All the Worst Remainers Read PPE at Oxford

By “worst”, I suppose I mean most especially those in government who have professed to flirt with Euroscepticism in the past to ingratiate themselves with their constituents – including, of course, Prime Minister David Cameron, as well as William Hague, Teresa May, Philip Hammond and Elizabeth Truss – but have then chosen to do the dirty. (See Guido for the full list of inners and outers). (If you wanted to add Sajid Javid to the list you almost could, except he didn’t get in to Oxford and had to go to Exeter instead)

Other Conservative “Remainers” who read PPE include Matthew Hancock, Damian Green, Nicholas Boles, Mark Harper, Jeremy Hunt, Philip Dunne, Sam Gyimah and Jane Ellison.

There are many Oxford PPE graduates among the Labour “Remainers” too, including Yvette Cooper, Angela Eagle, Maria Eagle, Geraint Davies, Paul Farrelly, Kevin Brennan, Meg Hillier, John Spellar, Rachel Reeves and Rushanara Ali.

It is also notable that pretty much every single one of the most noisome creeps from the previous parliamentary term were Oxford PPE graduates too. Step forward – boo hiss – Ed Balls; “Sir” Ed Davey; Chris Huhne. It goes without saying that had they not been booted out of office, every one of them would also have voted to Remain shackled to the European superstate.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

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

Global Warming ‘Pause’ Deniers: We Name the Guilty Scumbags

You may say that I’m using a sledgehammer to crack a nest of cockroaches; that rather than crow in victory one should be magnanimous in order to prove oneself a better man than they are, Gunga Din.

I disagree. I want blood. Entrails too, please. Those of us who have spent years of our lives being mocked and traduced and demeaned by these verminous charlatans deserve our pound of flesh, not only for the sake of sweet vengeance, but also for the greater cause of scientific honesty and journalistic integrity.

This is no more than I would expect were the positions ever reversed.

Suppose, for example, that I had written in the Spectator an article on global warming and it subsequently emerged that it was scientifically illiterate, that I’d dragged the name of a good journalist (who had got his facts right) through the mud, and that I’d brought the title into disrepute by adopting a tone of lofty, scornful, apparent expertise entirely unjustified by reality: well here’s what I’d expect to have to do….

Apologise. First to the journalist I’d unfairly, perhaps libellously, maligned; next to the magazine’s editor for having been such a dogmatically wrongheaded prick; finally to the readers for having abused their faith in my due diligence and my supposedly superior knowledge. Indeed, I think if I’d ever got an article as comprehensively wrong as the one I’m about to mention, I’d feel so shit I think I might seriously consider never broaching the topic again.

So now, without further ado, let me introduce MARK LYNAS – activist, prominent environmental campaigner, and author of a very angry, high-handed 2008 article in the New Statesman (the left’s answer to the Spectator) called Has Global Warming Really Stopped?. This was in response to a piece by David Whitehouse which – quite controversially for the time – tentatively noted that the temperature record showed that there had been no “global warming” for several years and that this fact might, at some stage, become a significant issue.

Lynas was having none of it. His response brimmed with righteous indignation.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

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

Now Even Michael Mann Admits the ‘Pause’ in Global Warming Is Real; Throws Allies to Wolves

“It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims,” the paper in Nature Climate Change says.

Though the paper’s findings are not controversial – few serious scientists dispute the evidence of the temperature datasets showing that there has been little if any global warming for nearly 19 years – they represent a tremendous blow to the climate alarmist “consensus”, which has long sought to deny the “Pause’s” existence.

First, the study was published in Nature Climate Change a fervently alarmist journal which rarely if ever runs papers that cast doubt on the man-made-global-warming scare narrative.

Secondly, it directly contradicts a widely-reported study produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) last year which attempted to deny the existence of the “Pause” (also known as the “hiatus”). This NOAA study was widely mocked, quickly debunked and is now the subject of a Congressional investigation by Rep Lamar Smith. What’s novel about this new study in Nature Climate Change, though, is that it’s not skeptics and Republicans doing the mocking and the debunking: it’s the kind of people who in the past were very much in the alarmist camp, including – bizarrely – none other than Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann, who co-authored the paper.

