept the strict carbon curbs that the EU and others demanded. How much the leaked emails contributed to the breakdown of the summit is unclear, but the effect has been to let those countries, along with the rest of the world, off the hook. The undermining effect on climate science looks like being long-lasting and profound.

Fair point - I had written that the impact would be limited, but then I was focusing on the science and the impact there is limited. Gray is right; this was always going to be nasty. I was falling into the trap of thinking that the science could guide policy. How wrong I was...

"Climategate" was an exercise in postmodern cyber-warfare – a move in a larger conflict that environmentalists show little sign of understanding. ... The trouble is that their analysis of the environmental crisis is extremely shallow. Climate change is not mainly the work of sinister corporate interests and weak-kneed or corrupt politicians. It is a direct result of the energy-intensive civilisation in which the affluent part of humankind lives, and which the rest very much wants to join. While humans are more interdependent than ever before, they are at the same time destabilising the planet. Reining in corporate interests and chivvying politicians to be greener do nothing to resolve this fundamental contradiction. ... The innate sociability of human beings is a fact, but it does not follow that they are likely to cooperate in dealing with environmental crisis. The impact of climate change is rather to intensify human conflict. As global warming accelerates, natural resources such as arable land and water become scarcer, and competition to control them will be acute and pervasive. At the same time, those whose power and wealth come from fossil fuels will do anything they can to promote "climate scepticism".

Harsh but logical point - and extension of the points he makes in his book 'Straw Dogs' which argues that we are animals and to think we've somehow transcended nature and our Darwinian heritage is short-sighted and arrogant. This is a vital point; our brains are tribal communication systems and to assume we could just transcend this is a little naive. While the transcendence into global thinking is logical, it assumes that humans make rational decisions; we don't, because we're still just animals.

It also explains the extreme logical fallacies and nutty-ness that we see in climate denialism, as in creationism that the proponents of both try to hammer ideological pegs into round logical holes.

That and it appears that the denalists have declared war of humanity, as is their tribal drive to do so.

Punk Meets Breakcore Mashup

Great looking gig: The Junction, Stokes Croft, Bristol, Cost: £2/3 - starts at 9pm. Parasite, Officer Down, War Against Sleep and more!!!

Bristol Smash bring you our third party at The Junction, with live punk, dub, hip hop and more. This time we're raising funds for anti-fascist organisations and charities. So come along to Smash fascism, and stick your middle finger up at the BNP. Or just come along for a good party, and listen to some of the best musi...c on offer from Bristol and beyond.

Original event page: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=340593934377&ref=ts

ASA Judgement for Climate Ads being Overstated, is Overstated by Times

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) - the body that deals with complaints in print adverts has now judged the barrage of complaints regarding the governments Climate Change adverts. The different strands of the media have very different takes on it: The guardian notes it as 'a mildly rebuke' whereas the Times shouts 'adverts banned for overstating climate change'. So, who is right? Fortunately the Guardian has posted the source text from the ASA for us to judge... Here's how the Times spun it:

The ASA has ruled that the claims made in the newspaper adverts were not supported by solid science and has told the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) that they should not be published again.

It has also referred a television commercial to the broadcast regulator, Ofcom, for potentially breaching a prohibition on political advertising.

There were four ads complained about and all the complaints came to a total of 10 points of issue. Of those 10 points, one of the points was upheld and was a rebuke in that the ad made claims that should have been 'phrased more tentatively'. So 9 out of 10 were dismissed. Were the ads banned? A debatable point too - only 2 of the four were told that they 'could not appear in the current form'. Which suggests that if edited, they can appear. If we look at previous judgements on ads that are banned to compare; a beer ad that was reported as banned had a far stronger summary judgement that this one stating that the ads needed to be withdrawn which suggests baning, whereas another one for haircare products, also reported as banned has a judgement that accepted that the advertiser needed to change the ads but they could see that the ads were not intended to cause the offence they were accused of. These were also judged; 'could not appear in the current form'.

