Climategate: Mad Sunday

I mean “Mad” in a good way.

This was the day when so many wheels came off Al Gore’s AGW gravy train and flew off in so many different directions, it was all but impossible to keep track of them.

Richard North and Jonathan Leake in The Sunday Times broke Africagate, exposing yet another erroneous claim in the fatally flawed Fourth IPCC Assessment report:

The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.

This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC’s retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035.

The African claims could be even more embarrassing for the IPCC because they appear not only in its report on climate change impacts but, unlike the glaciers claim, are also repeated in its Synthesis Report.

The Sunday Express splashed on a fantastic story which many of you have urging me to write up for days, about the BBC pension fund’s massive exposure to carbon trading interests. (Sorry for not having done so; wish I had now but I’ve been a bit ill/distracted/busy having a go at Geoffrey Lean) Anyway, here’s the gist:

The corporation is under investigation after being inundated with complaints that its editorial coverage of climate change is biased in favour of those who say it is a man-made phenomenon. The £8 billion pension fund is likely to come under close scrutiny over its commitment to promote a low-carbon economy while struggling to reverse an estimated £2 billion deficit.

Truly, though we’ve been more spoiled this weekend than guests at the Ambassador’s Ferrero Rocher reception.The excellent Philip Stott offers a fine summary.

And if you have time, do spare a moment to enjoy the slowly-removes-glasses, draws-despairing-hand-across-forehead rage of the Observer’s science editor Robin McKie.

Why is it that the phrase Der Krieg Ist Verloren comes to mind?

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Dear Geoffrey Lean, Let Me Explain Why We’re So Cross…

My colleague Geoffrey Lean is upset by the vitriol he attracts on the internet. I feel for him. Though I have never met Geoffrey colleagues tells me he’s a delightful fellow who means very well. I’m sure he does and, though our views on AGW are very different, I take no more pleasure in seeing him taken to pieces by Telegraph-reading sceptics than I do from all the charming emails I get from George Monbiot groupies calling me something beginning with “C”. (And it’s shorter than “Climate change denier”).

But there appears to be something Geoffrey doesn’t understand and I’d like to take this opportunity to explain. This misconception is implicit in his headline: “We need to cool this climate row.” What it implies is that somewhere in the AGW debate is a sensible, moderate, middle ground and that if we can only approach this business in the spirit of a sort of Tony-Blair-style Third-Way triangulation, everything can be solved and we can all live happily ever after. No it can’t and we won’t.

Here are the killer paragraphs that betray Geoffrey’s (and not just Geoffrey’s but almost the entire green movement’s) wrong thinking:

The extremes, as so often, have met. The rejectionists and fundamentalists both wanted the Copenhagen climate summit to fail. Both seem at least partly swayed by ideology. For the fundamentalists, global warming should be a serious threat, therefore it must be one. For rejectionists, it must not be happening, therefore it can’t be.

The debate will surely continue. But is there a productive way forward? All sides condemn waste of the world’s resources. Conserving energy, reducing the use of fossil fuels and replacing them with clean sources is important for national security, and reducing other forms of air pollution besides the emission of greenhouse gases. It is also, as more and more economists and entrepreneurs are realising, an effective way of creating jobs and stimulating new, and sustainable, economic growth.

I think such a programme is necessary to head off dangerous climate change. But even if I am wrong, it would make the world a better, more prosperous place. Could all sides back it while continuing to argue about the science? That really would be a shock.

There are so many false assumptions contained therein that I don’t know where to begin. Probably the most dangerous is the canard about “green jobs”. These are a chimera, as we know from the evidence of Spain where for every “green job” created by government subsidy 2.2 jobs have been lost in the real economy. Not that this inconvenient truth seems to concern Dave Cameron’s green Conservatives overmuch.

Certainly the most erroneous is the utter nonsense that the measures being proposed to deal with “climate change” will “make the world a better, more prosperous place.”