What we have here, in other words, is signs of a major rift within the climate alarmist camp with different factions adopting different tactics to cope with the failure of their collapsing narrative.

On one side are people like Thomas Karl and Thomas Petersen, the hapless NOAA scientists given the unenviable task of producing that risible paper last year which did its best to deny that the Pause was a thing.

On the other are what might be called the “rats deserting the sinking ship” faction who have produced this new paper for Nature Climate Change, in which finally they concede what skeptics have been saying for many years: that there has been no “global warming” since 1998.

This divergence in the alarmist camp is now going to create a dilemma for all those liberal media outlets – from the BBC to the Guardian to the LA Times – which reported on NOAA’s “death of the pause” study as if it were a reliable and credible thing.

Are they now going to report on the counter-narrative? Or are they going to ignore it and hope no one notices?

The man who would like more than anyone to know the answer to this question is David Whitehouse, Science Editor of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and a former science editor at the BBC (till the point when his skepticism became too much for his employer).

That’s because in 2007, he was one of the first scientists to draw attention to the mysterious slowdown in global warming.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

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

From Jimmy Savile to the Rotherham Rape Gangs: Lessons Won’t Be Learned

But our left-leaning news media would beg to differ. Some kinds of rape, we know from the coverage variously afforded them by organisations like the BBC and the Guardian, are definitely much, much worse than other kinds of rape.

Let me give you two recent examples from the news.

Example a)

A creepy, white cigar smoking disc jockey exploits his celebrity by imposing himself sexually on hundreds of impressionable young fans.

Example b)

Organised groups of mostly middle-aged Muslim men of Pakistani heritage predate on vulnerable, pubescent girls, first seducing them with drugs, alcohol and displays of false affection, then employing them as sex slaves to be multiply raped over a period of years.

Call me a racist Islamophobe but I’d say in terms of nauseating appallingness example b) does slightly have the edge. This is not, in any way, to play down the revoltingness of Jimmy Savile’s crimes. Clearly he was a cold-eyed, ruthless, bastard of a serial sexual predator – and the more we learn about him, the more abhorrent he becomes: raping a small boy while dressed as a Womble? Really?? His sleaziness is so hideous as to be quite beyond parody.

But on any objective level, you’d surely have to concede that b) is the more significant crime both in terms of scale and sheer brutality. More girls were abused, more frequently and more aggressively. Not only that but its socio-political implications are much more far-reaching.

From the Jimmy Savile case we learn only this: that the sexual mores of the 1970s made it much easier for celebrities to molest underage girls; that the BBC had a culture for many years in which it considered certain of its celebrities too big too fail. This stuff is all in the past; not much can be done to be remedy it now – other than perhaps exhuming by Savile’s body and sticking his skull on a spike on Tower Bridge.

From the Rotherham case, on the other hand, we learn any number of extremely depressing things: that thanks to the failed doctrine of multiculturalism, Britain’s Islamic “communities” still live in a state of self-imposed Apartheid in which they feel little loyalty to or sympathy with the broader national culture; that a significant percentage of Muslims in Britain have a moral code which precludes them from seeing anything wrong in raping little white (and Sikh) girls, whom they see as worthless kuffar prostitutes; that the authorities which ought to be preventing this happening – social services; children’s welfare charities; the police; local politicians; local “community leaders” – have instead either turned a blind eye to it or actively colluded with the perpetrators; that despite Rotherham – and similar cases across the country – there is absolutely no appetite among our political class for any concerted action to deal with the problem or to punish those on whose watch these crimes were allowed to happen.

It is this contrast, unfortunately, which explains why the voices of Britain’s liberal chattering classes find the Jimmy Savile case so much easier to discuss at such length than they do cases like Rotherham.

On BBC Radio 4 Today this morning, two of the chattering classes’ big guns – Esther Rantzen, founder of Childline and Times columnist David Aaronovitch – were wheeled out to make all the right noises about Jimmy Savile and the awfulness thereof.

