Signs that show Man Made Global Warming is Definitely Still Happening

A Farewell to Snow

Poo? In your woods? Then AGW definitely, truly exists!

Poo? In your woods? Then AGW definitely, truly exists!

As your boiler breaks down, your pipes freeze, your car won’t start, your Ocado delivery fails to arrive, your train is cancelled, your neck is broken after slipping on black ice and you lie in an emergency ward waiting for a doctor to turn up only to learn that they’re all off today because of the weather, you might be forgiven for thinking that all this has something to do with global cooling, changes in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the decline in sunspot activity perhaps auguring a new Maunder minimum.

But you couldn’t be more wrong.

“It’s all actually a sign that man made global warming is very much a live issue and that there’s more of it happening than ever,” says a top scientist, who holds the British record for securing grant-funding for global warming research projects so he must know what he’s talking about.

“Look at the Met office,” the scientist goes on. “They’ve just told us that 2010 is the hottest year since records began in 1850 and even though the stupid Central England Temperature record tells us something quite different and even though the year hasn’t actually finished yet they must know what they’re talking about and they definitely can’t have fiddled the data because the Met office is part of the government and they wouldn’t lie or get things wrong which is why that barbecue summer was such a scorcher.”

The big problem is, the scientist said, is that the public are really stupid. They think just because Dr David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit said in the Independent in 2000 that soon there’d be no snow because of global warming, when what he actually meant was that soon there’d be lots of snow and that this would be “proof” of global warming. The interviewer just missed out the word “proof” that’s all because journalists are lazy that way.

Then the scientist issued a cut-out-and-keep guide of Signs That Show Man Made Global Warming Is Definitely Still Happening And That Cancun Won’t Be An Almighty Flop.

1. Warm weather

2. Cold weather

3. In-between weather.

4. Dark skies at night

5. Light skies in the morning

6. An unpleasant moist/damp/wet sensation when it rains

7. Ice appearing when the temperature drops below zero

8. Clouds rolling across sky in all sorts of funny shapes, some days like cotton wool, other days in streaks, and on some days not there at all.

9. Ursine subarboreal toilet activity

10. Strong new evidence of ultramontane sympathies at the Vatican

Related posts:

  1. My holiday is being ruined by global cooling. But try telling that to the ‘scientists’
  2. 10 reasons to be cheerful about the coming new Ice Age
  3. Global Warming: is it even happening?
  4. Why Man-Made Global Warming is a load of cobblers; Pt 1

16 thoughts on “Signs that show Man Made Global Warming is Definitely Still Happening”

  1. Galatian says:4th December 2010 at 12:31 pmClimate change is still happening. How do I know? Your old chum Marcus B was in rip-roaring form on The Now Show (3rd December) and Marcus definitely knows as he went to Exeter University and has made a career telling unfunny jokes.
  2. Orde says:4th December 2010 at 3:22 pmYes it was a bravura performance from ‘Prigsmug’ who knows all about the collecting and analysis of data, and what’s been happening to temperatures world wide this year.Funny how people like him who profess to fight established stereotypical opinions are so ready to stereotype others who hold contrary beliefs.
  3. Velocity says:4th December 2010 at 5:11 pmOrdeThat’s because all British ‘comedians’ (if you can call endless boring piss-taking funny!) are lefties.And what do lefties do? They don’t think for themselves, they just swallow the Party line unthinkingly, unblinkingly and stuck on ‘repeat’ spew it out verbatim. Worker drones, the lights are on but nobodies home…. a room full of 1984… in lock-step with Lennon and not a new thought since (despite the endless proof socialism stinks every time).

    We need a friggin clear out of these tedious leftie loon comedians, isn’t the country a big enough clown show? But what chance when the Bent Broadcasting Co answers to the Gov’t and EU for their money and ITV are regulated to hell.

    Every possible alternate appears on Channel 4 the bleating scum raise their fat ignorant gobs to fever pitch

    After 14 years of Labour Marxism there’s warehouses full of material, everything from crappy public transport, killer NHS hospitals, shite education, cues at airports that can’t stop a guy with plastic in his y-fronts to mind-numbing health and safety.

    The British Totalitarian State runs like a joke in summer then falls apart into total national farce at 0 Degrees Centigrade when a snow flake falls . I’d make up some jokes but my tummy’s a little full of heavy duty battery acid!

