Climate change has nothing to do with the Holocaust or 9/11 | James Delingpole

November 22, 2009

But you’d be forgiven for thinking otherwise from all the hysterical propaganda put out by the ecofascists of the AGW lobby.

Here’s the latest example from those silly trustafarian children at Plane Stupid:

And here, for those who missed it, is a spat I’ve had with the Guardian over an elderly US war veteran who apparently considers it seemly and apt to compare the piles of emaciated bodies he saw being swept into heaps when he helped liberate a Nazi concentration camp at the end of World War II with “Climate Change.”

Sorry but I don’t see the connection at all. 9/11 was a brutal terrorist incident which claimed the lives of 2,976 innocent people. The Holocaust was an evil Nazi genocide which led to the mechanised slaughter of six million mostly Jewish men, women and children. Climate change is an ongoing natural process which last few million-odd years been directly responsible for the deaths of precisely no one.

Related posts:

  1. Did ‘climate change’ cause the Japanese earthquake?
  2. Government’s £6 million ‘Bedtime Story’ climate change ad: most pernicious waste of taxpayers’ money ever?
  3. What the liberal elite feel you should know about ‘Climate Change’
  4. ‘Climate Change’: the new Eugenics

5 Responses to “Climate change has nothing to do with the Holocaust or 9/11”

  1. Emmess says:November 22, 2009 at 9:23 amI see a connection
    The co-leader until recently of the New Zealand Green Party is a Troofer
  2. Hurf Durf says:November 23, 2009 at 5:01 amYou had every right to challenge that letter, considering no concentration camps were liberated in 1944 and Newsweak never bothered to go into any detail about the incident. The Gradiaun’s response and their quartwit commenters shows that you were right to do so.
  3. AJ McConville says:November 23, 2009 at 10:07 amThe point is whether you think climate change is happening the way most scientists say. He thinks it is, you think it isn’t.
  4. mgaio says:November 24, 2009 at 7:04 am“Climate change is … directly responsible for the deaths of precisely no one”?Not even one?

    I have seen your blog and it is lame.

  5. mgaio says:November 24, 2009 at 7:15 amYou even boast your own “spat” at the Guardian–when the article clearly shows how wrong you were in your uninformed accusations.Lame, lame, lame!

Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science

The MSM reveals its bias–again!

Here’s what the Times has had to say on the subject:

E-mails allegedly written by some of the world’s leading climate scientists have been stolen by hackers and published on websites run by climate change sceptics.

The sceptics claim that the e-mails are evidence that scientists manipulated data in order to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

(Yep – definitely an improvement on their earlier, non-existent coverage; but not exactly pointing up the scandalousness of this scandal).

And the Independent:

(Yep. Nada).

And here’s how The New York Times (aka Pravda) reported it:

Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

(Yep. That’s right. It has only apparently caused a stir among ’skeptics’. Everyone else can rest easy. Nothing to see here.)

And here’s how the Guardian has reported it:

Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world’s leading climate scientists during the past 13 years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today.

The computer files were apparently accessed earlier this week from servers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, a world-renowned centre focused on the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.

(Oh. I get it. It’s just a routine data-theft story, not a scandal. And a chance to remind us of the CRU’s integrity and respectability. And – see below – to get in a snarky, ‘let’s have a dig at the deniers’ quote from Greenpeace).

A spokesman for Greenpeace said: “If you looked through any organisation’s emails from the last 10 years you’d find something that would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world’s leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke.”

Here’s the Washington Post:

Hackers broke into the electronic files of one of the world’s foremost climate research centers this week and posted an array of e-mails in which prominent scientists engaged in a blunt discussion of global warming research and disparaged climate-change skeptics.

The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence that scientific data have been rigged to make it appear as if humans are causing global warming. The researchers, however, say the e-mails have been taken out of context and merely reflect an honest exchange of ideas.

(Ah, so what the story is really about is ’skeptics’ causing trouble. Note how as high as the second par the researchers are allowed by the reporter to get in their insta-rebuttal, lest we get the impression that the scandal in any way reflects badly on them).

Here is the BBC:

E-mails reportedly from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), including personal exchanges, appeared on the internet on Thursday.

A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.

An investigation was underway and the police had been informed, he added.

(Ah yes, another routine data-theft story so dully reported – “the police had been informed, he added” – that you can’t even be bothered to reach the end to find out what information was stolen).

Meanwhile, the Climategate scandal (and I do apologise for calling it that, but that’s how the internet works: you need obvious, instantly memorable, event-specific search terms) continues to set the Blogosphere ablaze.

For links to all the latest updates on this, I recommend Marc Morano’s invaluable Climate Depot site.

And if you want to read those potentially incriminating emails in full, go to An Elegant Chaos org where they have all been posted in searchable form.

Like the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal, this is the gift that goes on giving. It won’t, unfortunately, derail Copenhagen (too many vested interests involved) or cause any of our many political parties to start talking sense on “Climate change”. But what it does demonstrate is the growing level of public scepticism towards Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. That’s why, for example, this story is the single most read item on today’s Telegraph website.

