Wikileaks: Old Gray Lady Invokes the Harlot’s Prerogative

Political messaging

This famine never happened, claimed the New York Times. Nor did Climategate.

This famine never happened, claimed the New York Times. Nor did Climategate.

“The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.” Andrew Revkin, Environment Editor, New York Times Nov 20, 2009.

“The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington. The New York Times and a number of publications in Europe were given access to the material several weeks ago and agreed to begin publication of articles based on the cables online on Sunday. The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.” New York Times editorial 29/11/2010

Can you spot the difference between these two statements of high moral principle? Scott at the Powerline blog can. (H/T Bishop Hill/WUWT)He notes:

Interested readers may want to compare and contrast Revkin’s statement of principle with the editorial note posted by the Times on the WikiLeaks documents this afternoon. Today the Times cites the availability of the documents elsewhere and the public interest in their revelations as supporting their publication by the Times. Both factors applied in roughly equal measure to the Climategate emails.

Without belaboring the point, let us note simply that the two statements are logically irreconcilable. Perhaps something other than principle and logic were at work then, or are at work now.

Actually no, Scott, I think it’s important that we should “belabor” the point by remembering a few more occasions where the New York Times has been happy to sacrifice principle in order to get across the “correct” political message:

1. In 2007, “Pravda” gave the radical anti-war group a $77,508 discount to run a full page ad attacking the then US commander in Iraq General Petraeus as “General Betray Us.”

2. In the 1930s “Pravda” earned its nickname thanks to the heroic efforts of its Soviet correspondent Walter Duranty who hymned the glorious achievements of Stalin and denied the existence of the Ukraine famine.

3. In 2005, “Pravda” heroically exposed efforts by the evil fascist Bush regime to impose wiretaps on suspected Al Qaeda terrorists thereby seriously and unfairly jeopardising the ability of oppressed victims of Islamophobia to express their frustration with the Western Judao-Christian capitalist hegemony through such traditional protest methods as suicide bombs.

4. In 2006 it struck a similarly powerful blow against white racism by continuing to pursue the case of the Duke lacrosse players who had supposedly raped a poor black woman, regardless of overwhelming evidence that the boys were entirely innocent. A Times internal investigation concluded that “most flaws flowed from journalistic lapses rather than ideological bias.”

Ideological bias? At the New York Times? Perish the thought.

Related posts:

  1. Sir John Houghton: AGW is real because I’ve got a knighthood, I’m a scientist and I say so
  2. ‘Climate change sceptics have smaller members, uglier wives, dumber kids’ says new study made up by warmists
  3. Lady Macbeth sticks it to Berlusconi
  4. Lady Thatcher was a statesman. Blair and Cameron are mere politicians

One thought on “Wikileaks: Old Gray Lady invokes the harlot’s prerogative”

  1. Velocity says:30th November 2010 at 11:58 amThe vacuous self serving power structure that is Gov’t always thinks its ‘authority’ is an end in itself and aways therefore defends itself. That most idiotic of increasingly Totalitarian regimes in ‘the land of the free’, the US Gov’t, has just awarded itself the power to close down that most open source of freedom, the Police can now grab and close down websites (on a whim, no criminal conviction or right to stop).

    Everything Gov’t touches turns to crap.

    It was only a matter of time before the freedom loving web was trampled on by that most corrupt, ignorant, vacuous, self serving and ‘authority defending’ structure, Government.

    I understand an Attorney General is already looking to grab Wikileaks.

    I also understand Wikileaks next major target is one of the hugely fraudulent mass criminal enterprises that is a major Wall Street US bank.

Comments are closed.

Allen West: America’s next black president? | James Delingpole

Allen West: America’s next black president?

November 28th, 2010

Here’s a guy for whom all red-blooded Americans should be truly grateful. Allen West might just be the black president to save the US in 2012 from the ruins created by the previous one.

Allen who? The only reason I’ve heard of West – a former US army Lt Col, now US Representative elect for Florida’s 22nd congressional district – is that I keep being forwarded YouTube videos of his speeches and interviews by enthusiastic American friends. Even more so than Marco Rubio, he strikes me as the dream candidate for the GOP ticket in 2012. Obviously his skin colour is going to do him no harm, given what we saw of minority voting patterns in the last US presidential election. Nor is the fact that he has been endorsed by kingmaker Sarah Palin. But even without either of those advantages, he’d still be a mightily strong contender – as I think you’ll gather when you watch the video.

What I like about West is that he tells it like it is. He doesn’t wriggle or squirm or duck – he’s a man of clear principles. And they’re the right principles, too. Though he believes in low taxes and small government, for example, he’s not prepared to pussyfoot around as regards US security.

In the above video, his interviewer David Gregory fails to trip him up with a question about passenger profiling at airports. (“I don’t call it profiling. I call it trend analysis” he says.) And again fails to trip him up with one of those “OK. So which area of desperately needed, much appreciated government spending would you cut?” elephant traps that the more lily-livered variety of Me-Too Conservative dreads. “I think everything needs to be on the table” says West, without batting an eyelid.

Even the only “dirt” on West so far turns out to be good dirt. He retired from the army after almost 22 years service because of an incident in Iraq when he interrogated at an Iraqi police officer who he believed had information about a planned ambush. Since the detainee wouldn’t speak, West fired a pistol next to his head into a barrel, so frightening him that he spilled the beans. This landed West with $5,000 fine for having violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice. At the hearing West was asked by his defence attorney if he’d do it again: “If it’s about the lives of my men and their safety I’d go through hell with a gasoline can.”

(to read more, click here)


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

7 Responses to “Allen West: America’s next black president?”

  1. Velocity says:November 28, 2010 at 8:48 amJames,Is this Allen West your Great White Hope?

    You’re going to be very disappointed, as all voters in history are.

    You still have the alien carried in your chest, that baby of economic-societal destroying battery acid, that most liberal sucker punch called Government.

    Until the penny drops that the Gov’t monoply power structure IS THE problem, that ALL politicians are either idealistic idiots or crooks, you will NEVER see your freedom.

    How do you think Allen West gets to office James?

    The short answer is on a bankroll of vested interests. Between the 4 years voters (the insane deluded ones that actually vote) have their say Allen West will spend his entire time in office listening to his paymasters (see Obama for further references). Period.

    And what “security” does America or the West require?

    The West hasn’t been attacked by either Asia or the Orient in CENTURIES.

    The world is at peace except for a skirmish between North and South Korea (none of our f’ing business) and ALL the (false) Wars we’ve waged out there. Iraq and Afghanistan, like Vietnam, is a colossal bloody farce. Fact. Fact. Fact.

    The recent hyper-bollox headlines on the German letterbomb was ‘timed’ to cover the latest US spending of $80bn per annum on a few terrorists that can’t even blow up their underpants!

    Think about. This security scam is as bigger Ponzi scheme as AGW.

    Your Great White Hope Mr West simply can’t wait to keep the (our) money siphoning into this criminal theft from society. Can he???

  2. Kilroy says:November 29, 2010 at 8:25 pm@velocity – I guess Pearl Harbor doesn’t count being attacked by “Asia or the Orient.” Also, we’re at peace in Afghanistan? The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam may be farces in your tiny mind, but don’t be telling that to the brave men and women who fought and died in them. All three were wars in the name of freedom against tyrannical regimes (Taliban, Saddam and Communists) who tried to impose their will on other countries. Try again and get your facts straight.
  3. Velocity says:November 30, 2010 at 11:45 amKilroy,Yes of course, you must point out the one and only exception to the rule, Pearl Harbour!

    Now you sit down and think long and really hard how many times, over Centuries, Europeans and latterly the Yanks have invaded Arabia under false pretences: England are now on their 6th Crusade of idiocy, France 2-3 times, the Italians (Romans) and now the Yanks. ALL the Wars were false, except kicking out Saddam from Kuwait.

    I’d be an Arab terrorist after this string of murderous European warmongering and invasions of my territory.

    As for your “our brave servicemen” line they won’t go anywhere without overwhelming force and 2 layers of body armour. But as the Centuries has taught us, if you’v got a peanut sized brain (which nobody in the West has it seems), you can overwhelm and invade a country but you CANNOT OCCUPY.

    We’ve lost every occupation because guerilla warfare always beats a big fat stupid army (see IRA in N.Ireland). Occupation, and we’ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan over 8 years, is just really stupid. Western Gov’ts in everything they do are really really dumb.

    The next piece of data for your attention is we went to Afghanstan to round up a few Al Qiada. Who are we fighting Einstein? Yep, someone that we have no beef with, the Taliban.

    Wrong target group.

