A drop of claret never hurt my little darlings | James Delingpole

December 21st, 2009

The latest health fatwa is aimed at the wrong target, as usual, says James Delingpole.

Ian Jones red wine A drop of claret never hurt my little darlings

This weekend I shall sit down to Sunday lunch with my children, splash their glasses with a drop of claret, and drink a hearty toast to the departure of the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson. My children are nine and 11, so I know Sir Liam would disapprove – indeed, he told us as much in his latest fatwa. “Children under 15 should not drink alcohol at all,” declared his new health guidelines on children’s drinking. “Those between 15 and 17 should be supervised by their parents if they are drinking and should limit alcohol intake to one day a week.”

The cheek of it! Was there ever a hectoring, busybodying government directive better guaranteed to have the opposite effect of the one intended? That was certainly its impact upon me. Normally at Sunday lunch, my children only have half a finger’s worth of wine in their glasses – just to give the water a bit of colour, and make them feel grown-up. But after Sir Liam’s nannying strictures, I’m tempted to treat the little darlings to a magnum each.

What’s even more galling about strictures like this is that they’re directed at the wrong target. We all know where Britain’s most serious child-drinking problems lie: on sink estates and among broken homes where rudderless urchins are routinely downing alcopops and cans of super-strong lager before they’ve reached their teens.

But even if these problem kids or their absent parents were capable of reading a newspaper, they wouldn’t give a stuff. So instead, flailing desperately for attention, Sir Liam has to have his peevish dig at the very people who deserve his attention least: the soft-target middle classes.

Now you might think, and I might think, that it is quite a good idea to borrow the French habit of gently introducing children to the convivial pleasures of the grape. But not according to sourpuss Sir Liam. This, he declares, is a “middle-class obsession”. There is, he insists, no evidence to suggest that “weaning” children on to alcohol makes them sensible drinkers: “Alcohol has a ruinous effect on the foundations of adult life. Too often childhood is robbed of its clear-eyed innocence and replaced with the befuddled futility that comes with the consumption of dirt-cheap alcohol.”

Scary, fire-and-brimstone stuff. But perhaps his argument might have carried a little more weight if Sir Liam didn’t have such a long history of crying wolf. This, remember, is the same doom-monger (“Private Frazer”, as The Spectator‘s Rod Liddle has nicknamed him) who cheerfully assured us that between 50,000 and 750,000 of us were likely to die of avian flu (actual death toll: zero) and that perhaps 60,000 of us would be finished off by swine flu (deaths in England so far: 178). Earlier this year, he put satirists out of business by inventing the concept of “passive drinking”. This, he explained, was a bit like “passive smoking” – only with booze instead of fags – and resulted in precisely 3,393 deaths every year.

If this was about just one scaremongering killjoy we could all rest easy: he is, after all, retiring next year to enjoy a £2.2 million pension pot (funded, presumably, by us pie-eyed middle-class lushes). But unfortunately, Sir Liam is all too representative of an administration whose primary goal seems to be to micromanage every last detail of our private lives, from how and where and what we smoke, eat and drink to the kind of jokes we are permitted to tell.

Since coming into power 12 years ago, the New Labour Government has created more than 3,000 new offences, of which 1,472 can carry a prison sentence (including smoking in a public place, disobeying a health and safety inspector or selling a grey squirrel – yes, really).

One might have hoped that this plethora of rules and regulations would have ushered in a golden era of low-crime tranquillity. Instead, we feel less safe and more oppressed.

Why? One reason, surely, is the Government’s obsession with finding new ways of persecuting the law-abiding majority over social problems which, all too often, were made in Whitehall. The failure of our education system is a good example: rather than remedying it with rigour and discipline, Ed Balls’s brilliant proposed solution is to imprison parents who lie about their address when applying for school places.

Similarly absurd is the Government’s order that all children must be taught why it is wrong for husbands to beat up their wives. The only reason this has become an issue is because of Labour’s pussyfootingly lax stance on wife-beating (and worse) among certain minorities. Rather than confront the problem head on, it has to waste everyone’s time and money by presenting it as a pan-cultural phenomenon.

It all reminds me of those days back in school when one child had done something wrong and, by way of punishment, the whole class was forced into detention. My response to this kind of injustice is the same now as it was when I was a boy. I want to rebel. I want to put bullying “Sir” in his place. That’s why, this Sunday, my children and I will be raising a glass to the final days of Sir Liam.

(to read more, click here)


  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • email

One Response to “A drop of claret never hurt my little darlings”

  1. Joel Stucki, MN says:December 24, 2009 at 11:13 pmMerry Christmas James!
    Good tidings to you and yours…

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)


Copenhagen: The Sweet Sound of Exploding Watermelons

I take it all back. Copenhagen was worth it, after all – if only for the sphincter-bursting rage its supposed failure has caused among our libtard watermelon chums. (That’s watermelon, as in: green on the outside, red on the inside).

As Damian reports, on Twitter they’re all planning to cleanse Mother Gaia of their polluting presence Jonestown-style.

The Great Moonbat is sounding more unhinged than ever:

Goodbye Africa, goodbye south Asia; goodbye glaciers and sea ice, coral reefs and rainforest. It was nice knowing you. Not that we really cared. The governments which moved so swiftly to save the banks have bickered and filibustered while the biosphere burns.

And Polly Toynbee is blaming the whole fiasco on false consciousness.

Most leaders in Copenhagen were out ahead of their people. Most understand the crisis better than those they represent, promising more sacrifice than their citizens are yet ready to accept – while no doubt praying for some miraculous technological escape.