  4. Velocity says:4th December 2010 at 5:22 pmJames,Here’s some more evidence of that 2 Degrees warming;Prague, Czech Rep. -7 (7 Degrees colder than Av.)
    Munich, Germany -10 (8 Degrees colder than Av.)
    Moscow, Russia -11 (8 Degrees colder than Av.)
    London England -2 (5 Degrees colder than Av.)

    When +2 above average is actually -7 Degrees colder than average you know the (leftie) loons have taken over the asylum… all 3 Parties are insane, and there is the Mental Health Act to work with?!!

  5. David Weaver says:5th December 2010 at 8:13 pmRemind us again James – what are your scientific qualifications? What journals have you submitted to? How’s your knowledge of Popperian philosophy of science?What’s that – you don’t have ANY scientific qualifications? And yet the Telegraph keep paying you? And you have the temerity to accuse those who disagree with you of being morons?Until you have a Ph.D. in some climate related subject, please be quiet and let the big boys and girls get on with their work. That is all.
  6. Velocity says:6th December 2010 at 2:33 amDavid AGWeaver,I didn’t notice PhD after your initials? …don’t tell me, its IOU, you’re a socialist right?How society works (except lefties) is the public listens to the experts because they do their job and we do ours. If 2 sets of experts disagree we let them carry on fighting it out (its been 10 years now tooth and nail).

    Eventually time shows some experts arguments hold water over the years and some turn out to be Gov’t funded lying scumbag crones. 60% of the British public now don’t believe this shite, it may have something to do with year after year of snow after year after year of “mild warm winters” and “not a snow flake to be found” BS.

    Hasn’t Al Gore, the IPCC’s Rajendra Pachuari, NASA’s James Hansen, Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann and the entire crew of hysterical climate loons at the Met Office and Uni of East Anglia not been caught dropping enough porkies (lies) for the penny to drop for you?

    I’d just like to know what initials were awarded to your brain you can’t work out the cheats (RIP for brain dead)???

    Answers on a Postcard to; Which Side Is Lying?, ‘It’s Snowing & Freezing (Again!!!)’ when they said it would be ‘Warm & Mild’ Complaints Department, University of East Anglia & Socialist Retards.

  7. David Weaver says:6th December 2010 at 12:17 pm@Velocity – I have a degree in Computer Science. I would think that would make me eminent more qualified scientifically than James Delingpole since a large part of my degree focused on pattern recognition in large quantities of information (for example large quantities of information dealing with… hmm, let’s see.. climate change for instance). What are your qualifications exactly?Incidently I am not a socialist. Since when did someone’s scientific opinions dictate their politics?Oh and kudos for the ad hominem attack. You’ll notice that unlike you I am attacking the issue not the person. I asked a simple question regarding James Delingpole’s scientific qualifications.
  8. Velocity says:6th December 2010 at 12:48 pmDavidSo with your computer science Degree you KNOW how inaccurate global climate modelling is don’t you? You understand what all the sceptics are saying about GCM’s not even being able to mimick past Temps, and being inaccurate predicting future Temps, and being totally untrustworthy as a model to rely on for policy advise… don’t you?With your qualies and rigorous application of State educated mush you fully understand the sceptics point that GCM’s not factoring in cloud albedo as a negative (cooling) effect it is stupid, and double-dumb because it leads to runaway warming predictions. Precisely what the GCM’s are doing, consistently (wrong) predicting over-heating.

    You know this for a fact because reality has exposed this patent fact, as all the sceptics have said it would, contrary to the shrill inaccurate incompetent AGW’ers stroies. We’ve had the PROOF, 10yrs of Uni of EA and UK Met GCM’s predicting warm benign winters and we’re had (in reality) no such thing, quite the opposite, it’s freezing.

    Haven’t we?

    If the CGM’s predicted these colder winters they’d be validated. The patent hard cold fact is reality has invalidated the computer models, for precisely the reasons the sceptics said it would. AGW is invalid, as is tree ring sampling. Invalid junk science. That’s how science works, scepticism is how science works

  9. David Weaver says:6th December 2010 at 1:47 pmTo quote wikipedia – citation needed. Please link to the relevant journals that support your argument.I am curious – what do you think of Judith Curry? She is clearly critical of the methodologies of the IPCC but at the same time also has contributed much research indicating that climate change is still an irrefutable fact (only the outcomes are uncertain). How does she fit into your view that all scientists are engaged in a massive conspiracy?I am perfectly willing to accept that the outcomes are uncertain, but the fact that the climate is changing is uncontested in the scientific community.

    None of what you say detracts from the fact that I have more scientific qualifications than James Delingpole though.