    The Taliban, like the IRA, are the local freedom fighters. They defended their country against the Russian invasion. Now their defending their country against our invasion. They have every right, because we have no business in THEIR territory.

    So we’re fighting the wrong target, shipping out pallet loads of cash to bribe and prop up a false crony Gov’t that’ll collapse the day we leave, bribing the Taliban not to attack us, and making one huge stupid mess.

    Everything Gov’t touches turns to crap.

    That’s precisely what we’re doing in Arabia and there’s nothing ‘honourable’ about that. It’s murderous, pointless and we should be deeply ashamed.

  4. Velocity says:November 30, 2010 at 12:32 pmOh and Kilroy, the latest Wikileaks diplomatic hack includes a nice little detail. The Afghanistan Vice-President travelled to the Arab Emirates with $52 Million, in cash, to bank.And that’s just part of the ‘cost’ of propping up a corrupt no-hope Western-crony Afghan Gov’t that’ll collapse the day we (finally) leave. Money for nothing, it’s not the only thing we’re p*ssing away out there!

    Before you mention dying for a great cause and the cost is no object remember you’re following a peanut brained politician from that toilet called Westminster

  5. Jay Wilson says:November 30, 2010 at 4:56 pmKilroy has got a few of his facts wrong. The IRA, that noble patriotic insurgency, finally admitted that they had actually killed more Catholics than either Protestants or Brits in
    their final decadent years of active operations. Then they left a legacy of theft and local
    extortion behind them. Not to mention their flirtations with Ghaddafi and their operations
    against the civilian population of the UK. After their fraudulent American fund-raising was finally ahlted, they were dragged to the negotiation table by the general Irish disgust at their addictive violence and lack of principle.Likewise with the Taliban: they have killed off or intimidated all the local tribal authorities in the NW Frontier Province and Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATAs) and allied
    themselves with various clans whose only interest is power and monetary gain. Even Mullah Omar cannot control these people. In regard to their Afghan period of government,
    does Kilroy think that closing all the schools for girls – and many others – sending off all the NGOs and limiting medical care for any and everyone is something that the local populace
    has signed up for?

    What an airhead!

  6. Don Stuart says:December 1, 2010 at 2:39 pmErr.. Mr Wilson, do you mean Kilroy or Velocity ‘has got a few of his facts wrong’?I’m confused.
  7. Velocity says:December 1, 2010 at 6:17 pmJay Wilson,I love your ‘party line’ argument, stick around around please this’ll be fun. You say,

    “..the Taliban… only interest is power and monetary gain”… are you sure you don’t mean the politicians of Labour, Liberal and Tory Parties??? Oh of course, they’ve been slaving away on our behalf for 80 years for the ‘public good’ eh!

    “..closing all the schools for girls..” Sorry but are we out there for Al Qhaida or out-reach social service. I’ve got to put up with the non-stop grivel of the BBC World News here in Europe. This mouthpiece (big gob) for Gov’t propaganda can’t shut up about providing medical and support services to Afghans which is none of our friggin business.

    That pyhsco Marxist Millaband before election was dribbling on about budget cuts for nurses and schools, not 20mins before he was talking enthusiastically about the British overseas aid budget for Pakistan being £699 million. Connect the dots mate then go figure who elected this and who pays the taxes of this scumbag.

    “..The IRA… admitted that they had actually killed more Catholics than either Protestants or Brits..” Yes it’s hard to let off a time bomb with any accuracy. Blair and Bush had smart bombs, here’s the maths:

    IRA (over 20 years) 20-30,000
    Blair & Bush go to Iraq : 200-300,00o innocent civilian deaths
    Blair & Bush off to Afghanistan : thousands more civilian deaths

    Where’s your moral compass arsehole?

    Makes sending out social services to try to teach equality for Afghan women look just a tad morally perverse don’t you think!!

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)


How Many Drowning Polar Bears Can Dance on the Head of a Pin?

Classic Saul Alinsky

Knut: the polite dyslexic's worst nightmare

Knut: the polite dyslexic’s worst nightmare

Cancun is coming and as my Indian pal Rajan has rightly noted belief in the great myth of “Man Made Global Warming” has reached such a low ebb that even greenie NGOs such as Greenpeace and the WWF are dropping the topic like a hot potato.

But that doesn’t mean we believers in freedom, truth and functioning free markets have won the day, no sirree! All it means, I’m sorry to say, is that the green movement is going to become more fanatical, more devious, more mendacious as it tries frantically to spin some kind of victory from its abject and squalid defeat.

Let me give you an example of this process in action, inspired – if that’s the mot juste – by George Monbiot’s recent rantathon on DDT. You probably won’t have read it because poor George is about as relevant these days as a set of spare valves for a bakelite wireless set. But here’s the gist of his gripe:

Last week I gave Stewart Brand a simple challenge. In his book Whole Earth Discipline he claimed that the pesticide DDT “was banned worldwide” as a result of campaigning by environmentalists, killing millions. Complaints meant the explicit claim was cut at the last minute from the film he fronted for Channel 4, What the Green Movement Got Wrong, but the impression remained. I challenged Brand either to provide evidence to support his claim or to admit that he got it wrong.

Now as the mighty Steve McIntyre so often likes to say of Warmist trickery, you’ve got to watch the pea under the thimble here.

For chapter and verse as to why Stewart Brand was 100 per cent right to criticise the global green movement’s role in banning DDT, I recommend this 2005 testimony to the US Senate Committee by retired Professor of Tropical Public Health Donald R Roberts. (And also this summary at

In a nutshell, here’s what happened. In 1962 Rachel “more blood on her hands than Stalin” Carson published her junk science bestseller Silent Spring, predicting dire consequences (a cancer “epidemic”, no more birdies, etc) if man carried on spraying evil chemicals especially DDT. Despite none of this being true, environmental campaigners successfully demonised DDT as the new killer menace, leading to a drastic reduction in the use of this insecticide by the World Health Organisation (the UN body responsible for financing and co-ordinating the global strategy for fighting malaria), leading in turn – inevitably – in a massive world wide increase in malaria rates, and therefore in the number of third world deaths.

But like the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Monbiot just refuses to admit when he’s beat. Rather than argue against Brand on the fundamentals – which obviously he can’t because it’s all basically true – he instead has to engage in a navel-gazing disputation over semantics.

DDT was never actually technically “banned”, he claims.

“Nor has Greenpeace demanded that the use of DDT for disease control should be banned,” he adds with his characteristically tubthumping righteous rage.

Hence the title of this post: How many drowning polar bears can dance on the head of a pin?

It’s a technique worth noting because I see it being used an awful lot by green propagandists these days, almost as if they’ve been taking advice from Futerra or Fenton Communications on how best to continue the struggle after the war has been lost.

It’s classic Saul Alinsky: the leftist propagandist’s equivalent of filibustering or “work to rule” or industrial sabotage. OK so the basic facts are all against you, as any reasonable and sufficiently informed person can see. So what do you do instead? Why you try to grind down the opposition with tedious, wearing and essentially irrelevant detail.

Monbiot on DDT is a classic. As far as the fundamental truth is concerned, it simply doesn’t matter a rat’s bum the degree to which Greenpeace did or didn’t contribute to the ban on DDT, nor indeed whether the term “ban” is entirely correct because it wasn’t really a “ban” only a “semi-ban”. None of this semantic onanism alters one whit the most important details of the story, viz: Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring led greenies to campaign against DDT which in turn caused numerous deaths from malaria.

If Monbiot had been able to prove, say, that the real reason for the DDT ban had been evil right wing chemical manufacturers who suddenly decided after a crazy, cocaine-fuelled night on the tiles that just for fun they’d put themselves out of business, well, that would be an interesting new angle. As it would, say, if his piece had proved that, far from campaigning against DDT, the green movement had actually pleaded with the WHO to keep it because of their enduring love and respect for the people of the third world. But Monbiot didn’t. The only defence he could come up with against an essentially true story was: “Well you got that tiny detail ever so slightly wrong and because of that I’m going to tell all my readers that not a word you say is to be trusted.”

This doesn’t apply just to Monbiot but to green propagandists generally and I’ll be offering plenty more examples over the next few days, including one from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia: seriously guys, if this is the best you can do, I’d be inclined to reach for the whiskey and your grandad’s old service pistol.

Related posts:

  1. When Lego lost its head – and how this toy story got its’ happy ending
  2. ‘ManBearPig is real!’ declare top climate scientists. ‘And to prove it here’s a photo-shopped image we found on the internet of a polar bear on a melting ice floe.’
  3. Greenpeace and the IPCC: time, surely, for a Climate Masada?
  4. Greenpeace goes postal

11 thoughts on “How many drowning polar bears can dance on the head of a pin?”