What it also demonstrates – as my dear chum Dan Hannan so frequently and rightly argues – is the growing power of the Blogosphere and the decreasing relevance of the Mainstream Media (MSM).

This is not altogether the MSM’s fault. Partly it is just the way of things that more and more readers prefer their news and opinion served up in snappier, less reverent, more digestible and instant for.

But in the case of “Climate Change”, the MSM has been caught with its trousers down. The reason it has been so ill-equipped to report on this scandal is because almost all of its Environmental Correspondents and Environmental Editors are parti pris members of the Climate-Fear Promotion lobby. Most of their contacts (and information sources) work for biased lobby groups like Greenpeace and the WWF, or conspicuously pro-AGW government departments and Quangos such as the Carbon Trust. How can they bring themselves to report on skullduggery at Hadley Centre when the scientists involved are the very ones whose work they have done most to champion and whose pro-AGW views they share?

As Upton Sinclair once said:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”

So don’t expect this scandal to be written up in the MSM any time soon. But why would you want to anyway? It’s all here, where the free spirits and independent thinkers are, on the Blogosphere.

UPDATE: I particularly recommend Bishop Hill’s superb summary of some of the key points of the CRU correspondence.

Also, Andrew Bolt’s summary of the correspondence likely to be most damaging to the reputation – and career, we can but pray – of Professor Phil Jones, the head of the CRU.

And do check out Watts Up With That, whose traffic went through the roof yesterday, enabling to demonstrate scientifically that Hockey Stick is after all a genuine phenomenon – and not merely a figment of Michael Mann’s overactive imagination.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: how the ‘greatest scientific scandal of our generation’ got its name
  2. Climategate: the official cover-up continues
  3. Climategate 2.0
  4. ‘Post-normal science’ is perfect for climate demagogues — it isn’t science at all

4 Responses to “Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science”

  1. betheweb says:November 22, 2009 at 2:47 pmThank you for this story, one of the most significant of the last 40 years.
  2. john ward says:November 23, 2009 at 10:12 amEvery old-media institution has an agenda. Nobody likes the truth (especially the Left) and so all my pieces about Brown being mad and blind, Darling having told him to f**k off last week, and the ‘jogging’ PM being a couch potato….get spiked.
    I’ve now been slandered five times by Ballsup,Cocksure (twice), Wheelsoff and Mangledumb in the media. And as soon as they slag one off as a Nazi, that same old media carry on reporting it as the truth.
    The internet is the one place left where one can challenge the ‘received truth’, because there are very few gargoyle proprietors in it. Unfortunately, 90+% of all bloggers are conspiracy theorising idlers. We need a ‘lift and separate’ online sector where serious and funny commentators can blow the lid of stuff….with tons of evidence to support the case. You should be leading that sector along with Chris Booker (and of course, me).
    I read the email theft piece with an open mind,to be frank. Warmers are falsifying like mad: but so too are GM agrobusiness, the car industry, the oil guys, the pharmcos and anyone with a vested interest in ignoring visual evidence. Because like it or not, four problems are real enough.
    These are: a stonking great hole in the ozone layer; melting ice-caps; a chronic lack of fresh water; and a species seemingly good at reproduction, killing and farting. (It’s a man thang)
    Like you, I am sceptical about the alarmist stuff, and I’m unclear on how long all this climate change will take. Some scientific thinkers go over the top because they know that without that, the G20 troughers will sit arranging angels on a pinhead forever. But when it comes to the Fab Four above, we have to do something…even if all the Climate change stuff is utter bollocks, fewer people, cleaner cars and desalination investment can’t be BAD things – can they?


  3. Conscript says:November 23, 2009 at 5:48 pmIt’s not just relegated to the MSM.

    I’m the lead writer for a green news/blog website, and my editor lobotomized my climategate story. I’ll have you know that I am an environmental journalist by chance, not passion. I drive a gas-guzzling sports car and enjoy cross country flights. My editor, and our readership, is mostly oblivious to this. Though I have no interest in jeapordizing my livleyhood, You can easily find the shell of a story that remains by searching “climategate” on google’s news aggregator.

    My editor removed any piece of edifying content to be found in the story under the pretense of avoiding liabilty for republishing stolen property — including enormous amounts of my original writing. While it would have been hard to follow the story without the context of the emails, it is a very clear example of how the “conspiracy” works. If you can’t tell by now, my editor is sold on AGW.

    Realize this: AGW isn’t a “conspiracy” bourne on the back of Templar treasure and managed by hooded men in gothic dining halls. AGW is perpetuated by the cumulative fears, insecurities, and desires of millions of men and women, making it harder to see in earnest — and harder to stop.

  4. durox says:November 24, 2009 at 3:55 amthanks for the time put in this summary… GW is so big, its out of control :[

Climategate: The Final Nail in the Coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations  – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.