You cannot, I fear, ever imagine it giving similar treatment to the Muslim rape gang phenomenon because it’s simply too big a can of worms, in which so much of the Establishment is implicated.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

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

‘Cecil Effect’ Leads to African Lion Cull: I Blame Ricky Gervais

Under normal circumstances, the rights to shoot those lions would have been sold to big game hunters – bringing many hundreds of thousands of dollars into the local economy, providing livelihoods for people and boosting the wildlife conservation budget.

Instead, most likely, those lions will now have to be destroyed to no purpose. I blame Ricky Gervais.

Not just Ricky Gervais, obviously. After the world-infamous death of Cecil the Lion there was certainly no shortage of bloviating bleeding hearts announcing to anyone who would listen just how outraged they were that a beast they’d never heard of till two seconds ago had been shot for sport by a Minnesota dentist.

It’s just that Gervais, with his several million Twitter followers and his shark-toothed Hollywood presence and his (still-not-quite-totally-decayed) cultish comedy credibility, was probably the most influential of the bunch.

Well, welcome to the world of unintended consequences, Funny Little Fat Man, chubby little loser with the pug nose face. You, Gervais, must now bear partial responsibility for the senseless slaughter of 200 of those big cats you claim to care about so much.

You could, I suppose, argue that unlike those 200 common-or-garden lions Cecil was special because he had a name and was – apparently – beloved by visitors to Hwange national park because of his distinctive black mane and friendly disposition.

But I would counter that 200 nameless lions killed to no purpose is a far greater crime against nature than a single lion called Cecil dying an honourable, lucrative and productive death as a game trophy.

I also think that the kind of childish anthropomorphisation with which Gervais and his fellow celebrity bunny huggers indulge themselves takes us down a very dangerous path, as I tried to argue at the peak of the Cecil hysteria.

Let me stress at this point that I’m by no means averse to the charm of lions.

One of the earliest films I remember going to see at the cinema was Born Free. I think Simba in The Lion King is a really great kid. I have seen more lions on more safaris than anyone I know who doesn’t actually live in Africa and if ever I had to enter into a Lion Off with Ricky Gervais I would win hands down.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

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

The Heathrow Airport Climate Protesters Are Going to Jail. Good

Oh how the heart bleeds!

According to a small group of green protesters who have gathered outside the magistrates court this represents a terrible travesty of justice. Apparently this will be the first time in the UK anyone has ever been jailed for protesting about climate change.

“A disgrace” says (terrorist-supporting, hard-left) Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell.

“Deeply unjust” says Green MP Caroline Lucas.

No, Caroline, love, what’s really unjust is this: thousands of holidaymakers and business travellers making their way to the airport to catch planes only to miss their flights because a bunch of spoiled trustafarians, unemployable Environmental Sciences graduates and professional wasters have gone and cut through the perimeter fence and lain down on the runway.

One of the idiots – it goes almost without saying – was dressed as a polar bear.

Another of the idiots – again, it almost goes without saying – holds a PhD in climate science from the University of East Anglia (aka the University of Easy Access). And guess who her course supervisor was (h/t Paul Matthews at Bishop Hill). Why – the story gets better and better – it was none other than Phil Jones, the disgraced head of the Climatic Research Unit, as featured so unimpressively in the Climategate emails.

Nobody is suggesting that dressing up as a polar bear or studying Environmental Sciences under Phil Jones ought to be punishable by imprisonment. (Though I don’t think it would do any harm if a few of us wrote to the Home Secretary urging the law to be tightened up in this regard).

But only an utter loon would argue that the right to free protest extended to being given a free pass to ruin people’s holidays, disrupt their business meetings, jeopardise security and cause millions and millions of pounds of economic damage.

This is what is so reprehensible and unjust about so many of the previous decisions made by the courts on environmental issues. The Kingsnorth power station protest, for example.

Kingsnorth was the case in 2008 when a group of Greenpeace protesters successfully defended themselves against a charge of criminal damage (£30,000 worth to a power station chimney) by pleading “climate change” as their “lawful excuse.”

