George Monbiot In Vancouver

He's in Vancouver? How'd Mr. "Planes Are Killers" get across the Atlantic Ocean?

Hypocrite. Grandstander.

Why is it that Monbiot ellicits so much anger in people?

Oh wait... I guess it's what he's written on his website:

Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it.
Tell them something new and they will hate you for it.

Disagree with the guy if you want. But once you make it personal, you're revealing more than you think.

But once you make it personal, you're revealing more than you think.

If a guy equates flying on planes with committing genocide, then flies around the world to sell his book, then he's begging for it.

He has told me absolutely nothing new. He's just a grandstander who does more harm than good.

And since he's always making it personal (see his website for the book), then I guess you think that's "revealing" about him.

What's revealing about you is that you just lop up his bombast unquestioningly. Why? Because he has a cool name?

george ... who are you doing your offsets with, or how are you compensating for the GHG emissions from your flights? thanks

Some thoughts for George as he flies around the planet to put money in his own pockets:

"...if we want to stop the planet from cooking, we will simply have to stop travelling at the kind of speeds that planes permit.

This is now broadly understood by almost everyone I meet. But it has had no impact whatever on their behaviour. When I challenge my friends about their planned weekend in Rome or their holiday in Florida, they respond with a strange, distant smile and avert their eyes. They just want to enjoy themselves. Who am I to spoil their fun? The moral dissonance is deafening."

The moral dissonance is deafening.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1719728,00.html

Here's St. George on offsets:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/10/19/selling-indulgences/

"The moral dissonance is deafening."

How did he get across the Atlantic? By plane, probably, Anonymous. But don't go calling people hypocrites without good cause. (Do you know the term 'hypocrite lecteur'?) Have you given up all your nasty un-green habits completely? If so, great, but save your anger for the people who really burn up the skies, without thinking about the consequences. Monbiot probably calculated that his carbon consumption would be more than offset by the carbon savings he inspires through his talks.

Come on, please... The man's provocative, but we need people like him. Or why are you reading Treehugger?

But don't go calling people hypocrites without good cause.

Without good cause? He flatly calls people who fly planes "killers". Says that our flying makes us each morally equivalent to terrorists. Try reading what he writes before talking about "good cause".

Have you given up all your nasty un-green habits completely?

I don't go around lecturing people on how to live their lives. I don't call people "killers" for flying on planes. I mind my own business and do the best I can. I'm not foolish enough to play the Moralist role.

If so, great, but save your anger for the people who really burn up the skies, without thinking about the consequences. Monbiot probably calculated that his carbon consumption would be more than offset by the carbon savings he inspires through his talks.

Right. We're all terrorists, but for St. Monbiot, the ends justifies the means. He doesn't have to live by his own extreme proclamations.

Come on, please... The man's provocative, but we need people like him

No, we don't need him. He gives real change agents a bad name.

Or why are you reading Treehugger?

Huh? So, since Monbiot parades around and points his finger at everyone and tells them how evil they are, that helps me or anyone else how? He tells me nothing I don't already know.

People, read your bibles. You might notice that somewhere in there it says in there that we're all sinners. You don't have to be perfect in order not to be a hypocrite. You just need to be making a real effort to be good.

He's an internationally reknowned author, and he's taking a single commercial flight in order to talk about climate change in a country that sorely needs the discussion right now. The people he lambastes are like Chris Martin, who calls himself an environmentalist, then flies home between gigs in his personal jet. You don't notice the difference between those?

Anonymous: if you find evidence that he really is "flying around the world" to promote his book, please present it. Because it's not like I'm just going to lop up your bombast.

I do my share of flying...maybe more than my share. Does that make me a hypocrite? Absolutely, and George is right there with his pleasant little reminders. Do I hate him for it? No, because he's right. He's just the messenger. I'd rather listen to what he has to say, then work towards a solution. Not throw a tantrum because someone's burst my bubble.

People, read your bibles. You might notice that somewhere in there it says in there that we're all sinners. You don't have to be perfect in order not to be a hypocrite. You just need to be making a real effort to be good.

Here's some nice words from the Bible:

5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

I also like this part:

"Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

This part is great, too:

1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Maybe you should write St. Monbiot and ask him to take all those parts to heart.