Sometimes we’re inclined to dismiss Polly as a loveable comedy figure, what with her lovely house in Tuscany contrasting so amusingly with her prolier-than-thou politics, and the never ending japesomeness of her deft, lighter-than-air prose.

But you know what? When she reveals her true colours, as she does here, I think she’s really, really scary. Her whole article teeters on the brink of demanding an eco-fascist world government to save us all from ourselves.

She yearns, like a woman wailing for her demon lover, for the righteous apocalypse which will teach us the error of our ways:

What would it take? A tidal wave destroying New York maybe – New Orleans was the wrong people – with London, St Petersburg and Shanghai wiped out all at once.

What she really wants, though, as you see from the plaintive, yearning tone of this sentence is global dictatorship:

As things stand, politics has not enough heft nor authority.

One day, Polly dear. One day.

UPDATE: Christ on a bike! You thought Moonbat and Pol-Pot were barking. Wait till you read Johann Hari’s tearful summation in the Independent.

Throughout the negotiations here, the world’s low-lying island states have clung to the real ideas as a life raft, because they are the only way to save their countries from a swelling sea. It has been extraordinary to watch their representatives – quiet, sombre people with sad eyes – as they were forced to plead for their own existence. They tried persuasion and hard science and lyrical hymns of love for their lands, and all were ignored.

Does he mean the man in the bow-tie from Tuvalu who wept openly for his island’s fate but on closer cross-examination – as Andrew Bolt reported – turned out to live nowhere near Tuvalu (whose sea-levels, in any case, have not risen in several decades)?

Related posts:

  1. Exploding Watermelons: ‘Oh no, not another ruddy energy revolution?’
  2. Climategate: Green Agony Uncle ‘Dear James’ answers your Copenhagen questions
  3. Climategate: we won the battle, but at Copenhagen we just lost the war
  4. Copenhagen: an utter waste of everyone’s time, energy and money with a carbon footprint the size of Texas


Climategate: Green Agony Uncle ‘Dear James’ answers your Copenhagen questions

Dear James,

On the news I have seen footage of rank crusties in foetid polar bear costumes being sprayed with tear gas by Danish police. Isn’t this bad for the environment?

Rob Stevely, Fla.

Dear James answers: No, it’s good news, Rob! Though tear gas can indeed contribute to the greenhouse effect, this is offset by the dramatic CO2 reduction when a man in a polar bear costume stops breathing. Also you should quit worrying about the greenhouse effect: it’s what makes our planet habitable.

Dear James,

In my newspapers it says that Southern Britain is expecting 8 inches of snow this weekend and that there is an increased likelihood of a white Christmas. Does this mean that all the Environment Correspondents who write stories every day about Man-Made Global Warming are a bunch of hysterical berks whose claims I can trust about as far as I could throw a polar bear?

Mattie Storin, Westminister

Dear James responds: You might think Mattie but I couldn’t possibly say. However, as no less a sage than Homer Simpson recently pointed out, “global warming” (or “Climate change” as it is more usefully known these days) is responsible for all weather, hot or cold, rainy or sunny, windy or calm. So an Environment Correspondent only has to look out of the window to find further compelling evidence of “Climate change”. So yes, we are all definitely to blame for this weekend’s snow.

Dear James,

In today’s paper I read that our dear leader Gordon Brown and that nice Ed Miliband are backing a deal which could see Britain leading the world in carbon emissions reductions, halving our greenhouse gas output by 2020. Should I feel happy about this?

Barry Leatherman, Kent

Dear James writes: Do you remember that time, Barry, when your Mum told you that the reason you couldn’t find your much-loved medieval play castle (with knights and dragon) anywhere in your toy cupboard was because you’d grown out of it and she’d given it to the “poor children” who needed it more than you? Well, think of Miliband/Brown as your mum, imagine that the play castle represented about 20 per cent of your earned income, and think of those poor children as an unholy trinity made up of third world kleptocrat dictators, carbon trading billionaires and faceless, hectoring EU apparatchiks. How happy does that make you feel Barry? Barry? BARRY? Why are you smiling like Jack Nicholson in The Shining? You’re surely not taking that axe where I think you’re taking it? Don’t do it, Barry. You’ll never get past the Downing Street security….

Climategate: James Randi forced to recant by Warmist thugs for showing wrong kind of scepticism

You all know James Randi.

He’s the world famous Psychic Investigator whose rigorous scepticism has been the undoing of many a fraudulent spoonbender, dodgy faith-healer and ouija-board-wobbling spiritualist.

Randi is the expert magician and escape artist who is offering $1 million in his Paranormal Challenge “to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.” No one has yet come close to claiming it because that’s the kind of fellow Randi is: an utterly fearless seeker-after-truth; the kind of guy who, if you cut him in half – the result of a stage trick going wrong maybe – you’d find the word “Sceptic” right through his middle. Except, of course, being as he’s American it would be spelt Skeptic.

Sadly, it seems that there’s one form of scepticism that not even the great James Randi can be permitted. And that is scepticism towards the existence of Al Gore’s mythical creation ManBearPig, aka Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Randi discovered this to his cost when he tried posting on the subject at his James Randi Educational Foundation website. And it’s not as though he was outing himself as a full-on “denier”. All Randi was trying to do was express a note of caution about the notion of “consensus” within the world of science.