Related posts:

  1. RealClimategate hits the final nail in the coffin of ‘peer review’
  2. Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!
  3. Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
  4. Climategate: what Gore’s useful idiot Ed Begley Jr doesn’t get about the ‘peer review’ process

7 thoughts on “Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?”

  1. Pingback: The Zeroth Fundamental Force « Broken Britain
  2. Tiggerito says:21st November 2009 at 1:45 pmI’ve been through global cooling/warming and am a skeptic on the current theories and probably the next 10 that come by. They are theories and its a scientific process so they should change/evolve to hopefully something closer to the truth in the future.What I do believe in is that we have done and are still doing things are not good for the environment. Chimney smog, river pollution, mas deforestation, profits over life…I will keep my shares in alternative energy in the hope that it helps us move in a positive direction in protecting where we live, even if the next scare is global brightening.
  3. Strangely says:21st November 2009 at 2:50 pmcui bono?As you said above,

    …wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see…

    We will see what?

    Mysterious hacks into computers?
    Embarrassing emails?
    Personal thoughts and ideas published as accepted, peer-reviewed, authoritative information?

    And the alternative is:
    Weird kiddy climate change ads on telly.
    News about rapidly disappearing glaciers etc.
    Disappearing species.
    Habitat loss.

    Now you can choose to think that all scientists are evil grant-scammers or you can choose the evidence of your own eyes and life. Now that the water is reaching my bottom lip, I have an idea that climate change is real.
    Is it human generated? Probably yes although it all fits in with natural cycles.
    Will the Ice Age return? Of course it will. But not for a long time.

    The problem is that many scientists can be just as cunt-ish as anyone else. But the probability (which is what scientists deal in, not facts), is that much of what we see is human generated, not just by driving cars, but by our very numbers on the planet that all have to eat and live.

    Read up on Richard Feynmann. A good guy, who took nothing at face value, but, and there’s the rub, he knew what he was talking about. Most CC sceptics don’t, they really don’t. They are good at quoting stuff out of context and making mischief, but that’s all. And nearly all of them are part of a vested interest group much larger than the one you choose to denigrate.

    My personal belief is that if what you say “But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover”…
    … is true, then it’s curtains mate, for most of us, and all the fine words and argument will be nothing, just echoes in a wet or dry wind. I have done my own research into this, starting way back when HH Lamb was still alive. I think Feymann would agree and it’s a sad loss that he’s not here now to see all this.

  4. Michael Roc Thomas says:21st November 2009 at 4:56 pmWhat are these vested interests in the global warming myth? One would think the fossil fuel lobby amongst others with huge power would have put them to the sword by now. So what is it that keeps driving this ahem discussion?
  5. Christopher says:21st November 2009 at 6:35 pmThe final quote in the Guardian’s article “Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists” seemed familiar when I read it:>>>A spokesman for Greenpeace said: “If you looked through any organisation’s emails from the last 10 years you’d find something that would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world’s leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke.”This was because it was based on a comment posted at the site a few hours earlier, signed simply “ben”:>>>”If you looked through any organisation’s emails from the last ten years you’d find something that would raise a few eyebrows. The fact is the scientific consensus on climate change has been reached through the publication of thousands of peer-reviewed papers, field research and the lifetime’s work of some of humanity’s best minds. It’s obvious these emails didn’t even go through a spell-check let alone the rigorous peer-review process. Contrary to what the skeptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, NASA and the world’s leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth.”

    I wonder what to make of this…

  6. Pingback: Global warming seems to have stopped! And not only that, the whole man made climate panic turns out to be the biggest hoax in scientific history! « Links on Economy, Politics and Political Incorrectness
  7. Pingback: Crime inc ~ The Alliance for Climate Protection | Politics & Capitalism

Comments are closed.

Boris Johnson for Prime Minister | James Delingpole

November 18th, 2009

Over at Cameron Kool-Aid Central – aka Conservative Home – the Kool-Aid drinkers are deeply flustered by Boris Johnson’s truly outrageous suggestion in today’s Telegraph that Gordon Brown’s 50p tax rate is a seriously bad idea.

The reason that they’re upset, of course, is because neither Dave nor George Osborne has said he has any immediate intention of undoing this economically illiterate idiocy if and when they gain office.

The milksop commentator who signs himself “whuh” is typical of the general tone:


Boris is just stirring up trouble.

He knows perfectly well that Cameron and Osborne agree completely on the economics, but are keeping 50p for political reasons.

Therefore he shouldn’t argue the economics, which everyone on this site will agree on. He should argue about the politics, if at all. Best of all is to stop trying to get in the way of us winning power in the general election.

Cameron supported Boris completely once he was chosen as nominee for mayor. It is rather caddish of Boris not to give the same support back.

Naturally I disagree with “whuh” (God, what an annoying name!), as I seem to do with most of the commenters at Cameron Kool-Aid Central. Sometimes, I think I despise this rag bag of “compassionate” or delusional conservative types even more than I despise left-liberals.