He's an internationally reknowned author, and he's taking a single commercial flight in order to talk about climate change in a country that sorely needs the discussion right now.

Really? Canada needs him personally to fly over there? Who determines that? See, according to Monbiot, he is the one who is allowed to judge what is necessary flying and what isn't. But regardless, he says that "flying is killing" and lambastes everyone for doing it. He says that we are all equivalent to terrorists for flying in planes. Yet, despite these harsh words, he just gets on a plane and flies.

The people he lambastes are like Chris Martin, who calls himself an environmentalist, then flies home between gigs in his personal jet. You don't notice the difference between those?

No, I notice no difference. Chris Martin doesn't call people "killers" and "terrorists" for flying.

Anonymous: if you find evidence that he really is "flying around the world" to promote his book, please present it. Because it's not like I'm just going to lop up your bombast.

Oh, I see. Now we're not playing by Monbiot Rules. According to Monbiot Rules, getting on a plane is the same as being a murderer/terrorist. It doesn't matter why to him. So now I have to analyze the degree to which he's flying?

My "bombast" is nothing compared to what he says. Yet oddly you defend him. Are you enamored with him to such a degree that you are unable to distinguish how you hold him to one standard and other people to another? I guess that would explain why you like him -- you and he can be nasty towards other people without having to live by your own standards.

I do my share of flying...maybe more than my share. Does that make me a hypocrite?

If you go around saying that human society has to give up planes and that people who fly are terrorists -- yeah, then you'd be a hypocrite. Otherwise, I don't care how much you fly. But St. Monbiot wants to make those judgments about you.

Absolutely, and George is right there with his pleasant little reminders.

"Pleasant little reminders"? Is that a joke? He couldn't be more offensive and more pompous.

Do I hate him for it? No, because he's right. He's just the messenger.

A messenger for lies and extremism, as well as hypocrisy. He's no messenger of anything worthy.

I'd rather listen to what he has to say, then work towards a solution. Not throw a tantrum because someone's burst my bubble.

Oh, I see. I'm "throwing a tantrum". But calling people "terrorists" and "killers" for getting on a plane is level-headed and mature commentary.

Have fun with calling me names, though. I know it's necessary, since you certainly are having trouble trying to make excuses for Monbiot's bald hypocrisy.

I'm no friend of Monbiot and his plane-hating, but it sounds like people are speculating on how he got to Canada. How about actually finding out? If he flew, then besides being a fundamentalist he is a hypocrite (Those two words do keep frequent company, don't they?).

But perhaps he managed not to fly and he hitched a ride on a cargo ship or something.

Which of course says nothing about the book itself and how much fuel was burned to print it and distribute it. Since he thinks offsets are bogus (A point that bears exploring.), why didn't he just make an e-book?

TORONTO (CP) - For many authors, air travel in order to promote a book is a matter of course.

But for British journalist George Monbiot, who examines ways to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions in "Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning," it represents a bit of a problem. If, as he suggests, everyone was given an annual ration of carbon dioxide emissions, air travel would have to be severely curtailed.

"I called some Canadian environmentalist friends to see whether (this) trip could be justified," he says when asked about his recent journey to Canada.

Monbiot said his acquaintances told him the trip was vital to help the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper comprehend the enormity of the problem.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/arts/story.html?id=b28f66f0-0580-425d-a0a8-5f7f6a220a4b&k=43895

The messianic delusional syndrome repeats an historical prototype that manifests itself in each patient with individual changes. The syndrome expresses a serious impairment of identity and reflects a social, cultural and religious reality through generations. The regularities of its clinical features comprise a delusional system, centered on the patient's conviction that he has been chosen by God for a special and intransferable mission. The patient has special powers for carrying out this mission. He is a savior and announces resurrection. His delusions have a clear symbolic character. For the patient's social group, the messianic idea is an attempt at annulling the effect of oppression or persecution that have become unbearable for the individual. They represent a flight from the human sphere and an attempt to be God. The patient's behavior is in consonance with this purpose; it expresses itself, on the one hand, through preaching repentance and compassion and, on the other hand, the patient gives up his earthly links and replaces them by parental relations with God.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=95508&dopt=Abstract

You're right, Anonymous, you're definitely not throwing a tantrum.

You're right, Anonymous, you're definitely not throwing a tantrum.

More personal attacks. Very nice.