  10. Velocity says:6th December 2010 at 4:44 pmDavid AGWeaverThe fact you have greater qualifications than probably James and I combined should point you to the fact you’re qualified to uncover the holes in Co2 theory.But clearly it doesn’t give you more common sense. From my 20yrs in business I can smell BS in a very short time in the main. Al Gore, Pachuari et al just keep lying, don’t they? The AGW crews (crones) science just keeps falling apart at the seams, doesn’t it? The models keep being invalidated, don’t they?

    How much crapology do you need see in front of your very eyes for the falsehood of this AGW sham junk bunkum to sink in buddy boy?

    And no nobody dispute climate change. Correct. The problem is the AGW crew (crones) have been trying to alter the climate. The Hockey Stick tried to eradicate known science, known data to eliminate a reality, the Medieval Warm Period. Meanwhile at the other end they tried to inflame the warmth, until someone advised them their Temp stations were suffering from urban heat island effect.

    They’ve done more than prop up a dead-end theory, validate and invlaid measure like tree ring data, they’ve actually tried to re-write (pervert) actual known science.

    Yes it is a “global conspiracy”. But like all conspiracies it is individuals acting corruptly and spreading the disease through that most corrupt organism on the planet, government. It is Gov’t funding that has spread this disease. They should all be taken aside, individual by individual, and jailed for their part.

    In the case of politicians, it runs into £$€ Millions and Billions of public money defrauded from the public purse

  11. Frank Tavos says:7th December 2010 at 4:34 pmDavid AGWeaver:Give up before Velocity embarasses you some more. You lost the argument about 5 posts ago.
  12. Leigh Waters says:10th December 2010 at 1:41 pmCooeee there is no debate that globally the temperatures are rising. This isn’t a theory, this is something you can look back on recorded temperatures and plot them out on a neat graph and see that year after year GLOBALLY things are getting warmer (it’s not all about little ol Blighty). Here’s one of those graphs: the obvious upward trend)The bit people are arguing about is whether it is man who is causing the temperatures to rise or it’s a natural occurance, not whether temperatures are rising at all!

    I suppose you have to think of something to blog about, so sometimes blog about things you know aren’t true.

  13. ge0050 says:10th December 2010 at 5:21 pmAGW = $$. Plain and simple. Using taxpayers money to move factories from places where labour costs are high, to places where labour costs are low. Factory owners used to resist this, because of the expense. Sometimes they even had to clean up the polution to stay in business.However, with ETS, the TRADING portion allows them to trade their “pollution”.It works like this. A factory in the UK is polluting. It will have to pay $$ millions to clean up. However, if it moves to India where CO2 emmissions are lower, then it can apply for the taxpayers to pay for the move under the ETS.

    This is a win win for the company. They don’t need to clean up their polution. The UK tax payer gets the bill for the factory moving. The workers in the UK lose their jobs and are replaced with low cost workers in India.

    The benefit to the UK is that that pollution is reduced. However, 6 months later the pollution from India is carried by the winds back to the UK, so in the end there is no change in global pollution. We have simply moved the source of the pollution.

    If this was really about reducing global emissions, the program would be called ERS. Emissions Reductions System. It isn’t. The program is ETS. Emissions Trading System.

  14. AGWFRAUGHTWITHFAUD says:11th December 2010 at 12:39 amVelocity…I think I am in love with you…and yes, I am a scientist who has worked with GCCM’s and knows that you are correct. Most super-computers today can’t handle all the data, let along give you a good trend on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old.4.5 billions old vs 5,000 years of data?
  15. AGWFRAUGHTWITHFAUD says:11th December 2010 at 12:46 am“is still an irrefutable fact.I am perfectly willing to accept that the outcomes are uncertain, but the fact that the climate is changing is uncontested in the scientific community.”I think I would like your degree to be given back, my tax money has been swindled to no good use. Does anyone see a massive error of logic here?

    A bit of Discrete Mathematics revision will do you good, David Weaver!

  16. Velocity says:16th December 2010 at 11:06 amLeigh AGWaters,Ever heard the saying, “Lies, Damn Lies and Government Statistics” ?Well you’re quoting from a world average mean temp, a figure no scientist can fathom how it’s arrived at.

    So while “little Old Blighty” is indeed freezing its not all on its lonesome is it? Take Cancun in Mexico, go to the World Weather Org website, check through all the spot temps in each country. Like Cancun you’ll find an average per place of some -5 to -8 Degrees colder than average.