He wrote:

An unfortunate fact is that scientists are just as human as the rest of us, in that they are strongly influenced by the need to be accepted, to kowtow to peer opinion, and to “belong” in the scientific community. Why do I find this “unfortunate”? Because the media and the hoi polloi increasingly depend upon and accept ideas or principles that are proclaimed loudly enough by academics who are often more driven by “politically correct” survival principles than by those given them by Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and Bohr. (Granted, it’s reassuring that they’re listening to academics at all — but how to tell the competent from the incompetent?) Religious and other emotional convictions drive scientists, despite what they may think their motivations are.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — a group of thousands of scientists in 194 countries around the world, and recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize — has issued several comprehensive reports in which they indicate that they have become convinced that “global warming” is and will be seriously destructive to life as we know it, and that Man is the chief cause of it. They say that there is a consensus of scientists who believe we are headed for disaster if we do not stop burning fossil fuels, but a growing number of prominent scientists disagree. Meanwhile, some 32,000 scientists, 9,000 of them PhDs, have signed The Petition Project statement proclaiming that Man is not necessarily the chief cause of warming, that the phenomenon may not exist at all, and that, in any case, warming would not be disastrous.

Happily, science does not depend on consensus. Conclusions are either reached or not, but only after an analysis of evidence as found in nature. It’s often been said that once a conclusion is reached, proper scientists set about trying to prove themselves wrong. Failing in that, they arrive at a statement that appears — based on all available data — to describe a limited aspect about how the world appears to work. And not all scientists are willing to follow this path. My most excellent friend Martin Gardner once asked a parapsychologist just what sort of evidence would convince him he had erred in coming to a certain conclusion. The parascientist replied that he could not imagine any such situation, thus — in my opinion — removing him from the ranks of the scientific discipline rather decidedly.

History supplies us with many examples where scientists were just plain wrong about certain matters, but ultimately discovered the truth through continued research. Science recovers from such situations quite well, though sometimes with minor wounds.

Just the kind of rational, questioning, thoughtful approach we’ve come to expect from James Randi.

But the eco-fascists among his readership weren’t having it one bit. Here are some of the comments which swiftly appeared below his heretical post:

“It would be hard to imagine Randi siding with one of the many similar petition projects against evolution instead of accepting the consensus of biologists.”

“The thing is, Climate Scientists aren’t publicly attacking anyone. Rather, they are under pernicious attack themselves. The East Anglia CRU have had their lives and reputations assaulted by people who were not prepared to spend the few seconds it would take to check the facts.”

“What disturbs me is the phrase, “Warming will not be disastrous”. Tell that to the millions in Pakistan, India, and South America whose river sources will die with the glaciers from which they spring. Tell that to the thousands of parents whose children will die of malaria, dengue fever, and the other tropical scourges whose ranges are increasing as the climate warms.”

“Objections to Randi’s position have been duly noted here and elsewhere, and they are not new — and neither is Randi’s cynicism disguised as skepticism. The logical fallacies are numerous in his post, and easy to identify, should someone wish to play a game of AWG-denial Bingo.”

“I was also saddened by Randi siding with the GW denialists. He seems to have fallen for a number of logical fallacies, and apparently prefers self-deception and ignorance when it comes to this issue. Very, very sad.”

and this one from an especially self-righteous fellow called John Huntingdon:

“I was at my computer today considering where to put my year-end charitable donations. I had solicitations from at least four skeptical
organizations, and was struggling to decide where to put my money. And so, I took a break and checked my Google reader, and saw PZ Myers’
posting on your foray into climate science. After reading your post in full, I removed the JREF from my donation list.”

Actually, when you read through all the comments, you discover that there at least as many in Randi’s favour as there are against him; and also, that much of the nasty stuff is the handiwork of a small group of (not desperately well-informed) eco-zealots, among them a horrid little tic named Arthur.

All the same it was too much for Randi. The poor fellow felt compelled to issue a semi-apology in a post headlined “I Am Not Denying Anything.”

Somehow, my AGW commentary was seriously misunderstood by some. Part of the reason for that is probably due to the fact that I took a much longer, 5,000-word piece, and cut it down to about 1,400 words to better fit Swift’s needs. Along the way, some clarity was lost. For that, I apologize.

Rather bizarrely, Randi ends his light grovel by quoting a journalist named James Hrynshyn (who he?) who, he says, “was kind enough to call our office yesterday to discuss the evidence for and against AGW.” What this Hrynshyn character apparently told him was:

“While we are both amateurs, I think it behooves us to give in to those who have devoted their professional lives to understanding this complex subject. And what they have to say can be boiled down to this: the world is warming and humankind is responsible for at least half of that rise in global average temperatures.”

Randi’s response to this piece of bullying?


To which I can only say:


UPDATE: Just found the site of this James Houyhnhm. Check out the photograph. At one point, he actually has the gall to suggest that Randi’s lapse may be the result of illness: “Could it be that the fact he is currently suffering through chemotherapy for intestinal cancer explain the lapse?”

Then he reports proudly on how he bullied an old man into submission:

I wondered if perhaps Randi, who is very good at finding simple explanations for chicanery masquerading as magic, is just too skeptical of anything that requires a post-graduate degree to understand. I pressed for a reason why those of us who are basically amateurs shouldn’t grant those who have devoted their lives to understanding the subject a little respect and take them at their word when they say we’re responsible for at least half of the observed warming. I am please to report that he replied that, yes, perhaps he has more thinking to do.