Having trouble with your hero's hypocrisy?

"Disagree with the guy if you want. But once you make it personal, you're revealing more than you think."

Heh.

How can you take it personally if you are Anonymous?

Anyway i'm off to plant a tree for George's journey.

Thanks Anonymous, that settles it.

He "called some environmentalist friends"?

Oh. That's rich. The guy is definitely a hypocrite. So now the formula is that you have to be in the Climate Change business in order to have the right to pollute? Right. Well, like I said, fundamentalism and hypocrisy are joined at the hip. No suprise Monbiot is no different.

And no. We don't need hypocrites, no matter how provocative they are. They provide ammunition to the forces arrayed against environmental efforts; they might as well receive a stipend from Monsanto or Exxon for the work that they do.

Wow, I see one person repeating things exactly the same. Another guy saying stuff different to get to the same point.

Another getting preachy. A lot of Bible and Godly images and other stuff. I guess those Evangilicals have really went green. Congradulations Treehuggers we have another type of Treehugger joining our midst :)

Anonymous, I don't know where you get the "killer/terrorist" thing, but it seems clear from the quote you posted above that he's accusing his friends of complacency, negligence, and moral laziness, but not terrorism or murder. It's fairly simple to make the moral distinction between the two.

Look: George Monbiot clearly believes, as many people do, that climate change will cause considerable unnecessary loss of life and cultural damage.

If you don't believe that, fine, but that's a different argument.

If you do believe it, then the moral dimension is obvious. If your personal choices result in harm to others, then that harm needs to be considered if you are to make moral choices.

He points out that most people, such as his friends (even those who "believe in" climate change), choose to avoid this difficult moral dilemma.

It's self-evident that avoiding obvious moral dilemas is an immoral act. It's equally obvious that the sin is self-indulgence, not murder, and that the two are not morally equivalent.

He's never to my knowledge stated that everyone must stop flying now. Nor that the proper solution to climate change is to withdraw completely from modern society. All he's said is that everyone should include all the consequences when weighing up whether to fly. Clearly, he thinks that hopping on a plane for a fun weekend in Spain is not a morally defensible choice. Again, it's obvious that flying for different reasons, such as for business or to see a loved one, involve different moral choices, and each needs to be made individually.

And so his decision to fly to Vancouver needs to be seen as a distinct moral choice, and is not equivalent to flying on holiday to Spain. You can challenge the validity of his choice, but as long as he makes it in good conscience, then he's not a hypocrite. Wrong, maybe. Deluded even. But not a hypocrite.

George Monbiot is not my hero, I've only read a few things of his and seen him on TV a couple times. I disagree with the tack he takes. But he's always come across as: smart, consistent, and intellectually and morally rigrourous, almost to a fault. This last is probably why people find him so annoying. However, if they possessed even a fraction of his intellectual honesty, they would have to grudgingly admire the guy.

Anonymous, I don't know where you get the "killer/terrorist" thing

Clearly I read what Monbiot writes, whereas you just assume he's a wonderful chap.

www.monbiot.com

Have at it.

"We Are All Killers... Until we stop flying"

"What all this means is that if we want to stop the planet from cooking, we will simply have to stop travelling at the kind of speeds that planes permit.

This is now broadly understood by almost everyone I meet. But it has had no impact whatever on their behaviour. When I challenge my friends about their planned weekend in Rome or their holiday in Florida, they respond with a strange, distant smile and avert their eyes. They just want to enjoy themselves. Who am I to spoil their fun? The moral dissonance is deafening."

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/02/28/we-are-all-killers/

"By the time we reach the end of our lives, every one of us, however kind and mild and well-meaning we might be, will have been responsible for the equivalent, in terms of human suffering, of a medium-sized act of terrorism."

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/05/24/a-restraint-of-liberty/

"Global warming means that flying across the Atlantic [which Monbiot just did] is now as unacceptable as child abuse"

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/1999/07/29/meltdown/

So, by his own logic, he's the same as a child abuser, murderer, and a terrorist. To call him a "hypocrite" is to be kind.

His messianic/martyr complex is a joke. What - he has to personally fly to Canada? Why? No Canadian can make a passionate case for dealing with global warming? Please. The guy's off his rocker - utterly narcissistic.