Also, that last sentence of the Times report I quote is also of interest to me as it appears to suggest that the ASA thinks the advert might breach a prohibition on political advertising. This is not the case, political ads in print are allowed, so even if it was judged to be political then the ASA would not rule against it on this point. The ASA did not issue a judgement on if the ads were political - the referral relates to one of the ads, a TV ad, where the complaint about the 'if it is political' needs to be judged by OFCOM - basically a technicality about who judges that bit of the complaint.

In summary the Times article clearly overstates the judgement, spinning it for political reasons as it focuses almost the entire article on the single point the ad was judged to have overstated.

So who wrote this article? Ah Jonathan Leake - the man behind lots of anti-science and climate denial spinning.

Crazy is as Crazy Does: Denial Comments Go Nutz

Now I've started to look for bonkers denial comments; I can't seem to stop finding them. Check these gems from that bastion of science and logic, the Torygragh;

Remember Socialism (and any other Political ISM, for that matter) only works, as long as there’s other people’s money available to fund it.

Oh my oh my, how will they be able to pay the interest on their profligacy, after having maxxed out the Public Credit Card, now that their last great hope of Carbon Derivative theft, has blown up in their faces?

For some historical perspective, this is the same sort of insane stuff that brought down the Western Roman Empire, and, 1,000 years later, the Eastern Roman Empire, amongst others.

What. The. Fuck. Are. You. Going. On. About, Mate? I assume the guy is trying to be poetic, yet it comes across like a mad stream of conciousness rant-a-thon. have no idea what this guys point is....and that is only part of his post. How's this for a gem;

I am amazed at how afraid these AGW scammers are of the truth. In no other scientific debate has data been kept from the public except in wartime or cold war emergency.
Wiki is now trying to stop debate. This surely confirms the conspiracy that is beeing kept from the public.

IF WATERMELONS ARE NOT ON THE RUN, WHY HIDE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. GORDON BROWN THE CHAMPION OF AGW IS SO SCARED HE WILL NOT DEBATE IT, AL GORE IS AFRAID TO GO UP AGAINST LORD MONCKTON IN PUBLIC…REALLY ROBUST SCIENCE WELCOMES FALSIFICATION…THE AGW ALARMIST CABAL SHOW THEMSELVES AS ROGUES AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY.

Again, wtf? Watermellons? I have another question; WHY DO DENIALISTS USE SO MANY CAPITAL LETTERS IN POSTS? IT'S LIKE THEY ARE SHOUTING ALL THE TIME! Chillax, people, really. I did try reading though the whole thread, but it is mad as a box of frogs; every insane conspiracy theory seems to get an outing from the Bliderberg to the worldwide KleptoKratz(??) conspiracy:

IF these KleptoKratz get their way then;

The very Rich will get VERY much richer and be able to have WHATEVER they want. – Remember ALL that PsyOps TRILLIONS that is er… unaccountable year by year must be making some shit hot technology WE have no idea?

The Middle Classes will cease to exist. – The Rich HATE the middle classes, because they are a ‘threat’

The Rich LOVE the poor, partly because they STILL seem to show deference (See how people goo gooed over Prince Charles when he went to see the COCKERMOUTH! floods) and it’s a good example to keep the middle classes on their toes and keep doing those jobs!

EVERYONE will be skint.

That means then everyone who is left, after several years of a One Child Policy…. lets say 500 Million, will be there to do the bidding of the aforementioned KleptoKratz

MORE CAPITAL LETTERS - and, ah yes, the evil KleptoKratz - I am assuming they are a sub-group of the New World Order? Or another name for David Ike's Lizard Cabal? This stuff is nutty to the max! However what do you expect the the author of the article, the man who writes to his congregation on climate science, does not understand the science, also seems to post gibberish. James Delingpole posted on his thread:

@everyone I’ve just added an amusing link at the bottom of the piece.

Only to re-appear 5 minutes later to remark..