No they won’t Geoff, and that’s why so many of us are so angry; why some of the emails you get are filled with such poison. We see, as you apparently do not, that in the name of this AGW scare you and your environmental correspondent colleagues have been helping to cook up these last few years our world is being destroyed.

You rightly cite biofuels as an example of green zealotry gone horribly wrong. If only it were the only one.

But how about the fact that, in the name of preserving the environment, the choicest parts of our magnificent British landscape are going to be ruined for generations by ugly, energy-inefficient, wind farms which are really little more than a means of transferring taxpayers’ money into the pockets of a few canny businessmen and pandering to EU bureaucracy but which will contribute nothing to our “energy security” because their power output is negligible?

How about the fact that thanks to the Climate Act we are expected to commit, in the middle of our direst economic crisis since the Great Depression, an annual £18 billion towards pointless green projects in order to deal with a problem that doesn’t actually exist?

You talk about “the science” Geoffrey, as if this were the place in which the solution lay. Again this is a fallacy. AGW has never been about “the science”, but about the corruption and debasement thereof. Try reading AW “Bishop Hill” Montford’s superb, gripping The Hockey Stick Illusion and then try to tell me, with a straight face, that the IPCC’s scaremongering reports have even the merest shred of integrity or that the cabal of activist scientists who have been pushing AGW  since the mid-Eighties were simply honest disinterested parties on a noble quest for pure scientific truth.

Climategate (which you persist in telling us was of no significance, though on what basis you have never quite made clear), was merely the iceberg tip not only of the greatest scientific scandal in history, but also of perhaps the most far reaching and deadly conspiracy ever inflicted on mankind. One that could ultimately lead to the destruction of the global economy and, by extension, industrial civilisation.

Yet here you are, telling us it can all be resolved if we only start talking a bit more nicely to one another. Well again I say this is not a moment for Tony-Blair-style triangulation. You rightly say that it is quite wrong to liken climate change denial to Holocaust denial. And the reason it’s wrong is because the Holocaust actually happened, whereas nobody is claiming that climate doesn’t change. The bone of contention is whether or not it is significantly, dangerously man-made.

What I don’t buy is the notion that in turn we sceptics should desist from calling the people on your side “eco-fascists” and “Nazis.” Why? The Nazis were the progenitors of the modern green movement and eco-fascism is exactly what organisations like the EU, the US’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the current British government and the forthcoming Heath administration are trying to impose on their increasingly clued-up (and correspondingly sceptical) tax-paying, freedom-loving citizenry.

We love our world; we want our children and grandchildren to grow up with jobs and to be able to enjoy looking at landscapes which haven’t been destroyed by wind turbines; we understand that the richer an economy grows the more environmentally conscious it can afford to be. We believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Your side, Geoffrey, does not.

Related posts:

  1. Green jobs? Wot green jobs? (pt 242)
  2. The real cost of ‘global warming’
  3. Climategate: Green Agony Uncle ‘Dear James’ answers your Copenhagen questions
  4. ‘Green jobs’ and feed-in tariffs: rent-seeking parasites get their just desserts
Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Is Rubbish – Says Yet Another Expert

Bishop Hill has unearthed a jaw-dropping critique of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. His post’s so delightful there’s no need for embellishment. Here it is in full: (Hat tip: R. Campbell/P.Keane)

While perusing some of the review comments to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, I came across the contributions of Andrew Lacis, a colleague of James Hansen’s at GISS. Lacis’s is not a name I’ve come across before but some of what he has to say about Chapter 9 of the IPCC’s report is simply breathtaking.

Chapter 9 is possibly the most important one in the whole IPCC report – it’s the one where they decide that global warming is manmade. This is the one where the headlines are made.

Remember, this guy is mainstream, not a sceptic, and you may need to remind yourself of that fact several times as you read through his comment on the executive summary of the chapter:

There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.

I’m speechless. The chapter authors, however weren’t. This was their reply (all of it):

Rejected. [Executive Summary] summarizes Ch 9, which is based on the peer reviewed literature.