The Master, by residing in the Tao,
sets an example for all beings.
Because he doesn't display himself,
people can see his light.
Because he has nothing to prove,
people can trust his words.

~~~~~~~~~~

When the will to power is in charge,
the higher the ideals, the lower the results.
Try to make people happy,
and you lay the groundwork for misery.
Try to make people moral,
and you lay the groundwork for vice.

Thus the Master is content
to serve as an example
and not to impose her will.

~~~~~~~~~~

The Master does nothing,
yet he leaves nothing undone.
The ordinary man is always doing things,
yet many more are left to be done.

The kind man does something,
yet something remains undone.
The just man does something,
and leaves many things to be done.
The moral man does something,
and when no one responds
he rolls up his sleeves and uses force.

~~~~~~~~~~

Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power.

~~~~~~~~~~

Those who know don't talk.
Those who talk don't know.

To the last Anonymous:
I am so glad to see one anonymous saying something calm and logical. Thank you.

I am so glad to see one anonymous saying something calm and logical. Thank you.

No problem. It would be nice if clowns like Monbiot, and people who admire clowns like Monbiot, took those words to heart.

"Disagree with the guy if you want. But once you make it personal, you're revealing more than you think"

That's the problem though, you're not allowed to disagree with him. His opinion on the subject is "time is over for argument, discussion or debate". Essentially he's saying he's right, everyone else is wrong and if you don't like what he says, you're a denialist. He bemoans " "scientific gibberish" on the one hand (in his spat with Christopher Monckton), then completely removes scientific method from the equation by not allowing anyone to even [i]try[/i] to falsify his position. Well how scientific. The debate is apparently settled. He's right, everyone else is wrong and he's now some sort of climate messiah. He's not helping things at all. In fact, he's making things worse, as he gives the impression that all the people involved in environmental and climate debate are raving authoritarian nutters hell bent on preaching to us what we can't do, rather than actually making any useful contribution. Mere mortals are not allowed to fly, as it's apparently akin to child abuse, yet George is allowed to jet all over the planet on media tours (he's been to Australia recently as well) to tell people, amongst other things, that they're not allowed to fly. But it's ok, because his friends said it was. And people still wonder why he gets accused of hypocrisy?!

Philder, Anonymous: I think you're getting hung up on his style, and you're not understanding the substance of what he says. He has never to my knowlege equated flying with murder, terrorism or child abuse. He's used those words in order to make a point: that the consequences of flying--not the act--are akin to child abuse. (And unfortunately I can't say that he's wrong on that.) If you can't see that distinction, then you simply don't understand what he's saying.

Similarly, I don't think he's ever told anyone they can't fly, just that they should wheigh their decision carefully, taking into consideration the climate change consequences. It follows that a weekend away in Spain weighs up differently than a flight for work. Again, I can't see anything wrong with that.

Finally, when he says "we are all killers..." Again, he's obviously not actually accusing people of being murderers. And he clearly puts himself on the same moral plain as everyone else. It's a sardonic comment about the sorry state that society is in because of climate change, where "mild, well-meaning" people are placed in the situation of harming future generations, just by making what is now a perfectly ordinary lifestyle choice. However, any environmentalist should now that it doesn't follow that we should huddle in the dark, we need to act constructively to find solutions. Clearly, he thinks he's being part of the solution. That is not hypocrisy.

As I read it, that's the gist of what he says. It seems clear to me, but you have obviously read it another way, I don't know why. There may be a cultural dimension. You read the word terrorist and freak out, not bothering to read the sentence in which it is located. The English are generally a good deal less sensitive and politically correct than North Americans; in fact, they often like a good verbal dust-up, given the right time and place. I don't know where you're from, but you may just be unfamiliar with his style.

What I see is a forthright, outspoken individual with a painful message. He says things people don't want to hear, and is attacked for it. As usual, the attack takes the form of character slurs. It does not accurately reflect the things he's said.

I prefer a more positive approach to the environment... but nothing he says is factually wrong. Most of all, he's correct that most of us are in denial about the consequences of our actions, lifestyle-wise. This is not a pleasant message, but it's a valid one. I for one do not want to live in a world where people with something difficult to say are labeled moralisers and delusional extremists by those who don't understand, or don't wish to hear them.

I think you're getting hung up on his style

No, I'm taking him at his own words.