The court had heard from Professor Jim Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, that the 20,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted daily by Kingsnorth could be responsible for the extinction of up to 400 species. Hansen, a Nasa director who advises Al Gore, the former US presidential candidate turned climate change campaigner, told the court that humanity was in “grave peril”. “Somebody needs to step forward and say there has to be a moratorium, draw a line in the sand and say no more coal-fired power stations.”

It also heard David Cameron’s environment adviser, millionaire environmentalist Zac Goldsmith, and an Inuit leader from Greenland both say climate change was already seriously affecting life around the world. Goldsmith told the court: “By building a coal-power plant in this country, it makes it very much harder [to exert] pressure on countries like China and India” to reduce their burgeoning use of the fossil fuel.

The court was told that some of the property in immediate need of protection included parts of Kent at risk from rising sea levels, the Pacific island state of Tuvalu and areas of Greenland. The defendants also cited the Arctic ice sheet, China’s Yellow River region, the Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica, coastal areas of Bangladesh and the city of New Orleans.

The jury was told that Kingsnorth emitted the same amount of carbon dioxide as the 30 least polluting countries in the world combined – and that there were advanced plans to build a new coal-fired power station next to the existing site on the Hoo peninsula.

Amazingly, the judge was swayed by this pseudo-scientific guff.

But that was eight years ago, at the height of the green scare. The judge in the #heathrow13 case appears to be made of more robust stuff.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

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

No, 150,000 Penguins Were Not Killed by Global Warming

Of course you were. The story was almost inescapable – we even ran a wires version of it here at Breitbart – because it was so irresistible. We like penguins (well, unless perhaps, you’re like me and you happen to consider Happy Feet to be the most satanically evil film ever made, barring Love Actually), we like stories about the frozen majesty of Antarctica (setting for so many heroic, epic adventures from Scott’s and Shackleton’s through to Henry Worsley’s) and there’s always a market for tales of climate disaster prompted by man-made global warming.

That’s why the ‘150,000 penguins killed by global warming’ story went viral. But it is, we now know, complete and utter bollocks. Yet another of those desperate, fabricated bad-things-are-happening-to-nature-and-it’s-all-our-fault yarns foisted on a credulous public by climate scientists to try to justify their increasingly unjustifiable grant funding.

The story was seized on by the usual left-wing suspects, notably Grist which gave it the emotionally charged headline 150,000 penguins have disappeared in Antartica. Thanks, climate change! to imply that somehow man was to blame for the penguins’ plight.

This is because, as the Guardian solemnly told us, an iceberg the “size of Rome” called B09B and somehow created by ‘climate change’ had blocked the route to the feeding area of a colony of Adelie penguins in Commonwealth Bay, forcing them to make a hitherto unnecessary 90 mile round trip to the coast which had caused many of them to die of exhaustion or starvation.

The Guardian article drew 19,000 shares and 1,400 comments, many from tearful Guardian readers lamenting yet another tragic story emblematic of man’s selfishness, greed and unwillingness to change his lifestyle despite the ravages this is clearly wreaking on the world’s vulnerable waddling birdlife.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

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

Why Michael Gove and Boris Johnson Plumped for Brexit

“Is it true?” I asked.

“I’m still undecided. Torn between what I feel about the EU and loyalty to the PM.”

So I said: “Not many people get the chance in their lives to save Britain. Drake; Nelson; Churchill. Your call.”

“No pressure then,” said the Lord Chancellor.

I’d love to be able to claim that it was me wot swung it. But I honestly don’t believe that, for all his professed vacillations, Gove was ever capable of doing anything other than nailing his colours to the Brexit mast.

The same is true, for different reasons, of Boris Johnson.

Last week, when lots of other armchair experts didn’t, I correctly predicted that both men would inevitably vote out.