Simply astonishing. This is a consensus?

Related posts:

  1. Pope Catholic; night follows day; IPCC found telling pack of lies about sea level rises
  2. Climategate: sack ‘no longer credible’ Michael Mann from IPCC urges climatologist
  3. More integrity from the robust, peer-reviewed IPCC. Not.
  4. Greenpeace and the IPCC: time, surely, for a Climate Masada?


Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Great News: The People Responsible for Amazongate, Glaciergate, and Africagate Trousered £3 Million of Your Tax Money

Great news: the people responsible for Amazongate, Glaciergate, and Africagate trousered £3 million of your tax money

Our old friend Jo Abbess BSc is back. And she’s got some searching, pertinent questions which could put paid to my AGW-denying antics once and for all!

Dear James,

I am researching a short article on the possible relationships between financial investments and politics in the Media.

It occurs to me that not only do journalists follow the whims and wiles of their editors, who follow the foibles and fetishes of those who own their media vehicle, and those who advertise in their media; but that journalists may have personal investments, in say, pension funds, estates or businesses that may affect their public pronouncements.

Would you, James Delingpole, be prepared to go on the record about where you keep your money ?

Would you be willing to say publicly whose pension fund(s) you are relying on, and which kind of investments you are prepared to accept in making returns on that capital ?

Is your money ethically invested ? Do you take into account the risks and opportunities of fluctuating conditions when you decide your investments ? Do you follow future projections when making your financial decisions ?

Would you be willing to declare your interests in business and your professional associations ?

Would you be ready to admit which investments you have made, in order that I may ascertain whether this might influence your attitudes and opinions ?

You have the privilege of a very wide readership, and thus an influential platform from which to lead opinion, and so I feel it is important to discover whether your professed political positioning may relate to how you use your money.

Can you, hand on honest heart, declare that your writing is independent of your money, and that your politics is free from the influence of your investments ?

Inquisitively yours,

Now the only reasons I’m rising to Jo’s bait are a) because I know it will give you all so much pleasure and b) because of what it says about the delusions of the Warmist lobby. They really do seem to imagine, bless, that the only reason anyone could possibly have for being sceptical about AGW is if they were being bribed by sinister business concerns (Big Oil, etc) or had some similar  vested interests.

The Independent On Sunday had another feeble attempt at resurrecting this myth at the weekend. But the sad truth (sad, that is, for those of us who really wouldn’t mind being funded by Exxon and wouldn’t feel compromised one bit) is that all the big money has long since migrated to the other side. For Warmists, there are fortunes to be made in lavish grant funding, carbon trading, government subsidised green non-jobs, and so on. For us sceptics there’s little more than the satisfaction of having right and truth on our side.

As Richard North points out, the amount Exxon spent over 10 years funding sceptics is as nothing to the quantities of public money which has been splurged on funding climate change alarmism:

Over ten years, the company paid a grand total of $23 million to sceptics (by no means the larger part of which was devoted to climate change) less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.

Against that, over the last 20 years, by the end of fiscal year 2009, the US government had poured in $32 billion for climate research. In 1989, the first specific US climate-related agency was created with an annual budget of $134 million. Today in various forms the funding has leapt to over $7,000 million per annum, around 50 fold higher.

That, of course, is only the US picture – and government funding. To that, one must add the hundreds of millions, if not billions, poured in by the charitable foundations, and the massive funding from industry – much of which ends up in the pockets of advocacy groups such as the WWF.

Then, albeit on a smaller scale, we have other nations around the world adding to the funds. In the UK we have seen that the Met Office has been given £243 million of taxpayers’ money on “climate research”, and that represents just the tip of the iceberg.

Today, the good Dr North has yet another shocking story about taxpayers’ money being squandered on global warming drivel. Turns out that man in charge of discredited Working Group II section (yep: the one which responsible for Glaciergate, Amazongate and Africagate) of the risibly flawed Fourth IPCC assessment report was paid over one third of a million quid for supervising this piece of tosh. His name is Professor Martin Parry.