At least with someone like, say, Polly Toynbee you know she’s totally over: nothing she says or does for at least the next five years is going to have any effect on anyone, for everything she believes in has been utterly discredited. The Cameroon Kool-Aid drinkers, on the other hand, are capable of doing genuine damage to Britain’s economic and socio-political recovery. They urge caution, moderation, dissembling and political gamesmanship when what our broken country needs is clear thinking, honesty, and radical and immediate action.

Tim Montgomerie, as the Kool Aid drinkers all do, explains it in terms of strategy:

George Osborne and David Cameron are not prepared to make these arguments although I suspect they don’t fundamentally dissent. This side of the election they are not going to let Labour paint them as the friends of the very rich and – on a related front – bankers. Those of us who believe in simpler, lower taxes will have to be patient. Lower and simpler corporate taxation is likely to be a major feature of George Osborne’s first few budgets. Central to his vision of a hi-growth Britain is the creation of an environment that will make the UK an attractive headquarters for international business (see James Forsyth and Irwin Stelzer).

I love that bit about George Oborne’s “first few budgets.” Implicit in that statement – and Montgomerie does, after all, have a direct line to Cameron’s inner circle – is that for at least the first three years of an incoming Tory administration no attempt will be made to reduce the 50p upper band tax rate.

Now it’s not going to affect me, not on my income. But the thing about rich people is that the reason they got rich is by caring a lot about money. Suppose your income is a million a year and that whereas before you were being charged at 40 per cent, you now know that for the next three years at least – EVEN IF THE TORIES GET IN – you’ll be charged on it at 50 per cent. That difference amounts to roughly £300,000. More than enough, I’d suggest, to drive a chap to reconsider his tax regime.

Boris is right about this; Osborne and Cameron are wrong. It’s as a simple as that. The fact that they’re playing politics with this issue suggests to me not canniness but irresponsibility. Public respect for politicians has not been this low since the Rotten Boroughs of the 18th century; we are most of us quite heartily sick of the way our MPs are forever promising one thing then doing another, playing with gesture politics while refusing to the address the issues that really matter.

Yet here is the Conservative leadership blithely dissembling to us and treating us like idiots; and here is a decent sized rump of the Tory membership arguing that, yes, this is exactly the right thing to do because lying – and not just lying but conniving in policies such as the 50p tax rate which will actively harm our economy – are the only way the Tories are ever going to get back into power.

I disagree, and so it would seem does Boris. The sooner someone of similar ideological integrity takes over the Tory party, the sooner the damage of twelve years under New Labour can be undone.



  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • email

One Response to “Boris Johnson for Prime Minister”

  1. Michael Roc Thomas says:November 18, 2009 at 5:47 pmHere here.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)


Architectural magazine’s editor questions Global Warming: hysteria – James Delingpole

November 18, 2009

My heroine of the week is Amanda Baillieu, editor of architects’ trade journal Building Design. She noticed that when Environment Secretary Hillary Benn gave a talk at the Royal Institute of British Architects the other day on the looming peril of ManBearPig, hardly anyone bothered to turn up.

In an extremely brave editorial entitled “Is Global Warming Hot Air?” she speculated that the reason may have been because even architects are getting tired of listening to hysterical drivel about impending eco-doom and the so-called “consensus” on Anthropogenic Global Warming.

In fact, you’d be forgiven for not knowing there is a debate because it’s certainly discouraged by the RIBA, whose successive presidents have said that fighting climate change is the biggest challenge facing the profession.

While there’s no argument that natural resources such as water need to be conserved and low-energy buildings make sense, the scientific evidence has now shifted enough to warrant a more questioning position on climate change.

The editorial was brave because it’s still extremely rare for any editor in the mainstream media to question the prevailing orthodoxy on ManBearPig. Braver still because it is a known fact that 99.82 per cent of all architects (not my mates the Lahiffs, I don’t think, but pretty much all the others) are achingly worthy, politically correct, Big-State-endorsing toadies. (They have to be because Government projects are where all the money is).

The response has been much more mixed than you might imagine. Here are some of the more positive responses:

There are lots of people out there, including droves of architects, who take on the accepted view and know absolutely nothing about global warming, so why should they silence debate on the basis that the person who disagrees also doesn’t know. This is just a new religion where heretics are to be silenced.

Regrettably and incorrectly sustainability/energy conservation as the sole cause of global warming has become the new “sacred cow” which is only very rarely questioned given the risk of general derision.

The environmental movement is a beating stick used by governments. All you believers will be in for quite the shock when you cannot afford to turn on the heating or even have a drink of water, because you cannot afford it.

Excitingly, it has also led to a cat-fight, of sorts, with a female columnist from rival publication Architects’ Journal. Hattie Harman – the AJ’s Sustainability Editor, no less – takes Baillieu apart for her incorrect thinking.

Hattie intones (at least, I’m assuming she intones: her picture – redolent of a Greater London Council Wimmin’s Issues Adviser, C. 1983 – suggests she’s the intoning type):

I am not a climate scientist, but it doesn’t require detailed scientific knowledge to see that we are living beyond our means. I applaud the RIBA’s position on climate change and wish that more of the profession would heed its wake-up call. I would even say that the RIBA has been slow to champion the green agenda. Under Sunand Prasad, it endorsed the Global Commons Institute’s Contraction and Convergence framework, published its climate change toolkits and launched the speaker series, of which secretary of state for environment Hilary Benn was part.