    I’ve been checking over the past few weeks. here’s my list of -5 to -8 degrees colder than average; Geneva Switzerland, London England, Budapest Hungary, Berlin and Munich Germany, Prague Czech Rep., Moscow and St Petersburg Russia, Washington USA and of course Cancun Mexico.

    So tell me Einstein, if ALL these places are -5 to -8 Degrees colder than average, where the f**k is Earthtrends measuring its data points?

    Give me a country suffering 2 degrees warmer mush for brains????

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

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

Never mind the squeaky voice, Osborne: what have you got to say about THIS?

Paying to throw workers out of work

What are your government's energy policies, George? Despicable.

What are your government’s energy policies, George? Despicable.

Here’s an open letter to the Chancellor from Clive Francis, a reader of the Autonomous Mind blog. It’s so devastatingly right (* see below) and true I think it could become a bit of an internet hit, so I’m going to reprint it here. Why not send a copy to your local MP and see how evasive his response is? (H/T Old Goat)

Dear Chancellor

What a Nonchalant Way to Spend £400 Billion

The United Kingdom appears to be the only country in the world to have legislated against climate change. The Climate Change Act 2008 was enacted with only five Members of Parliament dissenting (in what Peter Lilley described as “a wave of self-righteous euphoria”) and without any prior attempt at costing. Some time after enactment the Brown government announced that the provisions of this Act would cost some £404 billion over the next 20 years.

Thus, apart from the Finance Acts themselves, the Climate Change Act 2008 is by far the most expensive piece of legislation ever enacted by Parliament – and completely without prior costing.

Are you able to detail the precise scientific facts on which the Government is relying to justify expending the £20 billion per year required by the provisions of the Climate Change Act?

I recently asked my MP to obtain from the Climate Change Ministry a detailed and logical analysis of, and for correction of any errors of fact in, a paper (enclosed) I had written which questioned the part mankind played in our ever-changing climate. The Minister for Climate Change, in replying, did not deny that 95% of the greenhouse effect was caused by water vapour, only 4% by natural carbon dioxide and only a miniscule 0.117% by man-made carbon dioxide.

However, instead of a detailed analysis or repudiation, the Minister responded in general terms and relying for his clinching argument on the phrase:

“The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is a grave environmental threat”.

Apart from his employment of argumentum ad populum, the Minister’s claimed “overwhelming majority” seems to have evaporated markedly last month when a number of irate climate scientists forced the Royal Society into an almost unprecedented and humiliating climb down by having to withdraw its own formal publication “Climate Change – a Summary of the Science”.

The Society’s Chairman, Lord Rees, then issued a statement “There is little confidence in specific projections of future regional climate change”. This is a telling swipe at the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change), which has had to withdraw its dramatic forecasts on the melting of Himalayan glaciers, rising sea levels, flooding of the Netherlands and African crop failures.

The Royal Society’s new guide now admits, “The size of future temperature changes and other aspects of climate change are still subject to uncertainty and some uncertainties are unlikely ever to be significantly reduced.” What an astonishing and complete reversal of The Society’s earlier stance. This sober statement of uncertainty over mankind’s involvement in climate change now differs markedly from the present British Government’s melodramatic posture.

Undeterred by this fundamental alteration to the accepted science of climates, Britain’s Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne, subsequently made his pitch that the UK Government wanted to foster “a third industrial revolution” in low-carbon technology with policies based
on cutting emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases.”

So the Royal Society now openly admits it got it completely wrong but why does Chris Huhne have such difficulty in doing the same? His conviction is patent – but where are the facts?

Just what are the proven threats which our Government is trying to avert?

Every single hour the earth receives more energy from the sun than the entire human population uses in one whole year. The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet annually is twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth’s non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined.

As for our climate, within the last two thousand years outdoor grapes were grown in Cumbria and on occasions the Thames has frozen over. The poles have had ice caps for only 20% of Earth’s geological history. Fluctuating sunspot activity leading to variable solar output, the Earth’s wandering axial tilt and eccentricity of orbit round the sun and were all shown (Kepler, Milancovic) to be the causes of the Earth’s cycles of widely changing climate and of the Earth’s successive and massive glaciations/deglaciations. This, long before industrialisation and carbon were even conceived as possible causes for our climate’s changes – changes far greater than those being presently blamed on carbon.