Actually no, I’ve taken that link down again. It was funny in parts but there was too much weird, freaky, porno stuff in it.

Nice.

Climate Scientist Gets Death Threats

Another meme that denialists like to push is the idea that by pointing to the consensus on the science, advocates of good science are trying to 'stop the debate':

I guess for me, a known skeptic in general, I am most amused by the green movement people who are trying to squelch debate by talking of consensus as proof of their theories of Global Warming. If there is proof, then they should definitely point to it. To say, however, that the matter is beyond debate because so many have been convinced is a nonstarter. It makes me wonder what they know. Are they trying to stop debate out of fear that the data will reverse direction as it did in passed pursuits of great theories of the past.

See: by pointing out that, other than around three credible voices, the scientific community all are all pretty much agreed on the science, we are trying to 'stop the debate' - this is normally followed by a reference one one of the flawed lists of '1000s' of scientists who disagree with the consensus. (The above post has got it logic-knickers in even more of a twist by suggesting that the consensus is proof of AGW - errr no, the proof is what creates the consensus...). Why pointing out the fact that other than around three credible voices, the scientific community pretty much agreed on the science stops debate is never explained. However what is often missed by the same crowd is the nasty and aggressive tone taken by denialists who love to put the boot in and threaten scientists...

"I have hundreds" of threatening emails, Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University, told Tierramérica. He believes scientists will be killed over this. "I'm not going to let it worry me... but you know it's going to happen," said Schneider, one of the most respected climate scientists in the world. "They shoot abortion doctors here." This backlash against the evidence of climate change and the scientists themselves is not just a U.S. phenomenon. It is happening in Canada, Australia, Britain, and, to a lesser extent, in Europe and elsewhere.

Yikes! I am sure that we can agree that threatening people will stifle debate, so where are the voices from the denialosphere condemning those making death threats? The same right-wing pundits that demanded that Muslims condemn any/all actions by militants seem to not apply the same standards to their own supporters...

Is There No End to the Stupid?

If we could turn stupidity into energy then we would solve all of the worlds energy problems. If we could turn stupidity into energy then denialism would be new Saudi Arabia. Why? Read the comments on any global warming thead and the gish-gallop of stupid and shit is staggering. Take this thread in the Guardian for example, reading though it there is sooooooooo much shit on offer...

MMGW activiists are demanding the destruction of our way of life, while we are handing over hundreds of billions of dollars in payments to third world dictators.

I assume MMGW is Man Made Global Warming? As for the rest of it - fuck me, what shit - but lets go with it, yes I demand the destruction of my way of life and I demand billions go to the Burmese junta this instant! Or else...

This one is great fun, it is a complex rehash of the 'humans are too puny to change the climate' argument but in a New Age styleee;

A dualist separation between Man and Nature implied by AGW opposes philosophies such as Advaita Vedanta. AGW is an offshoot of Individualism, which is in turn is rooted Judeochristianity and Aristotelian physics... In Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism, the problem with dualist thinking is that of identification which prevents a person from seeing reality; especially identification with a false Ego and notions that one can somehow "do" something. According to these philosophies, it is indeed impossible to "do" anything at all because one is a slave, not merely to one's own body, but to every passing event, every environmental stimulus, every cognitive impression, every mood, every whim.... AGW is merely a particularly absurd form of individualism which presupposes that Man as a species can "do" something about immeasurably greater global forces.

And ten people recommended it!! Jesus wept into his Marmite. There is loads of this 'show me the evidence type stuff:

Some sort of proof - please, anything! - that man made CO2 drives temperatures. (So far - there's not one paper, any where. Not one.)

This is like the moment Dawkins is telling the crazy-woman from 'Concerned Women of America' that the evidence for evolution is in the museum down the road, but noooo that's not good enough for her. She repeats show me the evidence and when it is shown, refuses to look.

There is tonnes of evidence. To answer that particular point: CO2 drives global temperatures and human CO2 is the main issue.