  1. Kingsley Smith says:25th November 2010 at 5:19 amIf you can access it on line, please take look at a story in theNov 25 South China Morning Post, titled “Are wind farms changing the weather?”.A couple of quotes:

    “I have a strong feeling that wind turbines are playing a disruptive, if not destructive, role in (unprecedented drought)” – Li Quinghai, engineer at the Water Resources Bureau.

    “A very large amount of wind power can produce a non-negligible climate change at continental scales.” Professor Keith, University of Calgary.

    Then there is the opposing point of view, the inevitable “It could never happen.” brigade.

    Worth a look.

  2. Velocity says:25th November 2010 at 9:06 pmJames,It’s not a largely right story on DDT but wholly scientifically provenly right story. Something that flies obviously right over air-headed dreamer Monbiots peanut brained housing.

    Birds fed daily with 2,000 times the dose they could pick up in the wild from mans DDT spraying showed no signs of ill-health. Fact.

    And why did any organisation on the planet put the health of birds ABOVE the health/lives of tens of millions of humans???

    The answer to that question is not possible without inditeing yourself in the murderous genocide environmentalists have, as a matter of patent fact, caused.

    It’s eery how many of your themes (liberty, Big Gov’t, greens, energy, DDT) i agree with. I brought up DDT on your Blog many moons ago, in my previous life as ‘Spanner’.

  3. Groper says:25th November 2010 at 10:30 pmYou know delingpole, it would be good if for once you did some objective journalism. The pros and cons of DDT instead filling your articles with watermelons, eco-fascsist and mass murderers. The point is, the Rachel Carson book was weighing up the benefits/adverse effects of indiscriminate use of DDT. At the end of the day, there’s no evidence of DDT received a world-wide ban as a disease control tool. The US continued to export it and was so widely used in some countries that DDT resistant mosquitoes started appearing. Aside from that, there’s also the toxic buildup that works its way into the environment. You’d think responsible journalism would consider that too?
  4. Velocity says:26th November 2010 at 7:28 pmGrouperSilent Spring was not, “weighing up the benefits/adverse effects of indiscriminate use of DDT” you bloody idiot.

    There is NO mal-effects of DDT spraying pinhead.

    Carson like all shrill green empties was pig ignorant of the scientific facts while spending an antire book fabricating false claims against DDT, none of which were true, even remotely.

    She was like 6 decades of environmentalism, a total retard. Got it peanut brains???

  5. Carl says:27th November 2010 at 7:42 pm“How many drowning polar bears can dance on the head of a pin?”Don’t do it James, you’ll give yourself a headache!
  6. Groper says:27th November 2010 at 7:46 pmMy, what a vicious reply from Velocity! Did you ingest too much DDT to cause you to foam in the mouth?
  7. Tom Forrester-Paton says:28th November 2010 at 5:24 amJames, I just read your latest post over at the Telly, and since they won’t allow me to post there, I’m doing so here. You are, of course, right to say that there is a lot of dishonesty in warmism. But I suspect there’s also the result of a quarter of a century of pedagogic neglect, characterised by a pervasive retreat from rigour, and that many Believers honestly believe their beliefs (shome mishtake?) are scientifically sound.A few days ago I posted this regarding the forensic naivete that characterises so much warmist argument:

    “Stan, and Dr Bratby – time and again we see Believers engaging in strategies which reveal a fundamental want of forensic insight. “Why”, we ask, “would any sane person think such-and-such would advance his cause”? It is presumably this same shortcoming which may allow them, honestly, to confuse opinion with science. From their point of view, it means the difference between being a fool or a charlatan, but from ours, it means that we cannot treat these people as if they were simply being dishonest, but must accept that they genuinely believe in the CO2 fairy. We have to accept that these people really have learned a different scientific method from the one we learned. Over at Curry, I have been treated to Michael Tobis defending neglect of the null hypothesis on the grounds that it was “not likely to increase the citation count” of the guy who reports it, and I’ve had Bart Verheggen claim that as the “scientific consensus”, of which he remains so fond, emerges, it becomes “the new null hypothesis” – all with apparently straight faces. These gentlemen, I learn, are significant professional climate “scientists”, so their aberrant beliefs may reasonably be thought typical of the field.

    With grotesque intellectual disabilities such as these, the best we can hope for is to eventually marginalise them and remove their influence over policy (and preferably their funding, to boot). They are probably incapable, literally incapable, of understanding their error.”

  8. Tom Forrester-Paton says:28th November 2010 at 5:35 amAnd while we’re on DDT, let’s not forget the contribution of serial catastrophist, carbon-trading, Nobel-winning, Prize Pillock – yes, it’s big Al himself!

    Does this mean Al gets to keep some of Rachel’s dead African children, and if so, does that reduce the old bat’s own body-count below that of Stalin? Or do they each have to carry the can for the lot? And if not, why not? And if not, who’s Al’s nearest rival? The Turks in 1915? Clearly further research is needed into how many people Al Gore has murdered.

  9. Velocity says:28th November 2010 at 8:26 amGrouperYou’re an idiot. Now you’re trying to be a smart arse too?!!…

    …this is a world for adults that know what they’re talking about. A fat gob running on empty won’t get you anywhere. Go away and grow up leftie

  10. Velocity says:28th November 2010 at 8:32 amTom F-PThanks for the link, very interesting. We need to bring the enviromentialists-Gov’t-UN DDT genocide to the publics attention and humble bed bugs could help the cause
  11. A Barbour says:28th November 2010 at 10:26 am“How many drowning polar bears can dance on the head of a pin?”Don’t do it James, you’ll get a massive headache…

Comments are closed.

Peak Energy? What Peak Energy?

Willful economic illiteracy

Nice propaganda, shame about the truth.

Nice propaganda, shame about the truth.

One of the other lies told by Watermelons – when they’re not bleating about the fast-fading ‘crisis’ of “Man-Made Global Warming” – is that the earth is fast running out of scarce resources. “Even if AGW isn’t quite as true as we pretended it was a few years ago, that’s still no excuse for not taking radical action to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels,” they claim.

Isn’t it?

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (Happy anniversary, GWPF!) has collated several pieces which offer a helpful counter to this hackneyed, and too often unquestioned, eco-fascist narrative.

Here’s the New York Times: (And would Pravda lie to you about a story so very much counter to its preferred ecotard narrative?)

Just as it seemed that the world was running on fumes, giant oil fields were discovered off the coasts of Brazil and Africa, and Canadian oil sands projects expanded so fast, they now provide North America with more oil than Saudi Arabia. In addition, the United States has increased domestic oil production for the first time in a generation.

Meanwhile, another wave of natural gas drilling has taken off in shale rock fields across the United States, and more shale gas drilling is just beginning in Europe and Asia. Add to that an increase in liquefied natural gas export terminals around the world that connected gas, which once had to be flared off, to the world market, and gas prices have plummeted.

Energy experts now predict decades of residential and commercial power at reasonable prices. Simply put, the world of energy has once again been turned upside down.

Here’s CBS on the vast reserves of natural gas now being extracted from shale:

“In the last few years, we’ve discovered the equivalent of two Saudi Arabias of oil in the form of natural gas in the United States. Not one, but two,” Aubrey McClendon, the CEO of Chesapeake Energy, told “60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl.

“Wait, we have twice as much natural gas in this country, is that what you’re saying, than they have oil in Saudi Arabia?” Stahl asked. “I’m trying to very clearly say exactly that,” he replied.

Does any of this sound to you like evidence that the world is facing the kind of energy crisis which can only be solved by concerted government intervention?

Me neither. One of my many beefs with the green movement is its wilful economic illiteracy. I say “wilful” because I can see no other explanation – except, possibly, arrant stupidity – for the way it so determinedly avoids all the lessons of history which show how infinitely adaptable man is and always has been in the face of “scarce resources.”

Man did not stop building wooden ships because of a shortage of trees. He stopped because he had developed the technology to build ships made of steel instead.

Man did not stop using horse drawn transport because of a concerted government campaign to reduce the piles of steaming horse manure in our cities by introducing a special Equine Transport Tax. He did so because private entrepreneurs invented the internal combustion engine.

Yet the energy policy of statist buffoons including Britain’s very own Huhne the Ecoloon is predicated on precisely this wrong idea: that it is a government’s job to force free citizens kicking and screaming in the direction of inefficient “renewable energy” through such distorting mechanisms as the “feed-in tariffs” (tacked on, by government diktat onto your gas and electricity bills) which have already proved such a disaster in Spain and Germany.