Related posts:

  1. Climategate: Green Agony Uncle ‘Dear James’ answers your Copenhagen questions
  2. Climategate reminds us of the liberal-left’s visceral loathing of open debate
  3. Climategate: the whitewash continues
  4. ‘Climate scepticism is the new racism’ says Gore

One Response to “Climategate: James Randi forced to recant by Warmist thugs for showing wrong kind of scepticism”

  1. Reyes says:December 21, 2009 at 3:33 amYour articles are very good, Mr Delingpole.

    On this occasion, I think the Americans are right and the British are “wrong” in their spelling (notwithstanding the borderline-amoral claim that “language is usage”). It’s a violation of the logic of English to write ’sceptic’ if you intend something like ’skeleton’ or ‘basket,’ and not ’sceptre’ or ‘adolescent’. For the letter c when followed by the letter e should be pronounced soft (as it is in French and Spanish and perhaps other languages). Most readers pick up this rule, if implicitly, which is why ’sceptic’ looks so bad.

    The only exceptions I’m aware of are Celt, ceilidh and soccer (which is a neologism based on an abbreviation, “assoc.”).


Copenhagen: An Utter Waste of Everyone’s Time, Energy and Money with a Carbon Footprint the Size of Texas

Breaking news: Barack Obama has thrashed out a Copenhagen deal “not sufficient to combat the threat of climate change” which has left no country “entirely satisfied.”

No surprise there, then. Why did they bother?

Related posts:

  1. Just 6 per cent of top Conservative candidates give a stuff about ‘reducing Britain’s carbon footprint’
  2. Government’s £6 million ‘Bedtime Story’ climate change ad: most pernicious waste of taxpayers’ money ever?
  3. Climategate: we won the battle, but at Copenhagen we just lost the war
  4. Millionaire Chris Huhne finds new ways to waste your money


Climategate: We Won the Battle, But at Copenhagen We Just Lost the War

Copenhagen has been a disaster for the free world and hardly anyone seems to have noticed.

We have been distracted by the sweet schadenfreude as the event was overshadowed by the Climategate scandal at the beginning, and the Russian bombshell at the end.

And by our delight in seeing the many business interests of the IPCC ’s jet-setting chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri cruelly exposed.

And by the told-you-so satisfaction of seeing it proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the “scientific” process informing the IPCC’s increasingly hysterical reports is corrupt, fraudulent and politically motivated.

And by the irony of the snow beginning to fall on a conference whose ostensible purpose was to prevent global warming.

And by the sheer messy incompetence of the whole affair, with its riots, shambolic organisation and brutality whose victims including Lord Monckton.

But if we think the events of the last fortnight marked a triumph for commonsense over hair shirt green lunacy, we are sadly deluding ourselves. Copenhagen was never about winning or losing a scientific argument. And it wasn’t, as even green campaigners have begun belatedly to realise, about “saving” the environment either.

Here is that Obergruppenfuhrer among eco-freaks Bill McKibben at Mother Jones:

This afternoon at Copenhagen a document mysteriously leaked from the UN Secretariat. It was first reported from the Guardian, and by the time it was posted online it oddly had my name scrawled all across the top—I don’t know why, because I didn’t leak it.

My suspicion, though, is because it confirms something I’ve been writing for weeks. The cuts in emissions that countries are proposing here are nowhere near good enough to meet even their remarkably weak target of limiting temperature rise to two degrees Celsius. In fact, says the UN in this leaked report, the  cuts on offer now produce a rise of at least three degrees, and a CO2 concentration of at least 550 ppm, not the 350 scientists say we need, or even the weak 450 that the US supposedly supports.

In other words, this entire conference is an elaborate sham, where the organizers have known all along that they’re heading for a very different world than the one they’re supposedly creating. It’s intellectual dishonesty of a very high order, and with very high consequences. And it’s probably come too late to derail the stage management—tomorrow Barack Obama will piously intone that he’s committed to a two degree temperature target. But he isn’t—and now he can’t even say it with a straight face.

Let’s ignore McKibben’s barmy notion that man has it in his power to control global climate by tinkering with CO2 output, and concentrate on that part of his tearful outburst that does make sense. Copenhagen never really had anything to do with “Climate Change”. Rather it was a trough-fest at which all the world’s greediest pigs gathered to gobble up as much of your money and my money as they possibly could, under the righteous-sounding pretence that they were saving the planet.

This nauseating piggery took two forms. First were the Third World kleptocracies – led by the likes of Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe – using “Global Warming” as an excuse to extort guilt-money from the Western nations.

Second, and much more dangerous, were the First World Corporatists who stand to make trillions of dollars using the Enron economics of carbon trading. Never mind all the talk of President Obama’s trifling $100 billion pledge. This is very small beer compared with the truly eye-watering sums that will be ransacked from our economies and our wallets over the next decades in the name of “carbon emissions reduction.”

Richard North has spotted this, even if virtually nobody else has. The key point, he notes, is the Copenhagen negotiators’ little-publicised decision to save the Kyoto Protocol. This matters because it was at Kyoto that the mechanisms for establishing a global carbon market were established. Carbon trading could not possibly exist without some form of agreement between all the world’s governments on emissions: the market would simply collapse. By keeping Kyoto alive, the sinister troughers of global corporatism have also kept their cash cow alive.

As North says:

This is nothing to do with the headline billions and all the rest. Nope, the deal is that the Kyoto Protocol is saved – which is what all the fuss was really about. That safeguards the carbon market and opens the way for it to expand to the $2-trillion level by the year 2020. Against that, even €100 billion is chump-change – you can buy countries with that sort of money.

Their deal in place, the kleptocrats and the Corporatocracy can go away happy and plan how to spend all their ill-gotten gains, leaving the leaders to grandstand, make their deals, shake hands and strut through their photo-sessions before jetting off in olumes of “carbon” to be greeted as saviours by their underwhelmed peoples.