Dr North reports:

Through his own personal consultancy, Martin Parry Associates, he was paid £330,187 by Defra, for the part-time post of: “Acting as Co-chair of Working group II at meetings of IPCC WG II and associated groups.”

Additionally, his consultancy was paid £10,690, again by Defra to “assess the global impact of climate change on world food supply and global food security” – the very issue in which Parry is supposedly expert.

That was, presumably, separate from the contract in the financial year 2002/2003 for a study on “Global Impacts of Climate Change on Food Security”. For that, Parry Associates were paid £64,020. That was the year, incidentally, that the Global Atmosphere Division of Defra supported 35 research contracts on climate change, in 21 different establishments, at a total of £12 million.

These sums, however, are only a small part of the total which went into preparing the WGII report. Defra also paid £1,436,162 to “provide the scientific and administrative Technical Support Unit (TSU) for Working Group II (WGII) on Impacts and Adaptation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and to provide support for the chair of WGII, Professor Martin Parry and the preparation of the IPCC AR4 Synthesis report,” paid via the UK Met Office.

An entirely separate sum of £1,144,738 was awarded to Working Group II Technical Support Unit under the amorphous title “An international commitment to provide technical support on climate change,” also paid to the Met Office.

This means that the scientists and experts who “volunteered their time” on WGII were paid to the tune of nearly £3 million (£2,921,777) by British taxpayers alone – which does not of course include the sums paid by other nations and the production costs, or the payments by the IPCC directly.

Let me run that one by you again, just in case the full horror didn’t sink in properly. YOU paid £3,000,000 of your hard-earned dosh in order to fund a farrago of nonsense concocted in order to justify still more of your money being spent in the future to deal with a crisis which only exists in the imaginations of corrupt scientists, EU apparatchiks, One-World-governmenters, carbon-traders, third world kleptocrats and hysterical eco-loons.

Just for your amusement, here’s Professor Parry two years ago, boasting on the BBC website about the, er, robust integrity of the IPCC review process.

Several thousand scientists are asked to review the authors’ drafts, at two different stages; and there are also two stages of review by governments.

The purpose of the review is to ensure that the assessments are a fair reflection of the views of the whole scientific community, not just of the authors themselves. Each chapter has two review editors to ensure that reviews are considered and responded to appropriately. The assessments are therefore stuffed with references regarding one tendency suggested by some sets of data, and other tendencies suggested by others.
It is a summary of what we know and – just as importantly – what we do not know.

Earlier he claims:

This is why they err, if anything, on the side of conservatism and have been criticised for not exploring the outer edges of knowledge.

And if you want to make yourself even more depressed have a guess where he is now.

Related posts:

  1. After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate
  2. Government’s £6 million ‘Bedtime Story’ climate change ad: most pernicious waste of taxpayers’ money ever?
  3. Good news! Sea levels aren’t rising dangerously
  4. Why money-printing is like ‘global warming’


Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Cameron and his suicidal eco-rats clamber aboard sinking ship | James Delingpole

February 4, 2010

I thought the last straw was when the Conservatives decided at the weekend to kiss goodbye to fiscal responsibility. But no. Their determination to scrap every last vestige of Tory ideology really does know no bounds: (hat tip: the Unbrainwashed)

LONDON -(Dow Jones)- The U.K. opposition Conservative party will set out plans Tuesday to consolidate the government’s various plans to support climate- friendly technologies into a single Green Investment Bank if they emerge victorious in an election due by June 3.

In a speech to be delivered Tuesday morning, the Conservative’s treasury chief, George Osborne, is set to announce a working group to draw up plans for a Green Investment Bank, with Nicholas Stern–a top climate change adviser to the current Labour government in recent years–taking on a role as adviser to the group, according to Osborne’s office. Bob Wigley, chairman of international telephone directories company Yell Group PLC, will be among those serving on the working group.