So lets, recap: the reason your energy bills are getting more and more expensive on the verge of what is widely predicted to be yet another obscenely cold winter is 1. to deal with a problem that doesn’t exist (AGW) and 2. to deal with another problem that doesn’t exist (wholly imaginary fast-depleting resources that must urgently be preserved through government intervention).

Related posts:

  1. Peak oil really could destroy the economy – just not in the way greens think
  2. Wind Industry Big Lies no 1: fossil fuels are more ‘subsidised’ than renewables
  3. Climategate: peak oil, the CRU and the Oman connection
  4. Simon Singh’s for the joy of solar energy

Posted on 23rd November 2010Author jamesCategories Blog

10 thoughts on “Peak energy? What peak energy?”

  1. Groper says:24th November 2010 at 12:03 pmWow, what a poorly researched article. For starters Delingpole, peak oil is when demand outstrips supply. And there may be a lot oil left in the world, to last us 100s of years more, but the extraction methods are getting more and more expensive, to the point where it may not be cost effective. Next time, do a little research before pouring hate on a subject you don’t understand.
  2. barbarausa says:24th November 2010 at 2:01 pmgroper, if the extraction were more expensive than the product is worth, it wouldn’t be happening.

    Except, of course, with things like renewables–still really in their technological infancy–and subsidized out the wazoo for the sake of a worldwide state religion.

    Article in the Washington Post:

    Our country spent $2.9M of the multimillion “stimulus” (known fondly here as “porkulus”) to retrain people for “green jobs” that would magically appear…when the government created them through regulation and fiat.

    They seem to keep forgetting that “creating” a government job isn’t really job creation, it’s tax and debt creation.

    Read the article. There aren’t “green” jobs for the reeducated to plop into.

    Mr. Delingpole, I realize that Thanksgiving is an American holiday, but one of the things I shall be giving thanks for tomorrow (after I’m done cooking!–pumpkin pie in the oven, vegetables and sausage for the stuffing up next, then start the stock pot) is you, your work, and that of others like the fine Mr. Watts at WUWT, and so many more who work to explode the newest myth of fear and control.

    Please keep up the good work, and thank you.

  3. Groper says:24th November 2010 at 2:12 pmAre delingpole’s acolytes that backwards? Fossil subsdies worldwide is 10 times the amount to renewables. Governments spend a little on it and all of a sudden it’s a watermelon conspiracy. Where does Delingpole want take us? Back to the days of our heavily subsidised coal industry? Remember Scargill and miner’s strike?
  4. barbarausa says:24th November 2010 at 2:41 pmRemember when there were manufacturing jobs in England?

    We used to produce things here too.

    Government jobs are not jobs. Try and understand the concept: the government has no money except what it takes in taxes. For government to “create” jobs, they need to take more taxes, or go into debt to do the “creating”.

    What happens when everyone “works” for the government? Where will the money to make it happen come from?

    As I said, read the article–fine quote on page 4, about it being a great prgram, but hard to apply in the real world. Well, yes.

    Supply and demand is king, and when an open market is suppressed, a “black” market will spring up if the demand is there.

    Look at prostitution and drugs–they will never go away, because someone is going to fill that demand, legally or otherwise.

    With our illegal immigrant situation in the US, we even have had black market housing: single family homes, in districts not zoned for multifamily occupancy, have become flophouses with small areas cordoned off inside by hanging curtains, and a dozen or more laborers occupying small houses in a cubicle living situation.

    Zoning enforcement scrambles to catch up, but the problem moves from neighborhood to neighborhood.

    With the crash of our economy, it has abated somewhat, but of course we have lobbying groups who want to continue to provide services to those here illegally.

    And it all costs, something which government in general does not understand because they do not produce, they simply have a magical checkbook of taxation.

    Read the article groper. What does it cost to create a false demand through regulation, and facilitate it with squads of new government employees?

    Stay tuned.

    From over here, it looks remarkable like the early stages of what’s unfolding so unpleasantly throughout the EU.

  5. Groper says:24th November 2010 at 4:51 pmYour article makes no sense barbarausa. There’s nothing false about energy. It’s a very real demand.
  6. barbarausa says:25th November 2010 at 12:37 amYes, energy IS a very real demand.

    “Green energy jobs” is a false demand, as green energy is in its infancy of scalability.

    The government is attempting to create a demand by regulating existing market energy into an unaffordable state, thereby attempting to make gren energy “competitive”.

    There is no demand for the green energy workers being “created” with tax dollars to fill as yet nonexistent green energy jobs.

    It makes quite a bit of objective sense.

    But religion is subjective, isn’t it?

  7. Velocity says:25th November 2010 at 8:47 pmSpot on James.

    Grouper here is another monkey from the shrill green empty brigade thinking Gov’t intervention improves anything. Fed up to the back teeth with greenies gobbing off about ‘peak oil’ etc I spent a month researching and found energy of all types coming out of our ears.

    Guess what the problem was? Not the amount of energy and known reserves, but the amount of energy strangled (legislated) by Gov’ts from being exploited.

    Everything Gov’t touches turns to crap. Take a look at Spains green energy experiment, just another reason they’re so friggin bust.

    We should be having a massive pig out on cheap, cheap, cheap plentiful energy if the free competitive market was allowed to work.

    Instead we’re being legislatively strangled and taxed-to-death by Gov’ts and monopoly energy companies and the stiff-the-consumer Gov’t-Corp fascism of regulators.

  8. Groper says:25th November 2010 at 10:47 pmVelocity, as usual, your post makes no sense. Brigades? Govt Corp fascism yadayada!! Sure, there’s plenty of oil around, nobody disagrees, but its the cost of extraction that Delingpole and yourself fail to understand. The deeper you go, the more expensive it gets, and extracting oil from tar sands etc is very expensive in itself.
  9. Velocity says:26th November 2010 at 7:20 pmGrouper

    Yep, i’ve done the maths on extraction costs because i like to know what i’m talking about, unlike someone we know. So here’s what you don’t know:

    The Saudis stick a straw in the sand and just suck. Cost of extraction, about $1.50 per barrel.

    Those offshore rigs in deep water, its a lot more needing deep wading wellies. Cost $3.50 per barrel.

    As you can see anytime the Arabs want to lay waste to the deep water drilling (competition) they just dump oil on the market and watch everyone squeem. But right now at $80 a barrel they’re laughing all the way to the bank, especially as they’re pumping at only 50% of capacity.

    But mans technology always gets better and always reduces cost. Unless you’ve got Gov’t that just adds regulation and strangulation of which areas you can and can’t exploit. So while the Arabs will always have the edge on cost there’s plenty of room for everyone (at least until hyper-deflation hits our economies over the next 5 years and reduces oil to under $10 a barrel).

    The point is Grouper you don’t have a point. Like all lefties you’re talking outta your arse not knowing how markets operate or that extraction costs are not getting more expensive (the exact opposite of watching any market will teach you). Market price is not set by production cost (try to work than one out Einstein).

    Gordon Brown as Exchequer sold our British Gold at $220 Oz, right at the bottom of the market. 10 years later he got booted out by the British public as Gold hit a then all-time peak of $1,200 Oz. That’s an inditement of socialists and just how much that rotting Scottish turd knew about economics.

  10. barbarausa says:27th November 2010 at 12:53 amgroper, you sound like the old robot on “Lost in Space”: “…it…does…not…compute…”

    I imagine things do “make no sense” if you are only prepared to believe things that coincide with your script(ure).

Comments are closed.

On the Anniversary of Climategate the Watermelons Show Their True Colours

Crazed socialist relicts

Green on the outside, red on the inside....

Green on the outside, red on the inside….

Watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside. This is the theme of my forthcoming book on the controlling,  poisonously misanthropic and aggressively socialistic instincts of the modern environmental movement. So how very generous that two of that movement’s leading lights should have chosen the anniversary of Climategate to prove my point entirely.

The first comes courtesy of German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer who has openly admitted what some of us have been saying for some time: that “Climate Change” has nothing to do with man’s modest and thoroughly unthreatening contribution to global mean temperatures, nor even with the plight of baby polar bears so sweet you could almost hug them if you didn’t know they’d take your arm off in a trice. All it is, really, is a Marxist exercise in minority grievance-mongering and wealth redistribution on a global scale.

Or, as Edenhoffer so helpfully puts it it Neue Zurcher Zeitung: (H/T Global Warming Policy Foundation):

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriatedthe atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

And if that sounds sinister, wait till you hear what our old friend Nicholas “Lord” Stern has gone and done. Nicky, you’ll remember, was the funny little World Banker responsible for possibly the most hysterically overblown policy document in the entire history of the great Global Climate Change Scam: the infamous Stern Review which recommended, inter alia, that we all go veggie in order to spare the planet from hideous boiling man-made meltdown.