Whilst no one denies that the world’s industrialisation has increased considerably the output of greenhouse gases, to ascribe the current phase of our ever changing climate to one single variable (carbon dioxide) or, more specifically, to a very small proportion of one variable (i.e. human produced carbon dioxide – 0.117%) is not science, for it requires us to abandon all we know about planet Earth, the sun, our galaxy and the cosmos.

The conclusion of the scientists responsible for the draft of the first report of the IPCC was that:

“None of the studies cited has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to the specific cause of the increase in greenhouse gases.”

This sentence was apparently omitted on political grounds by the IPCC staff from the published edition of the report and caused the resignation of the scientists involved.  As Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT said:

“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age”.

TATA, the Indian steel conglomerate, is currently closing the Redcar steelworks with the loss of 1700 British jobs. It appears that TATA thus stands to benefit by some £600 million in EU Carbon Credits for stopping Redcar’s “Carbon Emissions”. TATA is currently expanding its steel production elsewhere in the world. Thanks to Chris Huhne the British taxpayer is now paying Europe to throw British workers out of work and, in the end, achieving nothing.

Just where are the solid facts to justify this unproven creed that mankind is altering the climate? The Minister for Climate Change cannot supply them, he relies on argumentum ad populum and is now finding himself running short of populi. In short, the Government is spending a prodigious amount of money trying to act like King Canute in attempting to stem the vast primordial external forces that drive the constant and cyclical changes to our climate. Thus, whilst the Government is asking us to tighten our belts, are you really content for it to wager £20 billion a year on a theory, now formally deemed as uncertain by the Royal Society, that mankind is causing or even capable of causing alteration to the climate?

As Professor Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, remarked:

“You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”

Or, the Government can go on spending £20 billion a year and achieve precisely the same effect. However is this the best way to tackle the deficit or fund university education?

Yours sincerely

Clive Francis

* As m’learned friend Booker points out, the £400 billion figure quoted in the letter is a gross underestimate (based on feeble arithmetic published by DECC). The correct figure is nearly twice as much – £768 billion. Not of course that even the higher figure will dent the complacency of any of the MPs to whom you send the letter).

Related posts:

  1. George Osborne’s New Eco-Bullingdon Club
  2. Never mind the global economic collapse: what about plastic bags???
  3. ‘War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength’ claims Osborne
  4. The BBC: Official Voice of Ecofascism

One thought on “Never mind the squeaky voice, Osborne: what have you got to say about THIS?”

  1. Velocity says:3rd December 2010 at 2:39 pmGood letter.Gov’t response? Snake oil from snake oil salesmen.

    Westminster is the toilet of the country, a bin for idiot idealists, crooks and rammed to overflowing with cronies.

    Same as it ever was…

Comments are closed.

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

Cancun suffers its final indignity: a visit from ‘Two Jags’ Prescott | James Delingpole

December 2nd, 2010


Two jags loses his cool on the Politics Show (Image: BBC)

John ‘Two Jags’ Prescott – Lord Prescott to his valet and also to the maitre d’ at his local Hull branch of McDonalds as he ushers him obsequiously to his private booth – is flying off to Cancun to help boost the event’s carbon footprint. Perhaps there is some other purpose to his visit too. Perhaps it has something to do with his fancy new title The Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly Rapporteur. Having just watched him being interviewed by Andrew Neil on the BBC’s Daily Politics I’m afraid I’m really none the wiser.

It’s great fun to see Neil goading Prezza, and Prezza very nearly losing it only to remember he’s a Lord now and Lords aren’t supposed to punch peoples’ lights out on’t posh people’s fancy TV programmes. Problem is, because Prezza talks such gibberish he’s essentially untrappable. The closest he gets to admitting that the real agenda of Cancun is as scary as some of us have long been saying it is, is when he says:

“If you’re talking about quality of life these things are going to have to be challenged.”

This is a political euphemism for: “We plan to bomb the Western economy back to the dark ages in order to deal with a problem which is entirely the invention of eco-fascists bent on imposing their Marxist redistributionist agenda on the world.”

Obviously this is all very funny and we can laugh knowingly about this, except at the same time it’s not. What kind of universe do we inhabit where a creature of Prescott’s magisterial stupidity, incompetence and chippiness is, instead of being accorded his proper place in a cardboard box under a bridge, rewarded by being treated as a global ambassador with the power (however cackhandedly deployed) to affect other people’s lives. No loving God could possibly allow such a thing to happen. We should all become atheists in protest.