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: Green Agony Uncle ‘Dear James’ answers your Copenhagen questions
  2. Copenhagen: an utter waste of everyone’s time, energy and money with a carbon footprint the size of Texas
  3. Climategate: the Conservative backlash begins
  4. Climategate: how the Copenhagen Grinches stole Christmas


Climategate: Monckton and North spit-roast Pachauri

A couple of must-reads if you haven’t seen them already.

First, the splendid Christopher Monckton’s thoroughgoing demolition of a speech given at Copenhagen yesterday by the IPCC’s increasingly threadbare chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri. As I suggested the other day, there may be the odd conflict-of-interest issue between Pachauri’s various directorships in the alternative energy industry and his position in charge of a body (the IPCC) with so much power to change global energy policy.

The Viscount Monckton thinks so too:

It is time for Railroad Engineer Pachauri to get back to his signal-box. About the climate, as they say in New York’s Jewish quarter, he knows from nothing.

Together with Australian Senator Fielding, he has written this to Dr Pachauri:

We have looked for your declaration of these interests in the documents of the IPCC, particularly in its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, but we have not found them.

Our conclusion is that you have numerous substantial direct or indirect vested financial and commercial interests profiting from the emissions reduction processes that the documents produced by the IPCC under your chairmanship have triggered.

I would be very surprised if the cricket-loving, jetsetting, troll-impersonator remains the IPCC’s chairman for much longer. Not after these equally devastating assaults by Richard North here and here.

Related posts:

  1. Syed Hasnain, RK Pachauri and the mystery of the non-disappearing glaciers
  2. Pachauri: it’s all a terrible conspiracy
  3. I’d rather have Monckton in a foxhole with me than Monbiot
  4. Climategate: Mad Sunday


Climategate: Peak oil, the CRU and the Oman Connection

Andrew30 tells all

This is a guest post by contributor Andrew30 (whose full name I’ll give you when he reminds me via email). He put it up in comments but it’s so interesting it really deserves a blog all to itself).

Why would a Middle Eastern kingdom be funding a British Climate research business?

Oman has just completed a massive investment in LNG, and developed and installed new CO2 removal technology in their process; this lowers the carbon footprint of their gas. So using their gas to drive electricity generation will be less costly once CO2 is taxed.

They have no problem with this whole thing.

Saudi Arabia, who have oil and not so much gas, are in a different position, they have a problem with this whole thing.

Just an observation; a 4 degree rise in temperature in the Sultanate of Oman or Saudi Arabia would change it from really hot to really hot.

Maybe it is just good business.


Oman LNG L.L.C
Formed: Set up by Royal Decree in February 1994.
Location: Head office: Muscat; Plant: Qalhat near Sur (approx 340 km from Muscat)
Products: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).
Shareholders: Government of Oman 51 %, Royal Dutch/Shell Group 30%, Total Elf Fina 5.54%, KOLNG 5%, Partex 2% Mitsubishi 2.77%, Mitsui 2.77%, ltochu 0.92%.

The Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK was set up in 1971 with funding from Shell and BP as is described in the book: “The history of the University of East Anglia, Norwich; Page 285)” By Michael Sanderson. The CRU was still being funded in 2008 by Shell, BP, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex LTD (the nuclear waste people in the UK)

This is important to know, for two reasons.
Firstly, the key institution providing support for Global Warming theories and the basis for the IPCC findings receives funding from “Big Oil” and the nuclear power industry.

Secondly, the research from the institution which is perceived to be independent publicly funded research, is actually beholden to soft money, CRU is in fact a business.

The funders of the CRU are on the bottom of this page from their website:

So, there a business set up in the early 1970’s, so what?

I thought that this might explain a bit about how we got to where we are. I am not a conspiracy theorist but to me it looks like this may have been a very, very long term plan. Of course it could all just be coincidental, but it does seem to fit the observable information.

A few weeks ago I explained the apparent CRU fraud to a friend of mine, a believer in AGW; he said ‘Why would they do it?’ I indicated the Jones had received 22 million, etc, but he countered, ‘For a fraud this large, going on for this long, there would have to be billions of dollars to be made, not millions’. That made sense.

So I looked into it a bit. First this is no short term thing, it covers two or three decades, involves many countries and government on both sides of the isle, the US alone has had 4 different presidents and the UK a similar number of prime ministers, Canada the same. So is it not political in the partisan sense of the word.

If, and this is a big if, you make the assumption that the objectives were:

1. Provide a smooth replacement of the use of oil in power generation and transportation, so as to avoid a panic over Peak Oil.
2. Get people to buy into Nuclear Power so that base load electrical power generation would not consume the available fossil fuel supply.
3. Get the people to really want to pay for it all.

Note: The IEA put a date on peak oil production THIS WEEK, so if the CO2 scare does not pan out they are already starting to put the ‘Peak Oil’ story into play. It is also the 2020 date, why am I not surprised.


Then the following is not unbelievable.

The newer scrubber technology for coal fired plants was moving along well back then, and in fact today their scrubbers can remove pretty much everything except CO2. However there is really not much money in coal, it is abundant, easy to handle, local in most instance to the base load demand for electricity, and a coal fired power plant is not much more complicated, or expensive, then a good steam engine.

Since there was not enough money in coal it would not be financially rewarding to simply try to promote coal as a replacement for oil.

So they looked at the situation and realized that the difference between the different technologies to replace base load power generation was the amount of CO2 per kilowatt/hour.

At that point CO2 became the target. That happened sometime between 1985 and 1988.