Now, “Lord” Stern (of Brentford, no less) has gone one better. He has got it into his dear little head that he has the power, influence and importance to dictate terms to the US economy. If America doesn’t toe the line on CO2 emissions reductions, he has threatened, then it could jolly well find itself the victim of an international trade boycott.

I would give you the link to the Times article in which Ben Webster’s interview appears, but sadly it’s hidden behind a paywall. Still, Watts Up With That has the gist:

Lord Stern said that Europe and the Far East (sic) were forging ahead of the US in controlling emissions and switching to low carbon sources of energy. They would not tolerate having their industries undermined by American competitors that had not paid for their emissions. “If you are charging properly for carbon and other people are not, you will take that into account,” he said. “Many of the more forward-looking people in the US are thinking about this. If they see a danger on the trade front to US exports that could influence public discussion.”

Asked what type of US products could face restrictions, Lord Stern said: “Aircraft, clearly, some cars, machine tools — it’s not simply what’s in the capital good, it’s what kind of processes the capital good is facilitating.”

What a mellifluous turn of phrase the man has: “what kind of processes the capital good is facilitating.” Doesn’t it just make you SO happy to think that this veritable Gerald Manley Hopkins among economists has the ear of several G20 leaders?

But I don’t believe a word of his threat, do you? Not, at least, in so far as the Far East is concerned. Can anyone seriously imagine China or Japan or any of the Asian tiger economies severing trade links with the US in order to make a political point about a non-existent environmental problem based on “science” which they all know is a crock. For China, for the BRICs economies generally in fact, AGW is just a handy pretext for milking the Western nations of what money they can. It’s certainly not an issue over which they’d choose to lose money on a point of principle.

Where the European Union is concerned, on the other hand, Lord Stern’s toys-out-of-pram scenario looks frighteningly plausible. Frightening, that is, for those of us unfortunate enough to live in the EU and to be one of the US’s bigger trading partners; not frightening at all for the US, though, for whom if we carry on going in the direction we’re heading at the moment the EU will soon be a sclerotic, socialistic irrelevance.

Here’s my prediction: with the exception of crazed socialist relicts like California (which really ought to be allowed to secede and take its proper place on the North American continent as a kind of comedy pariah state), the US is going to grow increasingly bored with the Great Global Warming Scam. Cap and trade will go the way of the failed Chicago carbon exchange – and with it all prospects of a binding global agreement on carbon emissions.

But that’s only the beginning of the fun. Thanks to the glorious mid-terms, the House is about to fill up with red meat conservatives who know “Climate Change” is a crock and will be hoping to secure some kind of Climate Nuremberg. Then, when Obama goes in 2012, the whole AGW issue will as far as America is concerned be dead in the water.

Not in Europe, unfortunately. Increasingly, the EUSSR will look as irrelevant as the old USSR, burdened with entirely unnecessary eco-taxes and regulations, destroyed by the watermelons of the green movement. Sad, isn’t it?

Related posts:

  1. I need YOUR pledge NOW for the most important campaign in the history of the planet!
  2. How the Climategate weasels wriggled free
  3. At last: expert Sir David King expertly reveals true identity of Climategate ‘hackers’
  4. So now we can’t ever enjoy Peep Show again. Thanks, David ‘No but seriously, folks’ Mitchell

2 thoughts on “On the anniversary of Climategate the Watermelons show their true colours”

  1. barbarausa says:20th November 2010 at 2:05 pmSo, were there car doors slamming in the streets of Brentford last night?

  2. Velocity says:25th November 2010 at 8:26 pmYou’re right to point at (both) the shrill green empties and the EUSSR as re-distributors of (other) peoples wealth.

    Have you seen what’s going on in Ireland?

    The Irish politicians, who’ve put Irish taxpayers on the hook for banking and property losses (over-leveridge, schoolboy banking error 101), are now accepting yet even more debt by the EUSSR and IMF-mafia.

    €24,000 for every man, woman and child in Ireland. They could have declared bankruptcy, stopped the rot right now. But instead, in an act of treason that’ll stink for decades to come, they’ve shifted the steaming pile of crap from Gov’t and bankers to their own very (innocent) people to pay off.

    A few years ago US Sen Ron Paul was seen as a cook, an outlier, a bit of a nutter in the Rep Party. Today he’s the only Rep that speaks with any credibility while the rest of his Party now look like the old crones of the establishment.

    Strange how perceptions shift, how the ‘nutters’ turn out to be the rising stars as time passes. This is how social change happens.

    Here’s another guy who’s every word carries more weight and truth as time passes, while this pitiful Lib-Con Gov’t appears to be an ever greater outlier from outter friggin space (happy-o-meter anyone?!!)


Comments are closed.

How the Climategate Weasels Wriggled Free

The mainstream fails again

Delingpole tries to flee lunch engagement at University of East Anglia

Delingpole tries to flee lunch engagement at University of East Anglia

This week marks the anniversary of Climategate but even though I helped break and name the story I’m certainly not celebrating. That’s because, despite the marked shift it effected in public opinion, its effect on public policy-making has been close to zilch.

For chapter and verse on the horrifying disjunct between what all sane, informed people know about “Anthropogenic Global Warming” (ie, it’s a crock)  and what our governments are doing in response (i.e., “Nyah nyah. Not listening. We’re going to go ahead with our crazy tax, regulation and wind farm schemes anyway”) I refer you to this superb summary by M’Learned Friend Booker.

Since then, despite a series of unconvincing attempts to clear the Climategate scientists, it has become clear that the 20-year-old climate scare is dying on its feet. The money draining away from the Chicago exchange speaks louder than all those inquiries – and the same point will be made obvious in a fortnight’s time in Cancun, Mexico, as the UN attempts to salvage something from the wreckage at a conference that will draw scarcely a tenth of the numbers that met in Copenhagen.

But to all this deflation of the bubble our political class in Britain remains quite impervious. Our governments in London and Brussels charge on with completely unreal and damaging policies which increasingly look as much of a shambles as the warming scare which inspired them. Scarcely a single politician dares question the Climate Change Act, by far the most expensive law in history, which commits Britain, uniquely in the world, to reducing its CO2 emissions by 80 per cent in 40 years. By the Government’s own estimates, this will cost up to £18 billion a year. Any hope that we could begin to meet such a target without closing down most of our economy is as fanciful as the idea that we can meet our EU commitment to generate 30 per cent of our electricity by 2020 from “renewable” sources, such as wind and solar.

And why is this so? In part, at least, it is because of the abject, ongoing failure of our Mainstream Media to report environmental issues with the robust scepticism that ought to be the natural tack of responsible journalists. Too many environmental reporters are still regurgitating press releases handed to them by activist organisations like the WWF, Greenpeace and Friends Of The Earth. In the MSM, as in government, it’s like Climategate never happened.

Those few pieces on Climategate which HAVE appeared in the MSM tend to have consisted of the various guilty parties trying to spin their way out of it. The disgraced, FOI-breaching, email-deleting, scientific-method-abusing Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, for example, has granted tame interviews in Nature magazine and the Times presenting himself as a man far more sinned against than sinning. Michael Mann has been doing a similar auto-whitewash job in the US. But if you want to see an ecotard Houdini act at its most sublimely nuanced and slippery, I highly recommend this piece of sophistry from Mike Hulme in the Guardian.

Here’s the bit where it gets really evil:

Second, there has been a re-framing of climate change. The simple linear frame of “here’s the consensus science, now let’s make climate policy” has lost out to the more ambiguous frame: “What combination of contested political values, diverse human ideals and emergent scientific evidence can drive climate policy?” The events of the past year have finally buried the notion that scientific predictions about future climate change can be certain or precise enough to force global policy-making.

The meta-framing of climate change has therefore moved from being bi-polar – that either the scientific evidence is strong enough for action or else it is too weak for action – to being multi-polar – that narratives of climate change mobilise widely differing values which can’t be homogenised through appeals to science. Those actors who have long favoured a linear connection between climate science and climate policy – spanning environmentalists, contrarians and some scientists and politicians – have been forced to rethink. It is clearer today that the battle lines around climate change have to be drawn using the language of politics, values and ethics rather than the one-dimensional language of scientific consensus or lack thereof.

And when I say “evil” I really do mean “evil.” Mike Hulme is professor of climate change at the school of environmental science at the University of East Anglia. In other words he’s not just in the belly of the beast but right up its digestive tract. Yet miraculously, he has managed to emerge from the Climategate scandal smelling of violets. How?