The aim is for the Green Investment Bank to provide a mix of government and private-sector cash to invest in promising new technologies, Osborne will say.

My colleague Douglas Murray has done a splendid number on the Blairesque vacuousness of Osborne’s speech. I’d like to concentrate on its economic illiteracy.

Is David Cameron’s inner circle really so out of touch that not one of them is aware how quickly the AGW scam is unravelling – with even the Guardian and Geoffrey Lean nuancing their ideological positions?

When Osborne talks about the “green jobs” his brave new economic model is going to generate, is he really not aware of the pitiful example of Spain where for every “green job” created through government spending 2.2 jobs have been LOST in the real economy?

And before approaching Lord Stern to head this new economic suicide unit (he has since turned them down, apparently) could they really not have first tried someone with a bit more commonsense, bottom and scientific credibility? Ronald McDonald, maybe? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? John Terry?

Well Dave Cameron, George Osborne and their claque of liberal-left eco-loons might not be able to see it. But it seems that pretty much everyone else can.

Here’s Richard North:

“absolutely unbelievable … just as the whole global warming scam is falling apart, the Tories re-affirm their commitment to it. You could not have better evidence that the hierarchy is completely out of touch with events.”

Here’s Andrew Stuttaford at NRO’s The Corner:

Way to lose, Mr Cameron.

Here are some of the reader comments on this morning’s Telegraph report.

Please tell me this is a JOKE !

The day Cameron finally lost the election.

God how I hate these Conservatives.

I have been thinking to vote UKIP. Now I’m thinking to vote for Labour directly. Better that atrocities like this are committed in their name.

Perhaps some of you might care to add some thoughts of your own?

Related posts:

  1. Cameron and Osborne are giving public schoolboys a bad name
  2. I hate to say this but Cameron’s speech has just won him the election
  3. Boris Johnson for Prime Minister
  4. Cameron’s first stupid mistake


Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

At last: expert Sir David King expertly reveals true identity of Climategate ‘hackers’ | James Delingpole

February 2nd, 2010

Sir David King, the totally sane, not remotely hysterical, and non-aluminium-foil-hat-wearing  former advisor to much-loved and respected former Prime Minister Tony Blair, has spoken out on the Climategate emails.

Apparently, he has told the Independent, they weren’t leaked (as pretty much every other person who has been following the story now thinks). They were hacked. Probably by US “anti-climate-change lobbyists” or, possibly, by evil foreign intelligence services.

Sir David said, however, that it was not possible to dismiss the possibility of Russia’s involvement. “If it was a job done on behalf of a government, then I suppose there is the possibility that it could be the Russian intelligence agency,” he said.

Sir David – who, like Osama Bin Laden, believes strongly in man-made global warming – has had a bit of a problem with the Russkies ever since they made him look ridiculous at an international climate seminar in Moscow in July 2004 chaired by Putin’s chief economic adviser Alexander Illarionov.

According to Christopher Booker’s The Real Global Warming Disaster, Sir David was horrified to find so many sceptical scientists at the conference and tried, unsuccessfully to have them censored. The final straw came during a speech by Professor Paul Reiter, one of the first IPCC contributors to point up the flaws in the IPCC process: the 2001 report had utterly misrepresented his expert views on insect-borne diseases in order to make it seem as if the incidence of malaria would increase with “global warming.”

As Booker recounts:

“When King himself then put forward the now familiar claim that global warming was responsible for the melting of the ice on summit of Kilimanjaro, Reiter challenged him by referring to various studies showing that the melting had been taking place since the 1880s. It was due not to global warming, these had concluded, but to deforestation causing a sharp drop in local precipitation. Apparently unable to answer Reiter’s point, King broke off in mid-sentence and led his delegation out of the room.”