Now, the environmental movement is comprised mostly of followers, you can look up ‘dihydrogen monoxide’ (water), on many occasions at environmental conferences comedians and light news organizations have managed to get lots of environmentalists to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. So apparently they do not do a lot of independent analysis before making a conclusion, they are mostly followers.

So if you need a large number of followers, there is a ready supply, but you need people, a few leaders, to tell the followers what to think. The followers do not need to, or perhaps even want to, know the reason or the facts; they just need something or someone to follow.

Now you gain control of a climate research business, and begin the task of demonizing CO2, you realize that it will take years but that is OK, there are billions of dollars waiting at the end. Slowly over time you manage to get control of the worlds climate data and begin adjusting it, you use what you have been told by the marketing people to present the information needed in as clear and scary manager as is possible. Remember the two biggest motivators are fear and greed, and in this case, because of the number of followers greed will not work. There are simply too many followers to pay them all off.

So there we have it, a campaign of fear, based on non-science emanating from a few leaders that ultimately drive the followers to do something that would just not have been possible after Three Mile Island.

They are marching in the streets of Copenhagen in support of nuclear power. They do not know this of course, but that is what the plan on the table says. Check it out, look at exactly what are the big technologies being pushed at the summit. I will give you a hint, it is not windmills.

They are also marching in Copenhagen against big business, while supporting one of the biggest businesses possible, the World Bank. Is it not strange that the Dutch Text looks to have the World Bank control the trillions being put on the table? So they are marching against exactly what they are supporting, they are simply followers.

Perhaps you can fill in the blanks between the possible objectives I mentioned earlier and where we find ourselves today. Fill in the blanks, connect the dots and follow the money. Look at the funders, how many are involved in delivery, support, financing and maintenance of the movement of liquid energy and the generation of nuclear power.

I do not think this was ever about the environment.

There are lots of other things that may tie into this, like GE buying and now selling a
TV network, they needed then but do not need it now, a bit of a stretch perhaps but GE is a big player in gas and nuclear power generation. Look around, there are others.

That said; I do believe that the world does need to move to nuclear power for base load power generation, and I do believe that the Peak Oil problem is a real threat to stability.

So I agree with the objectives and encourage the outcome, I just do not like them messing with the science and trying, nay succeeding, in conning the masses to agree to it all.

Perhaps there was someone inside the CRU that felt the same way; the means were wrong regardless of the merits of the objectives, so they let slip the package in the hope that someone could figure out what they could not just come out and say publicly.

This thing would not need thousands of scientists to be involved. All that was need was for one or two people in perhaps five or six countries to adjust the raw data. Anyone using the data when making a comparison to CO2 would find the results that had been seeded into the data. The scientists would not be aware that they were being played. They would honestly think that their conclusions were correct. Only none of their predictions would ever be confirmed.

All the papers that used the data, and all the papers that used those papers for support, would therefore be invalid. In the vast majority of the cases I would expect that the authors are without blame, they made no mistake. The mistake was encoded into the base data before they even started.

Only the ones that actually were in control of the raw data and making the ‘adjustments’ needed to know of the exact requirements of the adjustment needed to seed the outcome into the data. When a scientist begins to say things like “the data must be wrong”, or “our monitoring is deficient”, perhaps they might not have been in on the ‘adjustments’ and they are likely frustrated because their model ‘works’ for the past and recent past. Think “We can’t explain the lack of warming”, perhaps the author of that email could not, but perhaps someone else could.

It would only have taken a dozen people in just the right places, and remember it took years to pull this off.

So who might have put these people in just the right place all those years ago, and why?

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: the Fox connection
  2. Wow! UK parliamentary investigation into Climategate may not be a whitewash
  3. ‘Bow down to Peak Oil!’ says BBC’s Cthulu-worshipping Newsnight
  4. If Ben Goldacre thinks I’m a ***** what does that make him?

3 Responses to “Climategate: peak oil, the CRU and the Oman connection”

  1. Myrrh says:December 20, 2009 at 7:36 amI haven’t been able to check this out, but from discussions I’ve had even with scientists there is a complete lack of basic knowledge about CO2, that it’s heavier than air etc., I don’t think this is taught anymore, they actually believe CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere and that it can float out of jars..


    And the wikipedia connection to spreading this by the CRU gang


    There are more manipulations of temperature data bases as in New Zealand, Australia and Russia, and the New Zealand one goes back to the 80’s when Jim Salinger from the CRU went there and created a temperature graph.

    Maggie had a hand in this from the beginning I think, didn’t she set up the Hadley Centre? Changing the national temperature records, or rather manipulating them as the originals still exist in the countries I’ve mentioned, was intrinsic to the plan to make CO2 a scapegoat for her re trade union/miners and against the hippies anti-nuclear power stations campaign.

    Good luck.