Cherry Picking Data

As the phrase goes; there are lies, damn lies and statistics. If you don't know much about statistics then it can be used to confuse and obfuscate. A classic of denialist obfuscation is the meme that there has been no warming since 1998. When you plot the temperature changes over time it looks like nothing much is changing:



The argument then goes; well as there's been no warming since 1998, climate change must have stopped. This clicks my bullshit detector into the red; why pick 1998? Why not 1990 or 1995? In fact why not 1880? 1880 is a good year to start from because that is the year we started collecting accurate records of global temperatures.

So how does the post 1998 temperature meme look in the full context? Lets see how post 1998 stats look on this scale.. since 1880:



Plot the all of the data into a graph since 1880 and it all looks very different:



And here is the same graph with the trend line added:



The idea of using post 1998 temperature now looks pretty feeble. It is also clear that the reason 1998 is picked by denalists is that that is the point from which they can build be best pseudo-case of 'warming has stopped'. Problem is, it has not and is on-going.

There are liars, damn liars, and climate change deniers.

The reality is much more scary.

The Modern Day Martin Luther King, My Ass

There's this nutty preacher, Harry Jackson who is being called "The Modern Day Martin Luther King" by fellow nutters. Why all the nuts? Because Harry Jackson is campaigning against the civil rights of gay people - and somehow that makes him just like a guy who campaigned for civil rights? Ok, so they are both black and religious; but other than that? Come on, is it just me or is that bizarro world?

Harry, just so you know the kind of people 'in your camp' - they are calling for the deportation of gay people from their homes and jail terms for people who might try to hide them to protect them from the vision of a repressive state.

I don't want to fall foul of Godwin's Law, by stating it, but you can see where they are going with this....

Lemmy Found in Marmite

A family from Ystrad, Rhondda in Wales have found a picture of Jesus Lemmy from the band Motorhead in a jar of Marmite.

Claire Allen, 36, said she was the first to notice the image on the underside of the lid as she was putting the yeast spread on her son's toast.

Her husband Gareth, 37, said he could not believe his eyes when he saw it.

Mr Allen, of Ystrad, Rhondda, said: "The kids are still eating it, but we kept the lid."

He explained: "Claire saw it first and called her dad to come and take a photo of it.

"When I first looked at it I wasn't sure, but when I moved it away from me it started coming out. I thought yeah, she's right - that's the image of Jesus Lemmy. People might think I'm nuts, but I like to think it's Jesus Lemmy looking out for us."


Jesus Lemmy.


Marmite image.

Iraq's Elections: Towards Iran or Saudi Arabia?

Great post on the Iraq elections...

"Sunday's vote for a new parliament in Iraq on Sunday could result in two possible geopolitical futures for that country.

If the Iraqi National List of former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi did well enough to come to power, that would reorient Iraq radically, taking it back in some ways to 2002. Allawi's coalition is largely made up of Arab nationalists who would see Iran as a threat and would ally with Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. Baghdad would go back to helping contain Iran. ...

If, on the other hand, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki manages to hold on to power, Iraq will remain firmly in Shiite hands, and will likely have warm relations with Tehran. Certainly, Baghdad would have no interest in helping contain Iran. Relations with Saudi Arabia will continue to be bad. ..."

Climate Change: 'ave it son! F**king 'ave it!

This is a great debate:



An actor takes on the Fox news lies machine and gives them some! Great stuff. This is how we need to take the denialist shills on; this is not an academic debate any more - the nutters won't let it be - 'cos they'd loose on facts. Nope; it about taking the idiot-fuckwit-neo-con pricks down. Hard. (The Fox news presenter was not expecting to be taken to the cleaners!!)

Creationism & Climate Change Denial: Best Mates?