Well there’s a clue in that phrase “the meta-framing of climate change”. Like his fellow arch-fiend Jerome Ravetz (co-inventor of Post Normal Science, the cod-intellectual movement that made Climategate possible) he is fluent in pseudo-academic gobbledegook designed to mean whatever listeners want it to mean. It sounds reasonable to many people because it doesn’t sound dogmatic. But the reason it doesn’t sound dogmatic is because like all postmodern waffle it’s not interested in trivial issues like truth or untruth, right and wrong. For people like Hulme, the science of “Climate Change” is a means to an end – and that end is advancing the goals of the liberal Left through ever more involved and constrictive policy-making.

Translate Hulme’s speech from academese into plain English and what it actually means is something like this: “All right. You rumbled us on Climate Change. But that’s OK. There’s always ocean acidification. And biodiversity. And whatever urgent crisis we dream up next…”

Like the Bourbons, the watermelons of the global green movement have learned nothing and forgotten nothing from Climategate. For them, AGW has never been about science or objective truth. It has always been just a pretext.

Or, metatext, perhaps, if your name is Mike Hulme.

Related posts:

  1. On the anniversary of Climategate the Watermelons show their true colours
  2. Steven Mosher: the real hero of Climategate?
  3. Climategate 2.0: the Warmists’ seven stages of grief
  4. Climategate 2.0

2 thoughts on “How the Climategate weasels wriggled free”

  1. Velocity says:20th November 2010 at 1:46 amHulme has consumed the snake-oil management-speak of Gov’t.

    In short he has dis-functioned the English language and like the professional classes (lawyers, accountants etc), turned words of substance into trigger words that mean something in your head but in truth are hollow, designed purely for deceipt and to bamboozle.

    These people are crooks, dysfunctional, phsycopaths. Welcome to the inner workings of socialism

  2. Groper says:25th November 2010 at 12:37 pmHey Delingpole, what’s with a picture of a muscle man when a picture of a puny spectacled chinless wonder sitting behind a desk typing away articles of faith on hate on all would be enemies of your libertarian movement would be more apt? Bit like those old pictures of Heinrich Himmler sitting behind a desk. Come to think of it, how uncanny!

Comments are closed.

Rallying Cry

Britain’s Trillion Pound Horror Story (Channel 4, Thursday) was unquestionably the most important programme that will appear on British television this year. Yes, even more important than Downton Abbey.

The thing that really drove home just how important was the point, quite early on, where the Fawn turned to me and said, ‘Ohmygod! Where do we emigrate to?’ And it’s not as though the Fawn has ever been one of those irksome left-liberal wives who keeps undermining her husband’s thought-through right-wing wisdom with prissy right-on inanities based on nothing more solid than hormones. No, sirree.

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. How ‘Right-wing’ was Anders Breivik?
  2. Why us?
  3. When the world ends, will I know how to cook our cat?
  4. Are music festivals better with children?

4 thoughts on “Rallying cry”

  1. Velocity says:20th November 2010 at 1:33 amAhmen to that James and Congrats to Mr Durkin for once again hitting the nail on the head.

    You are one of the few UK journalists to ‘get it’ regards the scam that is Gov’t and climate change. But like the Tea Party you still don’t ‘get’ the ultimate solution.

    Namely you believe in (much) smaller Gov’t and (much) smaller taxation.

    But you’ve not completed your education if i may be so forthright, and hopefully not at all patronising. Because you’re still sold on the idea of Gov’t. The ultimate liberal idea, the very seed to another generational failure, another scam down the line, keeping the baby of liberalism which turns into socialism and fascism.

    Gov’t is the enemy within. Gov’t always was the enemy, of freedom, free choice, and free markets, all along.

    We don’t need less Gov’t. That’s doing only half a job. We need zero Gov’t, zero taxes, zero laws and zero regulation.

    Think about it and free yourself from ever having or needing a politician in your life to tell you what to do or force his ‘dvise’ down your throat.

    Freedom and free markets will give you all you seriously need faster and better and more efficiently than any Gov’t structure will ever give you. Society is a self regulating mechanism like the climate. No Gov’t required.

  2. Velocity says:22nd November 2010 at 1:12 pmJames,

    Just read our “Only the Tea Party can Save Us” article and from the bottom of my heart, I couldn’t agree more. I’ve felt the way you so eloquently described, including the depression of returning to fuk-wit PC rule obsessed Britain, for many years.

    But as my above post mentions, you’ve not found the solution, because like the Tea Party and honourable people like Ron Paul, you still don’t fully understand the reason for this cancerous growth in wealth and freedom destroying Gov’t.

    The answer is not small Gov’t and less Gov’t.

    The answer is zero Gov’t, no Gov’t.

    The problem is Gov’t is a monopoly power structure, as apposed the free market where two apposing forces (consumer and business) find balance through the competition mechanism. Only the competition mechanism gives the consumer, or citizen, choice (ie. power).

    There is zero difference between a Western ‘democratic’ Gov’t and the USSR central controlled committee structure. Just in the West the Gov’t machine is surrounded with some free (over regulated) enterprises that prop up this monopoly power structure a little longer.

    Power corrupts. The Founding Fathers of America knew the dangers of Gov’t, and knew they were giving birth to a beast that could be tyranical. Their worst fears came true. But they should never of unleashed a monopoly power structure called Gov’t, even the quant stupid idea called “democracy”, they should have killed this potential tyrant baby at birth.

    You, Ron Paul, the Tea Party all have the alien inside your chest. You just want smaller less intrusive Gov’t but you are all carrying, like the Founding Fathers, the seed of the next generation of alien being to kill our freedoms, suck the life out of our free enterprise and wealth creation. The little alien called small Gov’t is ready to explode out of your chest at any time you turn a bling eye, and ravish all humanity again.

    Society, people, the herd is a self regulating mechanism.

    We do not need Gov’t, nor Law, nor Judiciary, nor Police (3 more monopoly power structures).

    We need competition for our (citizens) business. That passes power to us, the citizen, to decide what succeeds and what doesn’t.

    Freedom and Free (competitive) markets. The only mechanism that works.

    Gov’t IS the problem, not the solution. Think it through my friend and you will reach a true Nirvana, not a half baked one like the Founding Fathers that’ll give birth to the next layer of human scum (tyranny).

  3. MarcoB says:23rd November 2010 at 9:40 amHi James

    I did watch the documentary and it hit some great points except one…. the biggest one of all…
    That the reason behind 4.8 trillion deficit is simple, the government borrows all it’s money from the bank of england at interest (inflation). And where does the bank of england get the money? Well, it prints it out of thin air. It works on the same principle as the FED. If all the money was paid back, there would be no money… it’s the biggest ponzi scheme of all, like playing at a poker table, were each round ends, the house takes a cut of the winnings (interest) while the public/economy has to fight for the decreasing number of chips on the table or borrow more.

    In a free nation, the govenment needs to be able to print money debt free. As long as the money is backed by resources( gold, silver, oil, coal) or the countries infrastructure (airports, railways, ect) inflation doesn’t occur. Watch “the secret of oz” if you haven’t already and you get a great understanding of how screwed up this all is.


  4. Velocity says:28th November 2010 at 1:57 pmMarcoB

    Spot on. The problem with our money is it is debt, debt money. The problem is structural. Until someone changes the money system, of our labour/productivity being transfered through debt free money, most of the rest of the major problems (bank debt, Gov’t debt, consumer debt) will not be solved (properly).

    By the way our £4.8T debt is not a “deficit”. The deficit is the annual Gov’t shortfall between what the crooks take off us in taxes and what they spend. The spend so much they have to borrow the deficit. Our debt is the combined sum of these crooks spending over many years.

    Everything Gov’t touches turns to crap.

    That’s because every part of Gov’t, from education to healthcare, police to judiciary, transport to energy, is a monopoly power structure. We have no choice (ie power). We have to swallow whatever crap this toilet called Westminster forces down our throats and takes out of our pockets. If you don’t pay this ‘democracy’ its taxes it’ll put you in jail.

    ‘Democracy’ and Gov’t are both 4 letter words.

    When will we ever take our freedom back from this f**king bankrupt criminal Ponzi scheme called a democratic Government????

Comments are closed.

I’d Take Lord Curzon over Gandhi – and So Would Many Indians

In India last week I found myself thinking about Mohandas Gandhi and his famous quote when asked what he thought about western civilisation. ‘I think it would be a good idea,’ he replied.