I will requote Monbiot to make this crystal clear:
"Global warming means that flying across the Atlantic is now as unacceptable as child abuse."

So, by his very own standards, he is now equivalent to a child abuser. And, given that he understands his climate impact from flying (as opposed to the vast majority of people who do not), it makes the fact that he does it anyway even worse.

imilarly, I don't think he's ever told anyone they can't fly, just that they should wheigh their decision carefully

Don't equivocate by saying "I don't think" whatever about what he says. Read his words. What his words say is that we simply can't go at high speed anymore. Period.

And he clearly puts himself on the same moral plain as everyone else.

No, and that's precisely what's repugnant about him. He accepts his own excuses for "killing" by flying (eg, he "needs" to go to Canada, since he is such a crucial climate messiah), whereas other people are simply killers no matter the reason for their flying. He's a megalomaniac.

Clearly, he thinks he's being part of the solution. That is not hypocrisy.

No, hypocrisy is condemning something in a vicious manner, then doing that very thing, ala Ted Haggard. The fact that he feels he's a part of the solution only shows he is narcissistically delusional. Plenty of people have been on the global warming bandwagon a lot longer than he has, and they've put forth positive solutions that make a difference. All of a sudden, Monbiot thinks he's invented the wheel and is the last word in how we deal with the problem. That he is either clueless that his extremist antics and rhetoric do more harm than good, or that he knows and does it anyway -- shows precisely how he elevates himself above what he supposedly cares about. This is not an uncommon behvior pattern among self-appointed "world savers".

I don't know where you're from, but you may just be unfamiliar with his style.

Style?? Look, when you call people equivalent to killers, terrorists, and child abusers (with no room for specificity to actual individuals), that isn't "style". That is hard-bang, broad-brush villification. And since we're talking about 1 to 5% of the problem, what does that make the 20 to 100 fold total contribution to the problem? I mean, if a specific dimension of my life activity is responsible for 2.5% of a total problem and that is equivalent to terrorism, child abuse, and killing, what exactly is he left with in terms of rhetoric to describe something 40 times as bad - ie, my total contribution to the problem? By going for some knee-jerk extreme rhetoric, he's painted himself in a corner.

What I see is a forthright, outspoken individual with a painful message. He says things people don't want to hear, and is attacked for it.

Please - that's that "Martyr Monbiot" nonsense. Give me a break. He's not all that. Not by a long shot. No one - and I mean no one - of any importance in the sustainability movement, and especially among people who bring sustainability into the real economy, uses Monbiot as a reference. He's an amateur, newbie commentator, not an expert, and certainly not a person who is out there creating real change with workable solutions.

As usual, the attack takes the form of character slurs.

Please. Monbiot's bread-and-butter is character slurs, and my critique of him is squarely based on his arguments and his personal behavior. It is not a "slur" to quote him, to check his facts, and to run that against his own behavior.

I prefer a more positive approach to the environment... but nothing he says is factually wrong.

Really? You've fact-checked every assertion he's ever made? In the area of transportation, energy, and climate impact alone I've found countless egregious factual errors that he's made. And he self-appoints himself some kind of fact-checker? Ha. He should clean up his own house first.

Most of all, he's correct that most of us are in denial about the consequences of our actions, lifestyle-wise.

Wow - that's such a revelation. He's a real genius. No one's ever made the same assertion. [/sarcasm]

This is not a pleasant message, but it's a valid one. I for one do not want to live in a world where people with something difficult to say are labeled moralisers and delusional extremists by those who don't understand, or don't wish to hear them.

Um, he is a moraliser and he is a delusional extremist. This is demonstrably true. You ASSUME that the reason that people observe this about him has some sort of nefarious purpose, or that we're "in denial". Quite the contrary. It's because he epitomizes the grandstanding, control-oriented, doomsaying, closed-minded stereotype of an environmentalist. If you were out in the real world trying to make change, you'd realize what a pain in the butt it is overcoming that stereotype.

nothing he says is factually wrong

"coal supplies 32% of U.S. electricity, while natural gas supplies 24% and nuclear power 10%."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-monbiot11jun11,0,5430628.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Reality:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes1.html

He's not even close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear

has a grandiose sense of self-importance

is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people

requires excessive admiration
strong sense of entitlement

takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

lacks empathy

is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her

arrogant affect

It's interesting (to say the least) to see how some comments take forever to post, or never get posted at all.