One Response to “Cancun suffers its final indignity: a visit from ‘Two Jags’ Prescott”

  1. Velocity says:December 2, 2010 at 5:02 amWhat you’re telling me Prescott didn’t row across to Cancun, he flew???First surprise there’s a freight plane that can carry the fat lazy useless gobby twat (ie.socialist). Second, the whales are endangered, we could do with another one in the sea.

    As for Prescott saying we must get use to a lower quality of life, isn’t that precisely what happens after anytime the Marxist scum of Labour (and progressive Lib-Cons) are in Gov’t any length of time and rape the wealth to the point of bankruptcy?

    ‘Who ate all the Pies’ Prescott should know exactly what his ‘devine governance’ has given the country: debilitating debt for the real workers of the country to pay off to enrich the fat lazy useless socialist scum lifestyles of the public sector

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)


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

CAFOD – where your money goes… | James Delingpole


CAFOD – where your money goes…

December 2nd, 2010

Some of my best friends are Catholics, including at least two of my very favouritest bloggers. So no I don’t agree with Lord and Lady Whiteadder on Blackadder II that “Cold is good. Cold is God’s sign that we should burn more Catholics”…

(to read more, click here)


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

2 Responses to “CAFOD – where your money goes…”

  1. Velocity says:December 2, 2010 at 4:42 am

    “Jasber has expertise in food security, participation of the marginalised, indigenous people, gender and environmental justice in the context of climate change.”

    I take that to mean Jasper (PhD) suffered from “food deprivation” as a student at Uni.

    Or is that “food inequality” ?

    I’ve got a few suggestions where this class of professional scum can stick their slimy hed-fuk trigger word management speak language and you won’t need a Degree in biology to understand the precise local

  2. Manuel says:December 2, 2010 at 8:31 am

    Well, I’m a left-footer and I’d like to point out that this “burn more Catholics” is a terrible slander based, I suspect, on confusion arising from Bonfire Night. Burnings were generally instigated BY Catholics, not against them.

    That’s a helpful post though. I’ve always been deeply suspicious of things like Family Fast Day but I’ve never bothered to look into it, so now I can feel pleased with myself

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)


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

Ceci n’est pas un bonhomme de neige! | James Delingpole

December 1, 2010


Some of you may be looking out of your windows right now and think that the white stuff floating down from the sky is snow. It is not, of course. What the white stuff actually is the purely imaginary creation of your false consciousness. You see it because you want to see it; because in your evil, selfish, refusing-to-change-your-pampered-Western-lifestyle way you think it offers proof that man-made global warming doesn’t exist.

How can I be so sure? Well, even if you were to discount what the experts at the Met Office are telling us about this being the hottest year since at least the Holocene Optimum, the experts’ expert tells us so.

Who is the experts’ expert?

Why shame on you for not knowing!

His name is Dr David Viner, he used to work at Britain’s world-renowned Climatic Research Unit at the famed University of East Anglia, and in 2000 in the Independent he made the expert prediction that snow would soon become a “rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

Well some of you cynics may scoff, but I for one am glad that we live in a caring, nurturing Steve Hilton and David Cameron style society which takes care of weapons-grade pillocks and throws more public money at them rather than one of those horrid, efficient Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan type one where people are answerable for their idiocies and don’t get bailed out with taxpayer’s cash.

That’s why I’m delighted to remind those of you who don’t know that Dr David “Nostradamus” Viner now has a plum job, funded by you and me, running a £10 million scheme at the British Council to raise awareness of global warming among young people abroad.

I’m even more delighted to report that as a man of conviction, he has not allowed a few awkward winters get in the way of his pet theory. Earlier this year – ie last godawful winter, not this godawful one – he told the Daily Mail that he stood by his 2000 prediction:

‘We’ve had three weeks of relatively cold weather, and that doesn’t change anything.

‘This winter is just a little cooler than average, and I still think that snow will become an increasingly rare event.’

And while we’re on the subject of expert experts, a reader (pls remind me who you are so I can hat tip you) kindly draws my attention to a side project of Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change. Professor Anderson, you’ll recall, was the expert extensively quoted in the Telegraph yesterday arguing that the only way to save the world from the evils of man made global warming was by sharply reining in our decadent Western lifestyles and introducing 1940s style rationing.

Prof Anderson, I note, is a non-executive director of Greenstone Carbon Management, which makes a pretty penny advising clients including Eversheds, Clifford Chance, Fujitsu, Henderson Global Investors, Ocado,and Virgin UK on how to reduce their carbon emissions. Since Greenstone’s function would be entirely redundant were it not for a regulatory climate whose existence owes itself the supposedly independent scientific expertise of research organisations like the Tyndall Centre, you can see why Professor Anderson got his job.