Illarianov was appalled by the behaviour of Sir David and his delegation, he wrote afterwards:

“It is not for us to give an assessment to what happened but in our opinion the reputation of British science, the reputation of the British government and the reputation of the title “Sir” has sustained heavy damage.”

I’m touched that the Independent continues to do the charitable work of making Sir David feel better about himself by still taking him seriously. But I’m not sure I can promise to carry on this tradition when I take over as Environment Editor.

Problem is, I’m with Illarionov. I believe, as he does, that the eco-fascist ideology and warped science underpinning the AGW scam are like something out of Stalin’s Soviet Union.

As Illarionov wrote:

That ideological base can be juxtaposed and compared with man-hating totalitarian ideology with which we had the bad fortune to deal during the twentieth century, such as National Socialism, Marxism, Eugenics, Lysenkovism and so on. All methods of distorting information existing in the world have been committed to prove the alleged validity of these theories. Misinformation, falsification, fabrication, mythology, propaganda.

One Response to “At last: expert Sir David King expertly reveals true identity of Climategate ‘hackers’”

  1. Toxic says:February 2, 2010 at 3:26 pmA “hacker” opens up public information to the public which is their right that had been denied them so far.So two wrongs do make a right, who knew.

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

‘AGW Is Real!’ Insists Al Gore’s New Soul Mate Osama Bin Laden

Just when you thought the Warmists had lost the argument completely, an unlikely new champion has ridden to their cause. (Hat tip: Rob Stevely)

DUBAI (AFP) – Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden lectured the US and other industrial nations on climate change, and urged a dollar boycott in response to American “slavery,” in a fresh verbal assault broadcast Friday.

In the message aired on Al-Jazeera television, possibly timed to coincide with the World Economic Forum in Davos, bin Laden said “all industrial nations, mainly the big ones, are responsible for the crisis of global warming.”

“Discussing climate change is not an intellectual luxury, but a reality,” he said in the audio recording whose authenticity could not be immediately verified.

“This is a message to the whole world about those who are causing climate change, whether deliberately or not, and what we should do about that.”

Some commentators are suggesting that this is a just cynical, Steve-Hilton-style attempt to “decontaminate the brand” after over a decade’s poor press for Al Qaeda. By repositioning himself as Mother Gaia’s Caring Sharing Friend Bin Laden may yet win the hearts of a broad new constituency ranging from Al Gore and NASA’s Dr James Hansen to soap-dodging crusty climate activists and carbon-trading oligarchs all the way to fragrant Yummy Mummies from Notting Hill who are BFs with Samantha and Dave Cameron, only eat organic, and do most of their shopping at I Saw You Coming.

Others argue that this is a naked bid for the IPCC chairman’s position shortly to be vacated by his near-doppelganger Dr Rajendra Pachauri.

Me, I’m looking to the furious denunciation of this “utter non-story” by Guardian environment columnist George Monbiot insisting that this is in reality yet another attempt by evil-climate-change-denier James Delingpole to make the AGW lobby look like a bunch of psychotic, basket-cases.

UPDATE: genius comment from one of the posters at Watts Up With That: “Global Warming just officially jumped the shark.”

One Response to “‘AGW is real!’ insists Al Gore’s new soul mate Osama Bin Laden”

  1. Drew NY says:February 1, 2010 at 3:27 amSo global warming is yet another “recruiting tool” for al-Qaeda. Oh we have so far to go before we stop “making more terrorists”!

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Climategate: Is the British government conspiring not to prosecute? | James Delingpole

January 31, 2010

Ed Miliband, the weird blobby egg creature with dark hair on top currently doing untold damage as Britain’s Energy and Climate Secretary, has declared war on Climate Sceptics.

According to the Observer:

The danger of climate scepticism was that it would undermine public support for unpopular decisions needed to curb carbon emissions, including the likelihood of higher energy bills for households, and issues such as the visual impact of wind turbines, said Miliband.