It's would seem so. For some time now there have been strong links between climate change denial and evolution denial(aka creationism). The same right-wing creed that promotes the anti-science ideas of creationism also seems to be at work with evolution. The same legal attempts to force educators to promote creationism, is also being used to promote climate change denial; see here and here. There are also the same people who either sign petitions 'debunking' climate science/evolution or try to 'accomodate' a rancid anti-science ideology into science;

Senator Inhofe
Chris Allen
Roy Spencer
Tim Ball
Edward Blick
David Deming
Guillermo Gonzalez
Robert Smith
James Wanliss
E. Calvin Beisner
Ross McKitrick
Anthony Watts

Why does this matter? Put simply if you are a denier of evolution then you simply don't have the intellectual underpinnings of true scepticism to engage in a debate about what is true above what they would like to be true. Evolution is a true as anything can be in science; if you let ideology blind you to this, then it is going to blind you in other areas. Sorry, but for me all those people are rendered utterly non-credible.

Election Blues

Ok, so I am already bored of the election and it has not even been announced. The endless promises that flounder in office, the pointless debates over who said what to who. I will vote, but that might only be to spoil my paper in disgust at the pathetic excuse for democracy that we have. Democracy is too important to be left to politicians.

Watts; Answer Your Critics!

Climate change deniers like to complain about the rack of 'real science' and 'real debate' on the issue - yet when it happens, they seem to avoid it? Could it be that a 'debate' as a media spectacle where at least they stand a small chance gaining ground is of more interest that the scientific world where they simply have no traction. It's spin over substance.

One of the deniers, Anthony Watts who runs a denial blog 'Watt's Up With That' published his own research on the subject (not peer reviewed, but at least he was trying to do research) - and another blogger has done the peer reviewing for him and pointed out where he went wrong. Put simply Watts (and his mate) claimed that the surface station record of temperature was inaccurate and if you removed the inaccurate temperature stations, what came out was no rise in temperature.

Now blogger Tamino, who has gone to great lengths to explain why Watts's is wrong and given the data and workings out - has called him out to answer the criticisms; so Watts - Answer Your Critics! (Also called out here and here).

Credible Sceptics

The guardian is apparently going to stop calling climate change deniers, deniers but will instead call them 'climate change sceptics'. Bad move people - you need to call it like it is. I have argued why deniers are deniers several times here. That still stands. However there are a couple of people that I would be happy to call a sceptic. Here's the critera to be included...

Be a Relevant Scientist - You need to know what you are talking about. Opinions are cheap, informed opinions are valuable. The science of climate change is complex and you need to understand what is being said before you can critique it. You need to know the area to find your way.

NO Economists - Of the critics of climate science, this is the most common type. These people might be able to debate the costs and economics of it, fine - but the science? C'mon! The money-centric view does not quality you to pronounce on the science.

NO Technical disciplines; (e.g. Meterologists & Engineers) - again there is a place for your knowledge, but to be credible you need to know the area and just by virtue of understanding some the system as it is does not give you supernatural powers to understand the meta-system over time.

NO People shilling with oil/gas/coal and/or right-wing think tank money - If you're paid by shadowy figures wanting you to back one opinion, then you're not credible. (I know climate scientists are paid, but they are not paid to arrive at a set outcome as a shill is, but to arrive at the outcome to facts point to. All that conspiracy for research grants shit has zero evidence and is frankly lizard-men territory.)

NO creationists/dowsers/orgone energy or other new-age shit - Frankly if you believe in hocus-pocus, then you have no place in a science debate.

Note; I'm not saying that you can have an opinion if you don't meet my criteria, it just that you need to understand that it is just that; opinion. So it carries that much weight; not much. So who does that leave within the public debate? I'd say 2 (yes just two people!!!) are credible climate sceptics and 1 boarder-line (Dyson).. That is next to hundreds of thousands of credible voices who accept climate change:

John Christy - The most credible sceptic. He accepts it is happening and humans are doing it, but it's contents that it is not as bad as predicted.

Roger Pielke, Jr - His main issue is that you can't say hurricanes are the issue and also objects to the spending planned to combat it.