The best bit, though, is the more-in-sorrow-than-anger Spartist ticking off Hattie administers at the end:

Journalistic endeavour would be better spent showcasing pioneering projects and disseminating best practice. It’s alarming to see a widely-read journal do otherwise.

Baillieu’s response? Why, only a challenge to a naked mud-wrestling match, You Tube footage of which it is my pleasure to show you via the following link:

Nah, not really. What Baillieu actually says is:

I’m delighted that the AJ is using its pages to publicise an article in a rival magazine – a first I think. Despite the line trotted out by among others the Green Building Council that there is no debate, there clearly is one otherwise why would the AJ be running with it?

Ooh! Claws out! Over to you, Hattie!

Related posts:

  1. Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!
  2. Obscure editor resigns from minor journal: why you should care
  3. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
  4. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion

2 Responses to “Architectural magazine’s editor questions Global Warming: hysteria”

  1. Aubrey Meyer says:November 18, 2009 at 4:42 pmDoes poor attendance at Benn’s RIBA speech really disprove global warming/climate change? If – after twenty years – the whole matter was so easily resolved, we’d all be spared this endless to-and-fro.

    Anyway Hattie said what she said and Amanda is welcome to say what she said about that, but the state-of-play regarding the Contraction and Convergence [C&C] programme that Hattie mentioned had been adopted by RIBA is as follows: –

    The UK Government has adopted C&C, but at rates that are ‘too slow’ to give 50:50 odds for avoiding more an overall two degrees Celsius temperature rise globally, so their position should be examined in the light of the following points: –

    1. We are told that the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change will not achieve a Climate-Deal in December, only a political understanding of the need to keep us within an overall maximum 2 degree Celsius temperature rise.

    2. Last week’s IMECHE Climate Change Report stated, “The [UK] Government’s targets and budgets have been set using a top-down approach based on the principle of contraction and convergence” adding that “IMECHE supports the C&C Principle.”

    3. The Archbishop of Canterbury invited the TUC this week to support, “the Contraction and Convergence proposals [as] the best-known and most structurally simple of these, [saying] it would be a major step to hear some endorsement of them from a body such as this.”

    4. The Climate Change Committee’s [CCC’s] report stated that it and the Climate Act it are based on GCI’s C&C proposal and are in the words of Lord Adair Turner, Chairman of the UK Climate Change Committee [CCC], “strong support for what Global Commons Institute [GCI] has been saying.” [Evidence given by to the [EAC] in February this year] and that

    5. For organising and sharing the full-term emissions-contraction-event needed to bring us to UNFCCC-compliance, “Converging to equal per capita entitlements globally is the only option that is doable and fair” and agreeing that, [crucially]

    6. “if, for reasons of urgency the rate of global contraction has to be accelerated, then for reasons of equity the rate of international convergence has to be accelerated relative to that.” [Response given by Lord Adair Turner, Chairman of the UK Climate Change Committee [CCC] to the [ECCC] in March this year].

    7. Noting this further support and following these logical arguments and that the UKMO Hadley Centre has now confirmed in writing to GCI that [as shown in the images at the link below] that: –

    [a] the CCC’s odds are worse than 50:50 for keeping within the stated maximum of a 2 degrees overall temperature rise with their Contraction and Convergence [C&C] Scenario and that

    [b] the odds are better than 50:50 for keeping within a maximum 2 degrees with GCI’s accelerated Contraction and Convergence [C&C] Scenario.

    [c] see: –

    8. . . . the real question is, does the Government now agree with positions taken by the UKMO, Lord Adair Turner and the analysis that to keep within the 2 degrees overall temperature rise, the rate of contraction needs to be accelerated to something like an 80% cut in emissions globally for reasons of urgency and that therefore the rate of convergence needs to be accelerated relative to that to something like 2020 or 2030 for reasons of equity.

    Getting an answer from them on *that* – now that would be interesting.

    The extent of C&C support included here did follow much questioning and much to-and-fro: –

    LONDON E17 4SH

  2. MARC says:November 19, 2009 at 5:57 pmHattie HARMAN?? Surely not??? A relative perhaps??? But no… Too easy surely???

How Al Gore’s amen corner Newsweek censored his critics – James Delingpole

November 18, 2009

Today I’m off on the Eurostar to Brussels (”a carbon neutral journey” it boasts on my ticket – which rather makes me wish I were flying instead) to speak at the European Parliament on Climate Change.

No, don’t worry. The Goreistas haven’t got to me. It’s a sceptics’ conference – Have Humans Changed Climate? – being staged tomorrow by Tory MEP Roger Helmer. Many of my science and eco-heroes will be there, including Patrick Moore (the co-founder of Greenpeace who subsequently bailed when the charity turned far too red), Prof Fred Singer (who’ll be talking on Can We Trust The IPCC?) and Professor Ross McKitrick (who famously helped expose the notorious Hockey Stick curve).