I’m very glad they did since I think it will make all the difference to the #Brexit campaign. Put it this way, had Gove and Johnson not come out for Brexit, the “Leave” camp would never have stood a chance of persuading wavering middle-ground voters to take the plunge. With Boris’s charisma and popularity and Gove’s intellectual heft to back it Brexit now stands a serious chance of becoming reality.

Let me explain – briefly, because I’m ill and mustn’t write too much – what I think made up their minds.

First Gove. Gove’s decision is the easiest to explain: integrity. Of all my Oxford contemporaries to go into politics Gove is the only one who has not been intellectually or morally corrupted by the process. I’m sure almost everyone who goes into politics (in Britain, at any rate; less so, perhaps, in, say Nigeria) does so for the noblest of reasons. But what they quickly realise is that if they are ever to enjoy career advancement, they must compromise their ideals for whatever is thought at the time to be the “greater good” of their party. In the Cameroon era this has meant squishy, ideology-free centrism.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

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

Furious Oxford Donors: Keep the Cecil Rhodes Statue — or Lose Millions!

Donors were so furious at Oriel College’s cowardice in the face of this student activism that they threatened to withdraw millions of pounds in bequests.

Right decision; wrong reason.

The Oriel College authorities could have said no to #RhodesMustFall because it was orchestrated by a bunch of chippy, ungrateful, politically correct, spoilt, vexatious, posturing bullies with connections to some of the most viciously unpleasant elements in the cess pool of South African politics.

They could have argued that Cecil Rhodes was a man of his time and that it’s quite ludicrous to judge a hero of the Great Imperial Age by the standards of the age of safe spaces, “Islamophobia” and Caitlyn Jenner.

They could have stood up for the principle that students may come and go but the fabric of the University and the generosity of its benefactors must remain inviolate from wanky posturing by early twentysomethings whose frontal lobes haven’t been properly formed.

Instead, though, Oriel College’s decision was motivated not by high principle but by terror and desperation at losing so much money.

At a meeting on Wednesday the governing body was told that because of its ambiguous position on the removal of the statue, “at least one major donation of £500,000” that was expected this year has been cancelled.

One of those who has already cancelled their legacy was going to leave a “seven figure sum” and the college is aware that “another major donor is furious with the College… whose legacy could be in excess of £100m”.

The report warns that there will now “almost certainly” be “one or two redundancies” in its Development Office team because of the collapse in donations. And it has cancelled an annual fundraising drive that should have taken place in April. The report also warns that Oriel’s development office could now make an operating loss of around £200,000 this year.

In addition, a “potential £750,000 donor” has stopped responding to messages from the college, and several alumni have written to Oriel to say “they are disinheriting the college from their wills”.

This may be a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Certainly the man responsible for fundraising at Oriel isn’t mincing his words about the damage that has already been done.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

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

World’s First Anti-Global-Warming Hedge Fund Sticks It to the Greenies

The other day, while out hunting, I met a man who ran a brothel. (Till he got busted, anyway). I liked and respected him for brothel-keeping is an honourable profession which supplies a vital need and makes the world a happier place.

This is something that never could be said of a single person working in the climate change industry. It is now worth an eyewatering $1.5 trillion per annum — not a penny of which goes on anything remotely useful. As I argue here at the Spectator, it is a Potemkin industry, a racket, a form of state-sanctioned organised crime.

No one, in a free market, would spend a penny of their earnings on wind turbines, solar panels, research grants for dubious climate science projects, local council sustainability officers, et al: the industry is entirely dependent for its existence on favours granted to rent-seeking troughers by the political class.

If you build a giant trough, the pigs will come. And they have. (No insult to real pigs, by the way. Bacon! Mmm)

I’m thinking, for example, of wind farm entrepreneurs like Dale “dog on a rope” Vince — the former new age traveller whose £100 million fortune derives from carpeting the British landscape with gigantic bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes.

Rajendra Pachauri, the bearded, yogic railway engineer with wandering hands who, largely because he fitted the right ethnic profile, managed to parlay his way into heading the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, jetting round the world for a succession of climatological shindigs in exotic locations, as well as making a tidy bit on the side thanks to his TERI research institute.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

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