rstuart,

If you are genuine when you claim there is “no evidence” of recent acts of censorship then I have no idea why you are trying to debate this on OLO? Is debating something of which you have no knowledge genetic or acquired?

Go and read any newspapers from the last 72 hrs then come back and talk to us about it.

morganzola, likewise, you really do need to get a grip on current affairs. When you’ve done that you can perhaps stay on thread topic instead of subjecting us to “gobbledygook”.

I repeat my assertion “Not one of the pro-CAGW lobby has been willing, or possibly able, to address the issue of abuse and censorship” There is something in this question that has you stumped but I don’t know what it is?

Lexi:>> Monchton is not taken seriously in the UK and British journalists are surprised that he would be - here in Australia.<<

Lexi the British press were neutered in the 1970's in regard to making social comment away from the party line, and the party line from left and right was be politically correct. So your acknowledgement of their response to Monchton is certainly no validation as to the credibility of the man, rather Lexi you should consider any one who the establishment wants to muzzle as a truth sayer rather than a crack pot.

SoG

Need to clarify your argument.

Are you saying because the British press has been discredited, therefore Monckton is not an ignorant, unqualified nutter muddying the waters of intelligent informed discourse?

@SPQR:

Yeah, but he was allowed to speak at Notre Dame despite the petition, wasn't he? As I said, I don't agree with attempts to muzzle the clown. However, the 40 academics have every right to express their point of view via a petition if they wish, which is also an aspect of their 'freedom of speech'. Since they are concerned about the academic integrity of their university being diminished by its hosting of this anti-science stunt, it's fair enough they should have their say too, I think. However, if Monckton's performance went ahead, then he can't claim to have been censored by the University.

The case I was referring to was a German club where he was prevented from speaking because of sensitivities surrounding the Nazi allusions. I understand that at least one football club has cancelled him too - maybe they figure they get enough bad media anyway without being associated with this idiot.

@ spindoc:

What "gobbedlygook"? You really don't like have your deliberate spin highlighted, do you - both I and bonmot have identified the "Catastrophic" propaganda, and your response is to try and stonewall, which again is standard operating procedure for spin doctors, isn't it?

The reason that nobody bothers to address purported censorship and abuse of AGW deniers is quite simply that it doesn't exist at any significant level in this country. If anything, it goes the other way.

Spindoc I know I said I would not be back but you force me.
In a thread determined to show believers try to stop debate.
Sooooo, Funnyy! you have become purely abusive.
A day will come, a great day, that every one will know Man Made Climate change is REAL.
That day, someone with the time, now for that matter, some one could put comments like yours in a book that would make them very rich and the world bust a gut laughing.
Yes I go,see you in an other thread.

sonofgloin: do you ever read/understand the links you comment on?

1998 was an extraordinarily hot El Nino year.
2010 going into 2011 an extraordinarily cold La Nina year.

Guess what? Not much difference between the two.

Ever wondered what might be driving a very cold La Nina cycle to be as hot as an El Nino one?

It ain't the Sun, it was in a cooling phase too.

Anyway, I'd much prefer you link to sites that actually measure the stuff, or sites that you can actually 'talk' to the scientists who measure the stuff.

Why? Because most:

Media sites (e.g. Prison Planet, The Australian)
Blog-sites (e.g. Watts Up With That, Jo Nova)
Shock-jocks (e.g. Andrew Bolt, James Dellingpole)

just don't cut it anymore.

How the media gets it wrong:

http://tinyurl.com/How-the-media-gets-it-wrong

Scroll down to "the malicious" if you can't be bothered reading the whole article.

With 'Freedom of Speech' comes a responsibility.

It doesn't mean deliberately distorting and misrepresenting the facts.

It doesn't mean making up your own facts to suit your own agenda.

The 'Lord' Christopher Monckton and other spindoctors do this very well.

Btw, your last two media links are 2 years old.