I’ll be there to provide comedy value and also to talk about the irresponsibility of the mainstream media in spreading climate-change fear and largely suppressing any counter-argument in the great AGW debate.

There’s a good example of this from the latest Newsweek, which recently ran a cover story on Al Gore billing him as The Thinking Man’s Thinking Man.  The majority of letters it received in response – 74 per cent – were critical, says Tim Graham at Newsbusters. But Newsweek didn’t run one of them; only letters in support of Gore.

The worst was from war veteran Lee Bidgood Jr of Gainesville, Florida:

Propaganda by global-warming skeptics and deniers reminds me of 1944, when as an Army officer I saw living skeletons in striped pajamas. Horror stories about Nazi concentration camps suddenly rang true. I wondered how intelligent people could commit such atrocities. History records the effectiveness of Joseph Goebbels’s propaganda. I hope Al Gore and others can prevail over today’s anti–science propaganda.

Gosh I do hope they got their fact checkers onto that one. Otherwise, I’d suspect that this was the concoction of some young eco-freak who wasn’t even born in ‘44 using the Holocaust and the respect we grant war veterans to make a cheap political point.

Newsweek’s censorship doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. Its what the MSM generally does with anti-AGW stories – despite the fact that the majority of the public is now sceptical. Problem is, there are lot of people out there – media owners, environmental correspondents, carbon traders, big businessmen – who for a range of reasons from the emotional to the financial simply cannot afford to abandon their blind faith in ManBearPig no matter how compelling the evidence to the contrary.

We climate change sceptics would have lost the battle long ago had it not been for the happy advent of the internet. It’s in the Blogosphere (and a few odd MSM strongholds such as The Wall Street Journal and Christopher Booker’s Sunday Telegraph column) where all the counterarguments are being disseminated.

And despite what Professor Ian Plimer said in his Spectator lecture last week, this is a war we’re fighting. Plimer was talking about how the language of war had no place in science because it is simply a process of discovery, with one hypothesis being replaced by another. I’d agree with this if I thought science was the only factor in the global warming debate, but sadly it ain’t. It’s at least as much about politics, money, economics, horse-trading, personalities and perhaps above all about propaganda, ranging from responsible reporting to cheap shots about the enormous, badger-esque vastness of The Hon. Sir Jonathan Porritt’s rear end. That’s where scumbags like me come in. It’s a dirty job but someone’s got to do it. For the children, you understand.

Related posts:

  1. Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick
  2. On Plimer, climate change and the ineffable barkingness of George Moonbat
  3. Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax
  4. Freeman Dyson v the ‘Independent’


59 per cent of UK population Are ‘Village Idiots’ Thunders The Times

Less than half the British population still believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming, says a new survey commissioned by The Times.

Only 41 per cent accept as an established scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made. Almost a third (32 per cent) believe that the link is not yet proved; 8 per cent say that it is environmentalist propaganda to blame man and 15 per cent say that the world is not warming.

Even more interesting than the result, though, is the Thunderer’s appalled reaction. In a leader that might have been easily have been written by the Great Moonbat himself, the Times quite simply refuses to accept that the growing band of sceptics may have a point. Instead, it accuses these ‘deniers’ of being idiots:

It is possible that the collective expertise of brilliant scientists could be wrong. The best minds in the world once held a geocentric theory of the solar system. Before the discovery of sub-atomic particles they believed that everything was made of earth, air, fire and water. Right up to the 19th century, serious scientists wrote recipe books for making animals. But no previous process of scientific trial, error and progress has ever overturned such a well-attested thesis. Lord Rees has reminded us that we now live in a global village and it is, he pointed out, probably inevitable that there will be some global village idiots.

The Times’s approach is not unlike that of a Marxist theorist berating the bourgeoisie for their “false consciousness”; or indeed, a Eurocrat deciding that when sovereign nations keep voting “No” in Euro referendums it doesn’t mean that the EU is an oppressive and unpopular construct but that the voters need working on a bit harder so that they come to the correct “Yes” conclusion next time. It is, in fact, another perfect case of what Jonah Goldberg calls Liberal Fascism.

It is also an example of just how increasingly out-of-touch the MSM is with the views of the wider reading world. Recently, the Times launched a poster campaign boasting that it offered more extensive eco coverage than any other newspaper. Some of the claims made on these posters – such as the one about the North East passage being used as a commercial shipping route for the first time (when actually it has been used since 1934) – have been shot down by the excellent Andrew Orlowski on The Register.

But even if these claims were true, are wall-to-wall horror stories about impending man-made eco-doom really what readers of the quality newspapers want to read these days? My suspicion is not. I’m presuming that the audience which reads and comments on blogs isn’t totally different from the one that reads newspapers in print form. And if that’s the case, then the MSM’s obsession with AGW is looking increasingly out of date.