Freeman Dyson - A physicist who is not convinced, but admits out of his area.

And that, as they say, is it for credible sceptics.

One Sided Transparency

There is an interesting mini-row developing around the statement by the Institute of Physics in response to another row over the hacking of emails. The first statement, which as seized upon of the denailopshere as proof of their claims, was then followed by a second statement that clarified that the Institute of Physics was not doubting the science of global warming. This then followed with predictable cries from denialists that the shadowy lizard-forces of the New World Order had pressured them into the second statement... it seemed that the cracks in the global conspiracy were beginning to show..

Isn't obvious that the Institute lost its nerve in view of the fuss (and, I don't doubt, following heavy pressure from Miliband's eco fascists)? Of course the initial submission represents its true opinion.

Except that it then turned out that there was no evidence of the axis of evil-NWO-Lizards-Ecofascists... something much more mundane (but important) has happened; the original statement had been co-drafted by an energy consultant with ties to the oil industry and a known climate change denialist.. and other members are not happy;

"If the IOP continues to stand by this statement then I will have no other option but to reconsider my membership."

But the denialists still stand by the original (well they would, wouldn't they...);

Politics aside, the IoP statement in favour of openness, transparency and accountability was a beacon for the integrity of science. I find it very telling that your biases on the subject of climate science coax such vitriolic aggression towards those who put their name to it.

Which does not accord well with the fact that the drafting of a statement asking for more transparency is itself shrouded in secrecy and undeclared vested interests...nice.

The IOP added that the submission was approved by three members of its science board, but would not reveal their names. The Guardian contacted several members of the board, including its chairman, Denis Weaire, a physicist at Trinity College Dublin. All said that they had little direct role in the submission.

The institute supplied a statement from an anonymous member of its science board, which said: "The institute should feel relaxed about the process by which it generated what is, anyway, a statement of the obvious." It added: "The points [the submission] makes are ones which we continue to support, that science should be practised openly and in an unbiased way. However much we sympathise with the way in which CRU researchers have been confronted with hostile requests for information, we believe the case for openness remains just as strong."

How about setting a good example by starting with how this statement came to be?

Pollution, Politics and Power

This is a great article on the issue of climate change and I'd recommended reading the whole thing. Here's a few selected quotes...

On the nature of denial;

The climate deniers come with a few built-in advantages. ... Their success can be credited significantly to the way they tap into the main currents of our politics of the moment with far more savvy and power than most environmentalists can muster. They’ve understood the popular rage at elites. They’ve grasped the widespread feelings of powerlessness in the U.S., and the widespread suspicion that we’re being ripped off by mysterious forces beyond our control. ... For them, it was a reasonably easy sell. When it comes to global warming, we’re pretty much all easy sells because we live the life that produces the carbon dioxide that’s at the heart of the crisis, and because we like that life.

On the oil industry:

So let’s figure out how to talk about it. Let’s look at Exxon Mobil, which each of the last three years has made more money than any company in the history of money. Its business model involves using the atmosphere as an open sewer for the carbon dioxide that is the inevitable byproduct of the fossil fuel it sells. And yet we let it do this for free. It doesn't pay a red cent for potentially wrecking our world.

On the accusations that climate change is a scam...

By the way, if you think there’s a scam underway, you’re right -- and to figure it out just track the money going in campaign contributions to the politicians doing the bidding of the energy companies. Inhofe, the igloo guy? Over a million dollars from energy and utility companies and executives in the last two election cycles. You think Al Gore is going to make money from green energy? Check out what you get for running an oil company.

Worried that someone is going to wreck your future? You’re right about that, too. Right now, China is gearing up to dominate the green energy market. They’re making the investments that mean future windmills and solar panels, even ones installed in this country, will be likely to arrive from factories in Chenzhou, not Chicago.

Coal companies have already eliminated most good mining jobs, simply by automating them in the search for ever higher profits. Now, they’re using their political power to make sure that miner’s kids won’t get to build wind turbines instead. Everyone should be mighty pissed -- just not at climate-change scientists.

Great stuff.

More Pundits Admit They Don't Know (But They'll Lecture You Anyway)

More on how pundits deny climate change despite admitting they don't understand the science. If you watch this video:



You see an interesting debate between two people about climate change. What is most interesting is the comment by right-wing pundit Bill O'Reilly at the end; "I'd fail both your grad classes." He's saying, "I don't understand what either of you are saying." Which is fine, but then why is he constantly denying climate change when he's admitted he does not know enough to offer a view? To quote me..

A tacit admission that he does not understand the workings of the science means that it is impossible for him to make his mind up on the basis of logic and facts; because he is ill equipped to understand them. No shame there, I'm not much better. That means he is making his mind up only on the basis of 'truthiness' - what he'd like to be true rather than what is true. However I don't then call out people as frauds who's work I don't understand simply because it does not accord with my bias. I do critique the work of denailists because it is written by fellow amateurs using simple tricks that even a basic bullshit detector will spot.

When is a Non-Expert an Expert? When he is in Denial

I am constantly gob-smacked about how denialists are elevated to the level of Uber-expert when it happens that their view coincides with the denialists one. You see this trick over and over, a selected repetition of the accolades of the pet denialist to add gravatas and authority to what ever they say next. Take the example of Nils-Axel Mörner who is introduced as...

Sadly, the media is not inquisitive enough to report those who question the circus acts of climate change. ... Nils-Axel Morner - a leading world authority on sea levels - wrote an open letter to the president telling him that his stunt was "not founded in observational facts and true scientific judgments". Morner is a former professor who headed the department of paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm University and past president (1999-2003) of the International Union for Quaternary Research commission on sea level changes and coastal evolution. INQUA was founded in 1928 by scientists who aimed to improve the understanding of environmental change during the glacial ages through interdisciplinary research. In other words, the Swedish professor has gravitas when it comes to sea levels. Alas his letter did not make headlines.

Boo hoo! Poor denialists. All they have is a tiny handful of media outlets such as Fox News (part of the Murdoch empire and the largest US cable news channel) and the Dail Mail (2nd largest UK tabloid). But, lets play the game; let's be 'inquisitive enough' to ask why 'his letter did not make headlines'?

A quick search on Google Scholar for Prof Morner shows that as a retired academic he has not published any peer reviewed papers for a while; from my quick search, since the 70s. Also as a geology professor he has published nothing on sea levels. So, could it be that he is not a world authority of sea levels? It seems so. Next we look to the credibility of the man himself we find he is a "dowsing expert". Yup, another magickal-denialist. Whatever you think of dowsing; it an't science. Kind of takes away from his 'gravitas'? Yup. Here's what hocus-pocus debunker James Randi had to say on the issue;

Morner was tested -- amateurishly -- on a prominent Swedish TV show, "The Plain & Simple Truth," on TV2 on February 27th. Morner was first provided the opportunity to brag about anecdotal successes, then he was tested. A local celebrity -- a singer -- was involved, as is usual with these drearily predictable affairs. The singer chose one of ten cups under which to conceal a packet of sugar. He chose number seven; are we surprised? Morner had designed this test, saying that it was especially difficult for him to do. (???) He said that water or metal could be located "right away," but not sugar. Morner blathered on about "interference" and mumbled about "influences" and "might be here" and the usual alibis, then chose number eight. Wrong. But, said Morner, it was "in the right sector!" But no cigar.

There were 3 serious errors in what could have been a good test: One, the target was not selected by a random means. (3 and 7 are the most-often-chosen positions in a line-up of 10.) Two, an audience member could have secretly signaled Morner. Three, Morner was allowed to do a test of his own choice, one that he said in advance was difficult and strange for him, instead of doing one which he'd done before, for which he has claimed 100% success. Why were water and/or metal not used? This is ridiculous!