  2. Helen Rollson says:December 20, 2009 at 1:37 pmThanks so much for connecting these final dots. Knew it had a lot to do with the push for nuclear power, money and UN stated desire for One World Govt with one bank one law one religion and of course peak oil rumbling around there, but unlike you not keen on nuclear, especially if energy expended plus risks verses energy output plus major risks, need I go into the (many) , as it takes a mountain to move/mine/produce a molehill of usable fuel, a heap more energy to build newnuclear power stations (which can be/are dangerous) and even more to decommission them, mining uranium produces poisonous radon gas, waste materials toxic tailings, spent fuel etc etc as well as leading to nuclear weapons proliferation ….. aha ….hence talk of nuclear weapons reduction push by world leaders lately ….. and as you indicated coal is abundant and easy to use/mine, setup and run technology simple and not so costly so not so much money to be made for the poor power companies to make.
    It won’t make you poor but it will make them poor.
    For us in Australia who don’t want or like the risk of even more weapon material on the market we can keep our uranium in the ground and be a bit poorer than selling it off or we can keep on selling our coal and firing the majority of our electricity stations as well as going solar if we liked. Gyess they’ll just start/have another scheme to scam us with.
  3. Helen Rollson says:December 20, 2009 at 2:14 pmThanks so much for connecting these final dots. Knew it had a lot to do with the push for nuclear power, money and UN stated desire for One World Govt with one bank one law one religion and of course peak oil rumbling around there, but unlike you not keen on nuclear, especially if energy expended plus risks verses energy output plus major risks, need I go into the (many) , as it takes a mountain to move/mine/produce a molehill of usable fuel, a heap more energy to build newnuclear power stations (which can be/are dangerous) and even more to decommission them, mining uranium produces poisonous radon gas, waste materials toxic tailings, spent fuel etc etc as well as leading to nuclear weapons proliferation ….. aha ….hence talk of nuclear weapons reduction push by world leaders lately ….. and as you indicated coal is abundant and easy to use/mine, setup and run technology simple and not so costly so not so much money to be made for the poor power companies to make.
    It won’t make you poor but it will make them poor.
    For us in Australia who don’t want or like the risk of even more weapon material on the market we can keep our uranium in the ground and be a bit poorer than selling it off or we can keep on selling our coal and firing the majority of our electricity stations as well as going solar if we liked. Gyess they’ll just start/have another scheme to scam us with.

    ps I forgot to use that other now over popular tactical weapon,….da dah ….Terrorists, Terrorism, the threat of weapons grade material getting into the hands of Terrorist States or worse rouge or state sponsered radical terrorists …whoops …did the cat pop out of the bag of trix …. oh Felix you wicked cat, when we practice to deceive, what a tangled web we weave.

Climategate: The Lawyers Move in – Those Scientists Are Toast!

God bless America and – can I really be saying this? – God bless the legal profession! Despite the best efforts of the Obama administration, most of the world’s other governments (save the plucky Canucks), the United Nations and the Mainstream Media (MSM) to sweep Climategate under the carpet, the lawyers are putting this shoddy scandal where it belongs: in the dock. (Hat tip: Platosays)

The US Department of Energy (DOE) – under pressure, most likely, from Senator Inhofe – has issued a “Litigation Hold Notice” to its various sub-departments asking them to retain any documents pertaining to the Climatic Research Unit at University of East Anglia. Below – reports Watts Up With That – is a copy of the notice sent to the DOE’s Savannah office in South Carolina:

“December 14, 2009

DOE Litigation Hold Notice

DOE-SR has received a “Litigation Hold Notice” from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) General Council and the DOE Office of Inspector General regarding the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. Accordingly, they are requesting that SRNS, SRR and other Site contractors locate and preserve all documents, records, data, correspondence, notes, and other materials, whether official or unofficial, original or duplicative, drafts or final versions, partial or complete that may relate to the global warming, including, but not limited to, the contract files, any related correspondence files, and any records, including emails or other correspondence, notes, documents, or other material related to this contract, regardless of its location or medium on which it is stored. In other words, please preserve any and all documents relevant to “global warming, the Climate Research Unit at he University of East Anglia In England, and/or climate change science.”

What does it mean? Big, BIG trouble for the Climategate scientists is what it means. You don’t mess with US lawyers and the reason that what might seem an essentially British affair comes under their jurisdiction is because the DOE has provided funding for these scientists.

Here’s one example from the Climategate files:

From: Ben Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: lbutler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: averaging
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:08:14 -0800
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, kevin trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Dear Lisa,

That’s great news! I’ve confirmed with DOE that I can use up to $10,000
of my DOE Fellowship to provide financial support for Tom’s Symposium. I
will check with Anjuli Bamzai at DOE to determine whether there are any
strings attached to this money. I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to use
the DOE money for the Symposium dinner, and to defray some of the travel
expenses of international participants who can’t come up with their own
travel money. I’ll try to resolve this question in the next few days.

Mmm. I expect you can buy quite a nice no-strings dinner for $10,000.

And here’s another one of the Climategate emails from Dr Phil Jones.

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: “Neville Nicholls” <N.Nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: RE: Misc
Date: Wed Jul 6 15:07:45 2005

Mike’s response could do with a little work, but as you say he’s got the tone
almost dead on. I hope I don’t get a call from congress ! I’m hoping that no-one
there realizes I have a US DoE grant and have had this (with Tom W.) for the last 25
I’ll send on one other email received for interest.

Gosh. I wonder why it can be that he doesn’t want congress to know about his DOE grant. Surely transparency and integrity were ever the CRU’s watchwords?

But if I were the DOE’s lawyers, I think one of the letters I’d most like to examine would be this one by the CRU’s former head Tom Wigley.

To understand its significance you need first to be aware of one of the most contentious points about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)  – the reliability of weather station records and the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI). For chapter and verse, your man is Anthony Watts – creator of the now legendary Watts Up With That  and also of this wonderfully informative site Surface Stations.

Put very simply, there is great concern among sceptics that the data records used to support the IPCC’s claims about “unprecedented” and catastrophic late 20th century global warming are untrustworthy. Not only do these records rely on a dwindling number of weather surface stations whose readings have been skewed either by relocation or by the warming effects of the cities which have grown around them over the years. But also, the raw data may have been tampered with by activist scientists with a specific political agenda – as for example we saw in this story about some very dubious temperature records in Darwin, Australia.