If the UK did not invest in renewable, clean energy, it would lose jobs and investment to other countries, have less energy security because of the dependence on oil and gas imports and contribute to damaging temperature rises for future generations. “There are a whole variety of people who are sceptical, but who they are is less important than what they are saying, and what they are saying is profoundly dangerous,” he said. “Every­thing we know about life is that we should obey the precautionary principle; to take what the sceptics say seriously would be a profound risk.”

Could the New Labour government’s zeal to impose this eco-fascist vision on Britain at any cost have anything to do with the curious case of the Information Commissioner who barked but didn’t bite?

Christopher Booker points up the mystery in his latest column:

There is something very odd indeed about the statement by the Information Commission on its investigation into “Climategate”, the leak of emails from East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. Gordon Smith, the deputy commissioner, confirms that the university’s refusal to answer legitimate inquiries made in 2007 and 2008 was an offence under S.77 of the Information Act. But he goes on to claim that the Commission is powerless to bring charges, thanks to a loophole in the law – “because the legislation requires action within six months of the offence taking place”.

Careful examination of the Act, however, shows that it says nothing whatever about a time limit. The Commission appears to be trying to confuse this with a provision of the Magistrates Act, that charges for an offence cannot be brought more than six months after it has been drawn to the authorities’ attention – not after it was committed. In this case, the Commission only became aware of the offence two months ago when the emails were leaked – showing that the small group of British and American scientists at the top of the IPCC were discussing with each other and with the university ways to break the law, not least by destroying evidence, an offence in itself.

The Commission is thus impaled on a hook of its own devising. By admitting that serious offences were committed, it is now legally obliged to bring charges. And if these were brought under the 1977 Criminal Law Act, alleging that the offences amounted to a conspiracy to defy the law, there is no time limit anyway.

The real mystery therefore is how the Commission came to misread the very Act which brought it into being. Undoubtedly a successful prosecution involving such world-ranking scientists would be extraordinarily embarrassing, not just to the Government but to the entire global warming cause. So what has persuaded the Commission not to do its duty?

I think we should be told. (As Private Eye would be asking were it remotely interested in investigating the AGW scandal which unfortunately, for some bizarre reason known only to its editor, it isn’t).

UPDATE: has been looking into this scandal and is similarly disgusted. It believes there may have been “willful nonfeasance or malfeasance by government officials.”

Related posts:

  1. The case against Dr Phil ‘Climategate’ Jones
  2. How the British Establishment is conspiring to prop up the AGW myth
  3. Climategate investigated by – WTF? – the ‘National Domestic Extremism’ team
  4. WTF? Prince of Wales tells disgraced CRU: ‘Well done, all of you!’


Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Glorious send-up | James Delingpole

January 31, 2010

Bellamy’s People (BBC2, Thursday) began life in 2006 as a spoof Radio Four phone-in show called Down the Line presented by ‘award-winning’ Gary Bellamy (Rhys Thomas) with the Fast Show’s Charlie Higson and Paul Whitehouse playing the various callers.

Now it has moved to TV and its satirical target — not before time — are all those programmes where celebrities drive round the country meeting people and saying, ‘Isn’t Britain brilliant?’ So, in his classic Triumph Stag with a Union flag painted on the bonnet, Bellamy gets to meet his giggling northern fan club, cheeky-chappy plasterer, a Pakistani community leader (‘What does a community leader do, exactly?’ Bellamy asks, without getting a very satisfactory answer), and a cheerful elderly gentleman who thinks it’s terribly important to keep up with modern trends, by using the internet and so forth, and not to dwell on how much better the past was because in many cases it wasn’t.

Though it does have its broad-comedy moments — like the two elderly Mitford-style sisters who have divided their stately home exactly down the middle, one side dedicated to Stalin and the other to Hitler — it’s mostly much more subtle observational stuff.

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. In the name of JUSTICE we MUST send Mark Thatcher to Equatorial Guinea
  2. Remember when ecologists used to give a damn about birds and trees and stuff?
  3. Who is Lieutenant Dick Coward of Coward at the Bridge?
  4. What BBC Radio 2’s Chris Evans thinks about global warming


Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Why Pachauri MUST stay as chairman of the IPCC

Troll impersonator in chief.