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. There is nothing ‘smart’ about rationing electricity
  2. Money for nothing
  3. Sixto Rodriguez: the rock’n’roll Lord Lucan
  4. What Lord Tebbit says: a bit more right-wingness will do Cameron no harm at all

One thought on “I’d take Lord Curzon over Gandhi – and so would many Indians”

  1. Velocity says:20th November 2010 at 2:05 amWhat’s getting Indias poor out of the gutter is precisely what got England out of sheep skins and scratching a living every day like the birds and the bees: industrialisation.Or put another way. mans understanding and exploitation (management) of the Earth. That is the wealth stream that creates er, wealth!

    Ghandi and his first rung on the tool ladder, the basic cotton wheel, will get no man nowhere.

    The English used an energy source (coal) combined with smelting iron (technology) to take the basic cotton wheel to new productive heights (wealth). That’s what turned England into the global powerhouse it was, and Germany now is, and China and India are becoming.

    Ghandi bless him just didn’t understand industrialisation. That’s what comes of being educated at liberal twat establishments like Oxford.

    PS. how much more useful/productive is your Tut Tut driver than Ghandi and his cotton wheel. I’m living in Rome at the mo, and marvel at every traffic lights the sight of private enterprise filling every niche and opportunity with immigrants offering my ciggy lighters, tissues etc etc. Thank God Gov’t doesn’t run everything. Imagine getting to the other airport without the private sector there and only Gov’t officialdom to help out?

Comments are closed.

Why the BBC Cannot Be Trusted on ‘Climate Change’: The Full Story

A story of hysterical warmistry

"Watermelon? Me? But I'm such a lovely old man..."

“Watermelon? Me? But I’m such a lovely old man…”

When the history of the greatest pseudoscience fraud in history – aka “Climate Change” – comes to be written, no media organisation, not even the Guardian or the New York Times, will deserve greater censure than the steaming cess pit of ecofascist bias that is the BBC. That’s because, of all the numerous  MSM outlets which have been acting as the green movement’s useful idiots, the BBC is the only one which is taxpayer-funded and which is required by its charter to adopt an ideologically neutral position.

How then has it managed to breach its social responsibility so frequently and flagrantly?

Thanks to the combined efforts of the great Bishop Hill and the similarly wondrous Tony Newbery at the Harmless Sky blog, we now have the most comprehensive and thoroughly damning account yet of how the BBC became such an important part of a sinister political campaign to promote climate change alarmism. I recommend reading their report in full at either of their sites linked above. But here below are some of the highlights.

The story begins in autumn 2004 when the government’s hysterically warmist chief scientific adviser Sir David King successfully persuaded the then Prime Minister Tony Blair to put action on global warming at the heart of UK government policy. This resulted in the creation of a propaganda body called The Climate Change Working Group which in turn sought PR advice from a company called Futerra communications.

Futerra – Britain’s answer to Fenton communications in the US – recommended the following policy:

Many of the existing approaches to climate change communications clearly seem unproductive. And it is not enough simply to produce yet more messages, based on rational argument and top-down persuasion, aimed at convincing people of the reality of climate change and urging them to act. Instead, we need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement.

To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken [emphasis added].

Government policy soon became BBC policy too. In Feb 2007, Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman had this to say about BBC “impartiality” on Climate Change:

I have neither the learning nor the experience to know whether the doomsayers are right about the human causes of climate change. But I am willing to acknowledge that people who know a lot more than I do may be right when they claim that it is the consequence of our own behaviour.

I assume that this is why the BBC’s coverage of the issue abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago.

So when did naked bias on AGW become official BBC policy? Newbery and the Bishop trace to the notorious seminar mentioned before in this blog. (Can anyone find the link? I can’t yet….)

This was the one where the keynote speaker was Lord May, whose warmist bias is elegantly encapsulated in this paragraph of the Bishop/Newbery report.

Although Lord May is unquestionably a distinguished scientist, he is not a climate scientist, and he has been a dedicated and vociferous environmental activist throughout his career. In recent years he has expressed strong opinions on global warming. He has been a trustee of the World Wildlife Fund a leading environmental pressure group and during his presidency of the Royal Society an attempt was made to disrupt funding to climate sceptics. It would not be reasonable to suppose that Lord May could provide the seminar with either an authoritative or impartial assessment of the current state of the scientific evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis.

The BBC has done its level best to keep the details of the seminar under wraps. But we know that “30 key BBC staff” attended; that it was hosted by Jana Bennett and Helen Boaden and chaired by Fergal Keane. We also know that the seminar effected a distinct shift in BBC policy, because the BBC admitted as much in its June 2007 report From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel, Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century.

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.

As the Newbery/Bishop report drily notes:

There is abundant evidence that this is not an accurate description of the seminar.

No indeed. But this hasn’t stopped the BBC going ahead as if it were. The report details just a few of the more notable examples of the BBC’s flagrant pursuit of the Warmist political agenda:

(a) Climate Wars was a four part television programme which purported to describe sceptic arguments. It could best be described as a four-part ‘hit piece’, with sceptic arguments caricatured by a confirmed ‘warmist’ presenter and in one case, some serious misrepresentation of widely agreed scientific evidence. Despite this, a member of the BBC Trust has described this programme to one of us as representing coverage that balanced the more normal mainstream coverage of global warming, suggesting that the BBC Trust have been misled about how unbalanced the corporation’s coverage has been. We are unaware of any BBC programme that has allowed sceptics to present their own arguments without being filtered through a ‘green’ presenter or being subject to immediate rebuttal.

(b) David Attenborough’s two part series The Truth about Climate Change was broadcast in May and June 2006 as part of the Climate Chaos season. At no point in the series was there any suggestion that there are scientists, albeit a minority, who do not support the majority view on this subject, or that scientific understanding of the climate system remains very limited with major uncertainties still unresolved. Therefore the use of the term ‘Truth’ in the title of the series suggests an exercise in indoctrination rather than education. No claim could reasonably be made that this series was impartial about the science of climate change, but the DVD of this series is still being offered for sale on the BBC Shop website.

(c) The BBC’s partisan coverage of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) was particularly egregious.

When the Summary for Policy Makers of the Working Group 1 (The Physical Science Basis) was launched on 2 February 2007, the 10pm News devoted most of the programme to this story. At no point was there any suggestion that anthropogenic C02 emissions may not be entirely responsible for climate change, a claim that the IPCC report did not make. All those interviewed on the subject, as ‘experts’, expressed complete certainty about this.

On the same evening, Newsnight went much further, with an assertion by Susan Watts that scientists were being offered thousands of pounds to challenge the IPCC report, and this claim was reiterated by the presenter, Martha Kearney. This was based on a report that had appeared in The Guardian on the same day. It later emerged that the story had no basis in fact and had probably originated from an environmental advocacy group in the US. The BBC would have discovered this if it checked out the story before using it; an example of very sloppy and inaccurate reporting or worse, a willingness to use a third party report because it appeared to confirm the BBC’s position on climate change. During the programme Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, and an authority on the physics of clouds, was introduced as a climate sceptic. He was then shown smoking a cigarette while a voice over explained that he had a lot of contrarian beliefs including on smoking. It is most unusual for anyone to be shown smoking on BBC programmes now and the sequence was clearly intended to discredit his sceptical views on climate change.

(d) It is also worth noting that the BBC website has a dedicated area for environmentalists: The Green Room. Searching its archives papers related to climate change gives the following list of contributors: Prof Mike Hulme (Tyndall Centre), Bryony Worthington (from an NGO involved in emissions trading, ‘EU is not doing enough to deliver meaningful cuts’), Chris Smith ‘Climate change is very real’, Sir David King (green activist), Malini Mehra (green NGO), Andrew Simms (‘economic growth cannot continue’), Richard Betts (Met Office), Greig Whitehead (NGO, ‘For millions of people in Africa, climate change is a reality’), Tim Aldred (NGO. World leaders must listen to the people who put them in power and quickly make amends for failing to deliver a binding climate deal’). We have been unable to identify any sceptics invited to contradict mainstream environmentalist views on this site. The Green Room appears to exist only as an outlet for propaganda pieces by environmentalists.

Apologies that this post is so long. And there’s plenty more where this came, not least on the key role played by the BBC’s Chief Guardian of the Warmist Flame Roger Harrabin, which surely deserves a post of its own.

In the meantime, I would appeal to the wisdom and scientific integrity of the geneticist Steve Jones who besides being one of this newspaper’s most distinguished and readable science columnists happens to be chairing the official investigation into bias within BBC’s science covering.

It is to Professor Jones that Newbery and the Bishop have addressed their submission.