If you don’t believe me, check out the comments below one of George Monbiot’s columns, or indeed, either of the two Times articles listed above. Commenters who take the Al-Gore-approved line are vastly outnumbered by commenters who believe the whole AGW thing is a load of crock.

And it will take a bit more than bullying accusations that they’re “idiots”, I suspect, to swing them round.


  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • email

2 Responses to “59 per cent of UK population are ‘village idiots’ thunders The Times”

  1. Lauren says:November 17, 2009 at 2:46 amHey James,Loved your newest post about the whole Global Warming issue there in the UK.I found your site, because I clicked on one of your articles about Obama and the whole Nobel Peace prize issue, and I was like “this is so awesome”. It had humor in it, but it was the truth, too, and I instantly became a fan.I’ll definitely be subscribing.

    I’ll be checking out your books as well. Hopefully I can eventually purchase them online if they’re not in a book store here.

    Please keep on writing.

    I’ll keep reading.

    All the best,


  2. Sebaneau says:February 5, 2010 at 2:50 amAnd four days later, the Climategate files were released on the Internet…

Is Edward McMillan-Scott the Most Tedious, Annoying and Ghastly Member in the Entire Euro Parliament?

Obviously, he faces some pretty stiff competition. But I surely can’t be the only one being driven to distraction by this potato-faced turncoat’s nuts-achingly tedious appearances every other day in the Guardian or on the BBC, reminding us yet again in relentless boring detail what a man of high principle he is for having been booted out of David Cameron’s Conservatives.

Really? I’d say, au contraire, that the expulsion of McMillan-Scott from the Tory party represents possibly Cameron’s finest hour so far. Of course the creep had to go. He was the man who did most to promulgate the canard that the Tories’ European ally Michal Kaminski was an anti-Semite – a charge Ed Miliband and the left-liberal media naturally seized on with alacrity. Pity Poland’s chief Rabbi (who happens to be Jewish) had to go and ruin the story by rising to Kaminski’s defence.

There’s nothing New Labour, the BBC and the Guardian like quite so much as a Tory (or ex-Tory, they’re not picky) attacking his party from the Europhile left. Just look at the reverence with which the likes of Chris Patten, Michael Heseltine and Kenneth Clarke are treated whenever they appear on the Today programmes: in one bound, they are transformed from decreasingly relevant has-beens from the outer regions of the Tory party’s total-sell-out, bien-pensant Whig fringe into still-vitally-important and ineffably-wise grandees, guardians of the holy secret of true and righteous conservatism.

Put it this way: before this concocted anti-Semitism Euro row broke out, had you ever even heard of Edward McMillan-Scott? Me neither.

Related posts:

  1. The Spectator’s editor agrees: the only way out of this ghastly Euro fudge is OUT
  2. Reason no 12867 why not to vote Tory: the NHS
  3. The problem with Dave Cameron (No.203)
  4. Greens, like Nazis, see the entire world through the prism of one big idea: theirs


As Dirty Harry was in the Seventies, so Harry Brown is today: the movie warning of just how irredeemably stuffed we are | James Delingpole

November 10th, 2009

“I know what you’re thinkin’, punk. You’re thinkin’ did he fire six shots or only five? Now to tell you the truth, I’ve forgotten myself in all this excitement. But bein’ this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and it’ll blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself a question. Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?!”

There’s a reason why those lines from Dirty Harry are some of the most popular and oft-quoted in cinematic history: because we most of us understand that sometimes a .44 Magnum bullet in the middle of the forehead is the only language the bad guys really understand.

How often and how vehemently we understand this depends on the times. In periods of relative abundance and security (even illusory ones, as in the case of the Blair era) we tend generally to take a more accommodating view of criminality, tinged with guilt that maybe we deserve it as a punishment for being too affluent. In times such as now, however, we quickly lose patience with such pussy liberal, we-are-all-to-blame, criminals-are-just-society’s-victims nonsense. We want retribution, harsh, immediate and preferably brain-spattered. We want someone like Dirty Harry or the Charles Bronson character in Michael Winner’s magisterial Death Wish oeuvre. Or Harry Brown.

At least I hope we want someone like Harry Brown. Not having seen the new Michael Caine movie yet I can’t be totally sure. Perhaps – like Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino, he wusses out at the last minute – but the plot, as related by Matt D’Ancona does sound jolly promising:

The film, compellingly directed by Daniel Barber, is the story of an elderly ex-Marine and widower living on a bleak south London estate whose best friend is slaughtered by drug-soaked hoodies.

Dismayed by the response of the police, Caine’s Harry seeks his own bloody form of justice, embarking on a journey into the hellish world of teenage crime that is both shockingly violent and morally unsparing.

I wish, though, I could share D’Ancona’s optimism that all these horrors are going to be averted thanks to the simultaneously tough and compassionate measures being planned by David Cameron as part of his Iain-Duncan-Smith influenced mending “Broken Britain” policy.