--
editor note: Flamebaits are deleted.

Some others take a while because we're extremely busy and don't always have time to approve all comments in a timely manner (sorry 'bout that!).

editor note: Flamebaits are deleted.

Guess that's in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? Telling someone "you're not understanding the substance of what he says" is pretty flamish, especially considering I've spent considerable amount of time reading and digestng Monbiot's diatribes. Furthermore, when someone makes the claim "nothing he says is factually wrong" and one isn't given the opportunity to debunk that claim, it appears that there's more than just "deleting flamebait" at work.

If you want to be honest about it, posting about Monbiot itself is flamebaiting on the part of Treehugger, knowing full well the kind of response it will engender among your readers. He himself is a flamebaiter extraordinaire, equating normal people who get on planes to terrorists, child abusers, and killers.

--
editor note: You can decide what you do on your website. We'll decide on this one.

You can decide what you do on your website. We'll decide on this one.

Is that really what it's all about? If so, that's fine, but then please don't let us believe that there's some sort of objective standards being applied to what gets through and what doesn't.

The "might make right" argument seems a little off when it comes to being an advicate for social change, IMO.

--
editor note: See what I mean?

The fact that we decide what is flamebaiting/trolling/innapropriate or not doesn't mean that we don't try to use objective and fair standards. But in the end, there's always a subjective element in judging conversations (it's not math). We prefer that to just approving all the trolls, spammers and flamebaiters.

If you act like a reasonable and civil adult, you have nothing to worry about.

If you act like a reasonable and civil adult, you have nothing to worry about.

Meaning that I wasn't acting like a "reasonable and civil adult" - like the kind of person who calls kids who fly to Disneyland "terrorists" and "killers".

I'm not meaning to belabor this, but it just seems really strange to keep promoting Monbiot, who is not even remotely reasonable and civil, then turning around and expecting a completely different set of behaviors and phraseology from people who are responding to what he says and does.

More than once I have, without any uncivil language, simply demonstrated how Monbiot is far from being correct all the time about the relevant facts, yet somehow that seems to get 86ed. So, as a result, absurd claims like "nothing he says is factually wrong" are left standing, with the appearance that, since it's been unchallenged, that it's a true statement.

I don't object to any of the content you all post on your site, and of course it's your perogative what to post and what comments are allowed on your site. Absolutely.

But you all also know how provocative certain people and certain topics are (eg, Hummers, George Bush, leather/animal products, Monbiot, etc), so it's to be expected that you're going to get heated, acrimonious exchanges over these things.

In particular, Monbiot has been brought to my attention on this website (numerous times) specifically because of his stance on air travel and his views about its impact on climate change and his radical proposal that we simply need to give up aviation altogether. So when the guy goes to such extremes, then to promote that viewpoint actually gets on a plane and flies across the Atlantic (which, as he said, "is now as unacceptable as child abuse"), then you have to expect you'll hear howling from the rafters about his bald hypocrisy.

There's plenty of people out there doing good work for the environment, so by giving a disproportionate spotlight to certain individuals like Monbiot, you're tacitly endorsing him as a legitimate resource for ideas, as opposed to people's work you don't cover (at least as extensively). Again, that's your perogative.

But you can see that you're objecting to what you determine is unreasonable and uncivil, right? So it's understandable that someone who cares about the environment, like myself, would find Monbiot's unreasonable and uncivil language and behavior to be counterproductive. I'd like to "delete" him from the dialog about climate change, simply on the same basis as you all wish to pull out certain comments/commenters who you feel cross a civility/behavioral threshhold.

At least his provocations have us all putting it on the table, so to speak. I just hope he doesn't gain more prominence than he has now, because to me he represents all the negative stereotypes that so many of us have worked hard to overcome about environmentalists.

--
editor note: You seem to be confusing moderation to content censorship. We will approve comments with which we disagree. We won't approve comments that are uncivil (we might miss a few, and it depends on the moderators, but that's the subjective part of it).

As for the rest, I'm sorry but I don't have time to read all of that. There are only so many hours in a day. It's okay for you to disagree with Monbiot and to say it. No prob. But if your goal is to make everybody agree with you and to silence everybody who mention him, then good luck.