Dr Rajendra K Pachauri



Weddings, Bar Mitzvahs, Children’s Parties.

Contact: RK Pachauri, No. 1 Carbon Heights, Millionaires’ Row, Delhi, India

Now I know that one or two of you might disagree, but the above business card – which I designed myself, though if he wants a professional job doing I can highly recommend my brother  – is most definitely not something I want to see being handed round by the Yummy Mummies in Dulwich or Notting Hill or the posher parts of Delhi. Not now. Not ever.

I don’t want Pachauri to give up his day job. He is performing a far, far, FAR greater service to the world where he is, chairing the IPCC, than he ever could scaring little kiddies at parties or going back to his old job as a railway engineer.

Here is one reason why he should stay. And here’s another. Yes that’s right. When Warmists as committed as environment editors Geoffrey Lean and Charles Clover are calling for Pachauri’s resignation with lines like this –

If we are to have the best possible predictions about climate change, urgent decisions need to be taken. The agreeable but gaffe-prone Pachauri should accept it would be wise to walk now, so some heavy-hitters can step in and prevent a disastrous slide in the IPCC’s credibility. The sooner, the better.

– then you just KNOW it must be the right thing for Pachauri to stay in post.

Nor I am being wholly flippant, here. As we all well know, Pachauri’s credibility is toast -not only in Britain and the US, but even among his previously enormous fan club in India. According to Richard North – the crusading hero who, with Christopher Booker has done more than anyone to expose Pachauri’s multifarious business interests – Pachauri is so out of favour with the Indian government following his “voodoo science” calumny that he is now most unlikely to be given the prestige position as head of India’s national solar mission.

But this, of course, is now the Warmists are clamouring for Pachauri to go. They are calculating that if they throw him off the back to feed the ravening wolves, the Slippery Sledge of the Great Global Warming Scam will be able to pull away into the distance and elude its howling pursuers. (That’s makes me one of the wolves, I suppose. But I’m OK with that. Wolves are cool). Clearly, we mustn’t let them get away with this.

These have been a truly wonderful couple of months for the cause of climate honesty and realism. Over at Climate Depot my friend Marc Morano is boasting:

“We are witnessing the Berlin Wall moment in the global warming regime. The statist cabal that has ruled the climate debate since the UN IPCC’s inception in 1988 is now tumbling down before our eyes. The so-called ‘gold-standard’ of scientific review turns out to be counterfeit.”

“Global warming is now undergoing the fastest ever collapse of any modern political movement.”

Morano is right. It really is quite astonishing how quickly and suddenly the AGW edifice – the “Billion dollar hoax” as Andrew Bolt calls it – is collapsing. We’re seeing previously committed Warmist scientists starting to bail. We’ve seen it confirmed that the Climatic Research Unit at University of East Anglia really did break Freedom of Information laws. We see in the latest Pew ratings that the US public is less convinced than ever before that addressing global warming is a priority. Even China is keeping an “open-mind” on the causes of climate change.

But let’s not underestimate the scale of the struggle we climate rationalists have ahead of us. AGW is the biggest and most far-reaching scientific scandal in history, whose tentacles spread into almost every aspect of our lives, from how we dispose of our trash and how we light up our homes, to how we travel and how we are taxed and regulated. Big business stands to make a fortune out of the scam; for governments it’s a way of extending their control and increasing power; for eco-fascists it’s a way of destroying industrial civilisation.

This conspiracy is much, MUCH bigger than one unfortunate bearded troll-impersonator.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: Monckton and North spit-roast Pachauri
  2. Pachauri: it’s all a terrible conspiracy
  3. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is rubbish – says yet another expert
  4. Syed Hasnain, RK Pachauri and the mystery of the non-disappearing glaciers

Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations