While the complainant may indeed have read the draft Copenhagen Treaty, he could not have known with certainty, when speaking in mid-October, what precisely would be signed in mid-December. It was legitimate, therefore, for Mr Monbiot to jokingly refer to the complainant as a clairvoyant. As to whether the Treaty referred to ‘world government', the newspaper acknowledged that it did but said it was clear that the Treaty was not envisaging a supranational government to replace national governments. It was fair, therefore, for Monbiot to take issue with the complainant's expressed fears about the creation of a world government.
Now recall the ho-ha the denialosphere made over the PCC's judgement of the climate change adverts - they were happy to accept the PCC's view then - none of them criticised it. So now the PCC has ruled that claims of ‘world government' are bunk are they still going to respect the PCC's judgement?