I hope Professor Anderson is properly remunerated for his expert expertise. It’s another of the things I really like about Coalition Britain: as men of the world, people like David Cameron understand that money is far too valuable to let ghastly tradesmen, vulgar entrepreneurs and other sweaty self-employed people get their filthy hands on too much of it. The job of government, the Whiggish Cameron and his crew fully understand, is to ensure that the economy remains just another form of political patronage. “Climate change” keeps money with the right people; the government’s people; people like Dr David Viner and Professor Kevin Anderson and that is entirely as it should be.

UPDATE: I’ve just had an email from Kevin Anderson about his role at Greenstone

My comment simply refers to my position in Greenstone. I DO NOT take any money other than basic expenses (2nd class train) from Greenstone. I spoke on Five Live yesterday evening and was offered £80  – which is being donated directly from the BBC to our research funds where it will likely be used by Tyndall PhD researchers. Over the past few years I have led on about £250k of consultancy along with giving talks for which a fee was proffered. As far as I am aware (a genuine and very rare exception may have occurred – the world isn’t perfect) I have taken none of this money. I broadly hold to your view about ‘elites’ taking money for all sorts of things that in my view they should not be remunerated. I take a view that I should survive on my very good salary (around £60k) and not accept additional funds and I try to persuade those around me to do so also. I can assure you, however much you may disagree with my analysis and conclusions on climate change, I am not working in this area to make more than my salary, and I can also advise you that since working in this area my quality of life has suffered as I make some reasonable effort to reduce my emissions. This has had (and is having) serious family, friends and work repercussions – but I think it is important those committed to the findings of their analysis should broadly abide by what they are requesting others to do.

I must say I’m quite seriously impressed with this. It goes without saying that I continue to think the cause Professor Anderson is fighting for is one of the most monstrous con tricks in history and that the damage the campaigning of institutions like the Tyndall Centre will do politically, economically, socially and indeed environmentally is almost incalculable. But I salute his integrity. Unlike, say, Al Gore, it sounds as if Prof Anderson walks the walk as well as talks the talk. I am glad to set the record straight on his finances and I’m really sorry to have maligned him on that score.

We’re on totally the opposite sides of the fence Prof Anderson and I think you’re a ruddy menace. But after what you’ve told me just now about “elites” – and your not-as-disgusting-as-I’d-imagined salary – I also think you’re a kindred spirit. Professor Anderson, you have just gone from being this column’s hate figure to Hero Of The Week.

One Response to “Ceci n’est pas un bonhomme de neige!”

  1. Velocity says:December 1, 2010 at 5:44 pmLondon is -12 at the mo, Warsaw and Berlin are both having record freezes of -17 as is much of Europe and America.Of course this in only “weather” (this years temps). It’s not “climate” (10 year periods as defined by the UN’s IPCC).

    The UK’s roads have 9 million potholes and once again Councils are bleating excuses for being “unprepared” and “underfunded” by central Gov’t.

    Considering the vast fortunes spent by the very same incompetents on green this and that, Gov’t grafetti and road safety barriers, high wheel crushing curbs and the dumbest machine on earth, the traffic (jam) light, it appears once again the Gov’t are mis-alocating (p*ssing away) resources on all the wrong targets.

    Lord Young was right, the British have “never had it so good”. He was referring to the orgy of spending by the public sector and the armies of staff none of whom has ever added any value to any daily need of the citizen that pays for this clown show of incompetence and corruption.

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

CAFOD Where Your Money Goes


Some of my best friends are Catholics, including at least two of my very favouritest bloggers. So no I don’t agree with Lord and Lady Whiteadder on Blackadder II that “Cold is good. Cold is God’s sign that we should burn more Catholics.”

Then again, you do wonder sometimes. Especially when you read press releases like this. It’s from the Catholic aid agency CAFOD and tells us, without any apparent embarrassment, how some of their donors’ money is going to be spent at the grotesque display of profligacy and idiocy celebrated in the video below. (H/T Watts Up With That).

Dear All,

I hope you’re well. I’m heading out to Cancun from Sunday for the full two weeks of the summit and I hope to see you there.