In 2007 Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit blog had identified serious inconsistencies in one such data record – the GIStemp record at NASA, run under the auspices of Al Gore’s favourite scientist James Hansen. He wondered whether similar rules might apply at another surface record, HadCrut, run by Phil Jones of the CRU. But when McIntyre put in a Freedom of Information request for data on the weather stations used by HadCrut, this was – predictably and quite deliberately, as we now know from the Climategate files – rebuffed.

Meanwhile another researcher, British mathematician Dr Doug Keenan had also smelled a rat. His suspicions had fallen on 84 Chinese weather stations whose data was being used by CRU to inform their HadCrut record.

In 1990 – as Christopher Booker reports in The Real Global Warming Disaster – two papers had appeared on these stations, one in Nature by a team led by Jones, the other by a US scientist Professor Wei-chyung Wang, who also contributed to Jones’s paper. The Jones paper stated that HadCrut had chosen stations ‘with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times’. This was confirmed in almost identical terms by the Wang paper. Both papers referred to a report produced jointly by the US Department of Energy and the Chinese Academy of Sciences, making a similar claim.

As Booker describes it:

When Keenan examined this report he found that it contained information on only 35 of the 84 stations. But the locations of at least half of these had been moved during the period 1954-1983, in one case five times, by as much as 41 kilometres. This not only cast serious doubts on the reliability of their data but belied the claims made by Jones and Wang in their papers.

Bear in mind that Wang is one of the key players in the AGW debate – especially in the field of climate modeling and data analysis, as he describes in this biog. He is professor in Atmospheric Sciences Research at the University at Albany, in New York. He has received $7 million in grants from US federal agencies. And here he was being caught out in a case of alleged scientific fraud.

This is certainly what Keenan believed and submitted a report on the affair to Wang’s university. How did the university respond? It carried out an internal review, without interviewing – or even referring to – Keenan, and without giving any reasons, announced that the charges were baseless. For the full dirt on this cover up read this report at Watts Up With That.<

Now here’s that letter from Tom Wigley to Phil Jones giving his views on the affair:

(3) At the very start it seems this could have been easily dispatched.
ITEM X really should have been …

“Where possible, stations were chosen on the basis of station histories
and/or local knowledge: selected stations have relatively few, if any,
changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times”

Of course the real get out is the final “or”. A station could be
selected if either it had relatively few “changes in instrumentation”
OR “changes in location” OR “changes in observation times”. Not all
three, simply any one of the three. One could argue about the science
here — it would be better to have all three — but this is not what
the statement says.

Why, why, why did you and W-C W not simply say this right at the start?
Perhaps it’s not too late?

What we see encapsulated here is the corruption at the heart not just of Climategate but the whole IPCC process. Here we have the former head of one of the world’s leading climate research bodies apparently brainstorming with a colleague implicated in a fraud scandal on how best to conceal that fraud from outside investigation.

Meanwhile in a separate case, a US State Senator has written to Penn State University warning that its funding may be withheld if it doesn’t properly investigate the activities of its associate professor Michael Mann.

As Jeffrey Piccola rightly points out:

“The allegations of intellectual and scientific fraud like those made against Dr. Mann are serious against anybody involved in academics but the impact in this case is significantly elevated. The work of Dr Mann and other scientists at the CRU is being used to develop economic and environmental policies in states and countries across the world.”

Meanwhile in Copenhagen, the caravan rolls on. I’m not saying we’re going to win this one easily. Not with so many powerful vested interests backing AGW theory – among them the firms listed in this release from Open Europe: (Hat tip: Msher1 and Alexei)

EU environmental policy awards millions in windfall profits to oil companies and heavy industry
As national ministers meet this week in Copenhagen to discuss a new climate change deal, Open Europe has found that under the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), oil and gas companies’ operations in the UK were granted a surplus of carbon permits worth €28.6m in 2008. For example, ExxonMobil received €4.3m and Total received €5.4m.

Meanwhile, heavy industrial polluters such as Corus received €47m, while cement firms Hanson and Lafarge received €17.3m and €20.2m.

Due to the economic downturn, many heavy polluters, such as oil and gas companies and heavy industrials, have been left with a surplus of carbon permits – essentially a free asset that firms can sell on to bolster their short term profits.

The glut of surplus permits on the market has driven down the price of carbon and led to a sharp increase in the number of permits being traded via carbon exchanges. Open Europe has found that the two largest carbon trading exchanges, European Climate Exchange and Bluenext, which includes members such as Barclays Bank, JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch and Shell, have earned a combined average of €245,000 a day from the trading of carbon permits.

Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming | James Delingpole

Climategate just got much, much bigger.

And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.

Feast your eyes on this news release from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap. (Hat Tip: Richard North)

A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.

The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.

As Richard North says: This is serial.

UPDATE: As Steve McIntyre reports at ClimateAudit, it has long been suspected that the CRU had been playing especially fast and loose with Russian – more particularly Siberian – temperature records. Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann.

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either
I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.

And here at Watts Up With That is a guest post by Jeff Id of the Air Vent

And here is what one of the commenters has to say about the way the data has been cherry-picked and skewed for political ends:

The crux of the argument is that the CRU cherry picked data following the same methods that have been done everywhere else. They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated, ignored length of data set.

One the final page, there is a chart that shows that CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period.

Not, of course, dear readers that I’m in any way tempted to crow about these latest revelations. After all, so many of my colleagues, junior and senior, have been backing me on this one to the hilt….

Oh, if anyone speaks Russian, here’s the full report.

Related posts:

  1. Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!
  2. Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
  3. Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!
  4. Climategate: the lawyers move in – those scientists are toast!

Post navigation