They conclude:

It would appear that, through the activities of CMEP [Cambridge Media and Environment Programme – the Harrabin outfit which deserves a blog of its own…] BBC Newsgathering has got very much too close to government, environmental activism, and the climate research community for its reputation for impartiality and accuracy to be preserved with regard to the science of climate change.

I don’t believe any responsible scientist, journalist or indeed human being could read this detailed, thorough report and conclude otherwise. Over to you, Professor Jones. We shall all be awaiting your verdict – in Spring 2011 – with keen interest.

Related posts:

  1. Government’s £6 million ‘Bedtime Story’ climate change ad: most pernicious waste of taxpayers’ money ever?
  2. Finally BBC asks: are we maybe a bit biased on ‘climate change’?
  3. Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick
  4. My moment of rock-star glory at a climate change sceptics’ conference in America

5 thoughts on “Why the BBC cannot be trusted on ‘Climate Change’: the full story”

  1. Steve says:17th November 2010 at 2:10 pmWow… what an uneducated idiot! You’d think a journalist would at least understand the value of properly researching a topic instead of regurgitating the crap found smeared across right wing tabloids.
  2. TIM says:18th November 2010 at 1:21 amWow Steve, what an “educated” idiot! You’d think a Steve would at least understand the value of properly posting a response without regurgitating the crap found inside the mind of a delusional left wing’d mind.
  3. Mark says:18th November 2010 at 10:58 pm“Apologies that this post is so long.”

    Why apologise for that? Are you the one responsible for the fact that the average human has the attention span of a gnat? You must be very powerful!

  4. Velocity says:20th November 2010 at 1:17 amJames

    1. The BBC has become what all Depts of Gov’t become: crones.

    2. The BBC achieves what all depts of Gov’t achieve, the exact opposite of what they say they will achieve. In the BBC’s case, they claim to be a “public service” broadcaster but of course they become a Gov’t propaganda broadcaster. They also do not represent the public but the political elite. They also do not fulfill their mandate to be unbiased. They become biased.

    3. Everything Gov’t touches (ie. manages, subsidises/funds etc) turns to crap.

    Only freedom and the free (competitive) market works.

    This is why we need the scum of society that is Gov’t and their monopolistic power structure out of broadcasting, healthcare, education, housing, the money supply, banking and central banking, transport and evrthing else Gov’t touches.

    Freedom & Free Markets: the only mechanisms that work for the progress of humanity

  5. Groper says:24th November 2010 at 11:49 amHey Delingpole, is it open season? You’ve poured hate on wildlife broadcasters/scientists/enviromentalists/World War 2 veterans? Who’s next for you to attack? Dentists? Mother in laws?

Comments are closed.

BP oil spill: ‘mass hysteria on a par with the Dutch tulip bubble’ | James Delingpole

 November 16th, 2010

Some of the more hysterical members of the ecotard commentariat are still banging on about the BP Oil Spill as if it were the worst environmental disaster in the history of mankind. Right up there with Chernobyl, they’re saying. And in that comparison at least they’re absolutely right. Like Chernobyl, the BP Oil Spill was an accident far more terrifying in the press handouts of environmental lobbyists than it proved to be in real life.

Just consider, for example, the latest reports from the Gulf of Mexico which show that fish stocks have rebounded with the kind of teeming piscine vigour that will give George Monbiot nightmares for months.
Here’s Lou Dolinar on the case in National Review Online:
The catastrophists were wrong (again) about the Deep Water Horizon oil spill. There have been no major fish die-offs. On the contrary, a comprehensive new study says that in some of the most heavily fished areas of the Gulf of Mexico, various forms of sea life, from shrimp to sharks, have seen their populations triple since before the spill. Some species, including shrimp and croaker, did even better.
And meanwhile, the media has greatly exaggerated damage found in studies about coral, which is in some ways more vulnerable to oil and dispersant. Most of it is doing fine.
The growth of the fish population is not occurring because oil is good for fish. Rather, it is occurring because fishing is bad for fish. When fishing was banned for months during the spill, the Gulf of Mexico experienced an unprecedented marine renaissance that overwhelmed any negative environmental consequences the oil may have had, researchers say.
Even the researchers themselves, however, were surprised by the results. “We expected there to be virtually no fish out there based on all the reports we were getting about the toxicity of the dispersant and the toxicity of the hydrocarbons, and reports that hypoxia [low oxygen] had been created as a result of the oil and dispersant,” says John Valentine, who directed the study. “In every way you can imagine, it should have been a hostile environment for fish and crabs; our collection showed that was not the case.”
Also surprising was how quickly the populations grew. “In the cosmic scheme of things, a matter of four or five months led to this huge difference in everything, sharks, fish of all forms, even the juvenile fish found in sea-grass beds. That’s a pretty interesting and unanticipated outcome, I would say,” says Valentine. The surge is so robust, he says, that it may be impossible to determine whether the oil spill has had any effect on sea life at all.
You’ll see further down the piece that Dolinar is not trying to argue that the BP Oil spill was a good thing. The Louisiana tourist industry has been hit hard; Gulf fishermen have suffered enormously, first from being unable to fish, and now from the reluctance of consumers to buy their produce in the mistaken belief that it is tainted. But you can bet your bottom dollar this won’t stop unscrupulous eco-fascists from dismissing Dolinar – and me of course – as the kind of Gaia-raping scumbag who thinks it’s just fine and dandy if Big Oil companies spew their toxic slicks of evil, carboniferous death sludge into the watery playgrounds of smiling dolphins and cute gulpy pelicans.
Er, no – I think I can speak for Dolinar too here – that’s not what we think at all. What we do think, though, is that the way environmental disasters are reported ought to reflect the truth rather than the masochistic fantasies of the environmental lobby.
Chernobyl was much the same in this respect. According to Cherie Blair’s favourite Lefty historian Tony Judt, for example, “30,000 people died as the result of the Chernobyl explosion of 1996”. This is quite simply not true, yet it is the kind of made-up factoid continually brandished by libtard commentators – and “I reckon” sub-blog commenters – as gospel evidence as to why Nuclear Power is a Bad Thing.
In truth, according to the Chernobyl Forum (H/T Catweazle) – an authoritative survey conducted over two years by representatives of 8 UN organisations including the World Health Organisation (not a body known for its Right-wing sceptical views) – fewer than 50 deaths can be directly attributed to Chernobyl’s radiation, most of them highly exposed rescue workers in the early stages of the disaster.
Nor did the predicted epidemic of cancer and genetic mutations materialise. In fact the incidence of cancer has actually turned out to be lower in the regions most exposed to Chernobyl fallout than elsewhere. Not, of course, that you’ll hear this much from the Ukrainians who have as much interest in promoting their Chernobyl victim status as the Maldives does the existence of “Man-made global warming”.
But lies, hysteria and misinformation were ever the stock-in-trade of the green movement for – as befits the Leninist method to which so many ecotards adhere – the truth is a malleable commodity which can cheerfully be suborned to the noble end of destroying the capitalist system and creating a noble new world order run along lines advocated by such freedom-loving guys as George Soros and Maurice Strong.
As I said at the time, there’s nothing greenies like more than a nice, juicy oil spill disaster. For your amusement and edification, let me reprint the words of one of the commenters who got weally cwoss about that particular column, accusing me of callousness and insensitivity to a tragedy which – natch – was going to destroy the Gulf coast till the end of time.
“But the idea that there is any bigger ecological moral to be drawn from this is as poisonous as it is stupid.”
With comments like this it is no wonder the world is in it’s current form. I wonder if it is the fact that the British press has barely reported on the oil gushing in the Gulf of Mexico that such ignorance about the state of affairs spews forth from British bloggers and comment sections or something else… some need to prove yourself superior to the Americans.
The British press has been sorely lacking reporting on the tragic accident from day one, so perhaps some of you have an excuse? But, do you only read the British press? Do you not read the international press? Are you as small-minded as you claim the Americans to be?
Maybe the spill should come over and affect the British coastline. Maybe tankers with an equivalent amount of oil should come dump them on British shores. What will it take for you to understand the magnitude of this tragedy? When will you see what has been done? Only when you are personally impacted, will we hear a peep from you, I am afraid. Cannot get outside of yourself for one moment to understand someone else’s situation. Must always think of yourself first.
Well, that’s back to my original point and how we all got here. From the prattle in this blog, I am sure you will not consider that. Why change, when you can go on living your self-destructive life. Who cares about others or future generations? No. Just think about yourselves, all these problems will just magically fix themselves. Right?
Her name was Ellie Star. What are my chances, do you reckon, of getting a fulsome, grovelling apology.


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

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)