CAFOD has new spokespeople this year and I’m pleased to introduce our Climate Change Researcher Dr Jasber Singh, whose short biog is below:

Dr Jasber Singh is researching climate change from the point of view of marginalised women and men in developing countries. This ongoing research feeds into CAFODs policy work, as well as acting as a platform advocating for the participation of marginalised and voiceless people in the UNFCCC and other policy mechanisms. Previously, Jasber worked with two NGOs in India focusing on indigenous peoples’ experiences of carbon mitigation projects in relation to land displacement, food security and gender. Jasber has expertise in food security, participation of the marginalised, indigenous people, gender and environmental justice in the context of climate change.

The Pope seems a pretty sound fellow. I wonder what he makes of all this rot?

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

‘Mass suicide now the only option left’ say Cancun scientists | James Delingpole

November 30, 2010

As the latest round of UN-sponsored climate talks opened in Cancun today, ’scientists’ had a stark message on the threat posed by Man Made Global Warming. It is now so severe that only by exterminating ourselves like the vile parasite we are can we hope to leave a planet fit for habitation by generations as yet unborn, ’scientists’ say.

The radical measures being proposed by ‘scientists’ include:

1. Compulsory consumption of ground-up tiger’s whiskers.

2. Jonestown-style “eco parties” where kids can join in the fun by drinking poisoned Kool-Aid (or similar locally popular beverage: eg Irn Bru in Scotland; Badoit or San Pellegrino in Notting Hill, etc).

3. Natural death safaris in Africa, North America, Australia and even Antarctica where you can re-enter the ecosystem through the bowels of your killer predator of choice: Lion; Grizzly; Great White or Leopard Seal.

Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said today in a quote I’ve made up but which is only slightly less absurd than what he actually said:

“Since the hacked Climategate emails, we expert Climate Scientists have come in for a lot of stick from sceptics and deniers in the pay of Big Oil who claim that we’re just a bunch of misanthropic eco-fascists for whom freedom of choice is a concept more abhorrent than a baby polar bear pickled in shale oil. But nothing could be further from the truth. We believe that it should be entirely up to the people of the earth how they choose to kill themselves. If they don’t wish to follow any of the fun suggestions outlined in the Royal Society’s latest paper ‘So you’ve decided to die for Mother Gaia?’, we’re more than happy to send round a team of our experts to do the job for them.”

Meanwhile, a spokesman for David Cameron said he believed an outbreak of mass extinction would be “Great for Britain. Great for jobs.” He pointed out that after the Black Death in the mid-fourteenth century, there had been some kind of similar economic revival as a result of there being more land, or people dying, or class barriers breaking down or some such, but that the exact details would have to wait for the forthcoming report on history teaching by Simon Schama, entitled: “Why death is the very least Britain deserves for the despicable colonial record which shames us all!”

Related posts:

  1. My holiday is being ruined by global cooling. But try telling that to the ‘scientists’
  2. ‘ManBearPig is real!’ declare top climate scientists. ‘And to prove it here’s a photo-shopped image we found on the internet of a polar bear on a melting ice floe.’
  3. Lying, cheating climate scientists caught lying, cheating again
  4. Lying climate scientists lie again – about death threats, this time

2 thoughts on “’Mass suicide now the only option left’ say Cancun scientists”

  1. Velocity says:30th November 2010 at 12:07 pmThe attendance for Cancun I understand is 40% DOWN on that previous farce of waffling windbags, Cop-out-hagen 15.

    And Obamaworlds ‘Cap & Trade’ – that’s short for ‘Capitalism Taxed’ – can only muster 43 votes even amongst the bleating ranks of lefties of his own crumbling dysfunctional party.

    When even the whinging, whining, habitual moaners of the world can’t be arsed to bowl up, or even vote, to ‘Save the World’ from frying, you know we’ve reached the UN IPCC’s infamous ‘tipping point’.


  2. ge0050 says:10th December 2010 at 5:04 pmHopefully the “scientists” will lead by example

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

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

Wikileaks: Old Gray Lady Invokes the Harlot’s Prerogative

Political messaging

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related posts:

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

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

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

    Everything Gov’t touches turns to crap.

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

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

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

Comments are closed.

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

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

Allen West: America’s next black president?

November 28th, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

(to read more, click here)


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

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

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

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

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

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

    How do you think Allen West gets to office James?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Wrong target group.

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

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

    Everything Gov’t touches turns to crap.

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

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

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

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

    What an airhead!

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Where’s your moral compass arsehole?

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

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)


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

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

Classic Saul Alinsky

Knut: the polite dyslexic's worst nightmare

Knut: the polite dyslexic’s worst nightmare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related posts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Worth a look.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    There is NO mal-effects of DDT spraying pinhead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments are closed.

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