Those who say Cameron is a risk-averse pragmatist should read what he has actually said on the subject of social breakdown: for he has repeatedly pledged nothing less than the systematic repair of the Broken Society, a series of reforms ranging from tougher welfare policies, a transformed education system, a presumption that all convicted of a knife crime will go to jail, support for those who marry, and a range of measures to deal with addiction.

Long term, I would agree that some of this sounds promising. But in the immediate future – the next five years say – only one thing is going to make any significant difference to the levels of violent crime in Britain and that is stiffer prison sentencing. Our coffers are empty. Every government department (apart from Health, obviously) can expect to have its budgets slashed by a good ten or fifteen per cent. Can even the most fervent optimist among Cameron’s Kool-Aid drinkers persuade me that he will find the money needed for the necessary prison-building programme and related staffing costs?

Time, I think, for us all to follow the two Harrys and reach for our .44 Magnums or our old service revolvers. (Except we can’t, of course, thanks to the government’s post-Dunblane only-criminals-shall-be-allowed-to-possess-handguns legislation)

Time, then, to emigrate. But where?


  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • email

One Response to “As Dirty Harry was in the Seventies, so Harry Brown is today: the movie warning of just how irredeemably stuffed we are”

  1. Paul Hogan says:November 11, 2009 at 9:52 amChina. I have lived here for eight years now. A great sense of freedom, (except for some internet access) and a safe place to live.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)


Hmm. Can’t Imagine What Major Malik Nadal Hasan’s Motivation Could Have Been

Nor it seems can the liberal mainstream media.

I was watching BBC’s Newsnight when the story broke of a killing spree at a Texas military base and instantly wondered – as I’m sure did 99.99 per cent of its other viewers – whether this had anything to do with the Religion of Peace. Then a news update came in that the suspect’s name was ‘Hasan’. But the BBC’s reporter hastened to reassure us that there was “no evidence” to suggest this was an act of “terrorism”. Phew! Perish the unworthy thought.

Even today, the MSM is treading on eggshells regarding the killer’s possible motivation.

Here’s the Independent:

A motive for the shooting was hard to pin down last night. However, there were reports that Hasan, who was trained also in psychiatry and medicine in Bethesda, Maryland, was preparing for deployment to Iraq and was not happy to be going there. He had previously worked at the Walter Reed veterans hospital outside Washington.

Yeah, that would be it. You don’t want to be deployed to a combat zone so you do what any sane officer does under the circumstances. Not resign your commission obviously, but tool yourself up and take out a dozen a so of your unarmed comrades.

The BBC’s website takes a similar line, though it does at least (presumably in breach of all BBC guidelines) cheekily slip in the “M” word:

It is not clear what motivated the attacker, named as 39-year-old military psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan.

But some reports said the US-born Muslim was unhappy about being sent to Iraq or Afghanistan.

Interesting use of that word “unhappy”, mind.

The Guardian meanwhile, has a brave stab at the ‘trauma-crazed war vet goes tonto’ line, with the help of one of Hasan’s relatives:

One of Hasan’s cousins, Nader Hasan, told reporters the major was dreading going to war, having counselled scores of returning soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Next to the story, it provides a link to the story of another US veteran – Sergeant John Russell – who did just that, killing 5 of his comrades in May. Unfortunately, as it is forced to admit in a more detailed analysis, can’t have been traumatised by combat because, er….

He was not a soldier returning from deployment in either Iraq or Afghanistan, suffering from stress or combat fatigue. Hasan, although 39 years old, has never served in a war zone.

But that doesn’t stop the Guardian speculating desperately:

Instead, his horror of war came secondhand. He was a psychiatrist who listened to the harrowing stories of his comrades at the Walter Reed Hospital in Washington DC, and latterly at Fort Hood, Texas.

Ah yes that will be it. A bit like passive smoking, the Major was suffering from passive combat stress.

My favourite example of liberal squeamishness, though, comes from the New York Times. Sure towards the bottom of its report, it manages to slip in such not-altogether-irrelevant details as Hasan’s former imam’s claim that he was “very serious about his religion” (so much so that he hadn’t been able to find a sufficiently fundamentalist wife) and that a man with the same name as him was under investigation from the FBI for putting up enthusiastic postings on a Jihadist website about the joys of suicide bombing.

But not before having first blamed those far more likely causes – white racism…

But Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the 39-year-old man accused of Thursday’s mass shooting at Fort Hood, Tex., began having second thoughts about a military career a few years ago after other soldiers harassed him for being a Muslim, he told relatives in Virginia.

And, yes, of course, that old favourite – passive combat stress:

Having counseled scores of returning soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder, first at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington and more recently at Fort Hood, he knew all too well the terrifying realities of war, said a cousin, Nader Hasan. “He was mortified by the idea of having to deploy,” Mr. Hasan said. “He had people telling him on a daily basis the horrors they saw over there.”

Related posts:

  1. Passive smoking – another of the Nanny State’s big lies
  2. ‘Imagine there’s no shale gas…’
  3. Why are we still feeding our soldiers into the Taliban mincing machine?
  4. Killing Ugandans to save the planet