So to 'journalist' Janet Albrechtsen who wrote the original drivel article where she fanws over Morner; Scepticism is good to have but it needs to be "in the right sector!" i.e. applied to all, else you're a denialist. So no cigar.

Murdoch Press Shills the Denial Shill

Under the guise of an article about a few annoyed people on Richard Dawkins's website, Murdoch paper The Times moves in to try to protect it's reports from scrutiny with a staggeringly one sided assault on those who understand and communicate the real science of climate change. One of their targets is Tim Lambert, aka Deltiod, who recently demolished Lord Fonk-Monkton in a debate (via a quote from Roger Pielke);

Pielke has been stung by the non-academics, too. He describes on his blog the 'giant fish' of the public intellectuals in the blogosphere pond, then the 'big fish' who feed them and the unqualified 'minnows' — the amateurs — and the way they interact in the blogosphere: "To more effectively attack someone’s reputation they ... rely on the minnows of the blogosphere, people who see it as their sole job to 'trash' someone’s reputation via innuendo, fabrication and outright misrepresentation. Among these minnows are controversialist bloggers like Tim Lambert, who are professionally unqualified to engage in the substance of most debates (certainly the case with respect to my own work), yet earn their place exclusively by making mountains out of molehills."

Pielke - who is like the only vaguely credible denial voice (though he is not a full on denialist) - sounds a massively arrogant prick from this, then attacks Lambert and the Times is happy to quote him at length. Why?

Lambert, 50, is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales who spends up to six hours a day blogging on climate change. He supports Mann’s hockey-stick model and has posted tirades against bloggers and science journalists, including Jonathan Leake, The Sunday Times environment editor.

So that's why - because Lambert holds the shit science reporting of Leake to account. Out of interest, the article then goes on to approving talk about Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitric, Willis Eschenbach and Anthony Watts - all of who are denialists and none of whom, (as is suggested for Lambert) are "professionally unqualified to engage in the substance of most debates" and "see it as their sole job to 'trash' someone’s reputation via innuendo, fabrication and outright misrepresentation" - but the article's author Amy Turner does not bother to note that. Too busy blowing the denialist trumpet. In all only about 1/5 of the article is about Dawkins - the rest is a velled attack on Amy and Jonathan's blogging opponents.

In short this article is a one-sided snipe at a blogger who is holding big-media to account and they don't like being told when they are wrong.

Well tough shit Amy and Jonathan; You are all provably wrong on this issue and the smell from here is rotten.

Murdoch Burries His Bad News

Murdoch's News International papers have been blasted for hacking into phone messages, breaking privacy laws etc. The cops are also been under pressure about why they seemed to go along with all this when they knew it was against the law and so on. All big news; unless you read one of Murdoch's papers...

But readers of several other titles could easily have missed the story altogether. The Sun, the NoW's sister paper, managed 135 words under the headline "Report 'hijack'," which highlighted claims by Philip Davies, a Tory MP, that by "smearing" Andy Coulson, Labour committee members "abused the report for petty party political advantage".

The Times, another News International stablemate, placed its 230-word story at the bottom of page 15. It carried the MPs' criticism of News International, followed by a statement from the company attacking some committee members' "party political agenda". There was no mention in either piece of the "industrial scale" of the hacking operation and "deliberate obfuscation" by NoW executives, as detailed by the committee.

But also the climate-denial rags of the Torygraph and the Daily Hatemail were also quiet about it - it almost seems like they've got something to hide...

But News International was not alone in playing down the criticism. Other papers focused on other aspects of the report dealing with press standards, privacy and libel – anything, it seemed, but phone hacking.

Only in the last two paragraphs of a 327-word piece did the Daily Telegraph broach the hacking allegations, simply noting that the MPs said there were a "significant" number of other victims "at the heart of the British establishment".

The Daily Mail focused on MPs' calls for curbs to "chilling" libel and privacy laws threatening press freedom, and ran fewer than 150 words on the committee's hacking conclusions.