Charlotte Gainsbourg, Firstaid, Tindersticks | James Delingpole

February 15, 2010

Charlotte Gainsbourg – IRM (Because Music) *****

Five stars: you’ll perhaps be expecting fireworks but what you actually get is a sultry, understated, modest affair – sweetly folkie and Francoise Hardy in places, lightly industrial and post-rave in others – with a slightly messy, small-hours feel to it. That’ll be the influence of Beck who produced and co-wrote the songs, based on fragmentary lyrics suggested by Gainsbourg. They’ve worked together brilliantly. I’m particularly smitten with the lilting lullaby-like In the End, the whispery dream-pop of Time Of The Assassins and the enervated punk-electronica of Greenwich Mean Time, but I can tell already the whole thing is going to be a massive grower. Borderline genius.

First Aid Kit – The Big Black And The Blue (Jagadamba) *****

First Aid Kit have become a bit of a You Tube sensation with a cover of Fleet Foxes’ Tiger Mountain Peasant Song so exquisitely, unfeasibly lovely it makes the original sound almost like a tuneless dirge. Though you’ll surely think, as I did, that they’re some authentic Appalachian folk outfit – clear, penetrating vocals, the sweetest close harmonies and the most delicious country twang – they’re actually Swedish sisters, Klara and Johanna Soderberg (aged 16 and 19). I particularly like that little high whoop one of the girls does on the mindblowingly good A Window Opens but really the whole album is a total masterpiece. Buy!

Tindersticks – Falling Down A Mountain (4AD) ****

I’m giving Tindersticks’ eighth album a four-star benefit of the doubt. While I’m not yet totally smitten their records are often very slow growers and even after two plays I can hear definite signs of renewed confidence and creative revival. Harmony Round My Table is classic, old-school Tindersticks – right down to the delicate glockenspiel – with Stuart Staples’s lugubrious lounge vocals reaching almost dangerous levels of jauntiness. Elsewhere there are forays into Calexico-style western, a duet with Mary Margaret O’Hara, some mildly experimental jazz, and some lengthy, sparse but haunting instrumentals. Worth a go, definitely.

Related posts:

  1. Husky Rescue, Massive, Midlake
  2. My Records of the Year
  3. Records of the Year 2011
  4. Four Tet, Owl City, Hot Chip

 

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

Four Tet, Owl City, Hot Chip | James Delingpole

February 15, 2010: Reviews

Four Tet – There Is Love In You (Domino) ****

And the spate of brilliant, must-buy CDs continues. Kieran (Four Tet) Hebden is a contrary so-and-so. His last proper album Everything Ecstatic was hateful and the only time I’ve seen him DJ, it felt like he was largely there to bring us down and make our ears bleed. His latest, though, marks a return the form we last properly heard on his 2003 Rounds album. What he specialises in mainly is cerebral, slightly chilly and remote electro boffinry in the fine tradition of Kraftwerk and John Carpenter. But there are also plenty of outbreaks of tinkling, chimey, bubbling loveliness in the manner of Orbital, plus something of Underworld’s sweet melancholy and Boards Of Canada’s immense sonic vistas. Really, electronica doesn’t get much better than this.

Owl City – Ocean Eyes (Island) ***

Tim Burton loves this album. So do my kids. Says it all really. Unfortunately they’ve reached the age where they like their pop twee, processed and saccharine, which I’m afraid Owl City very much is, with fluffy marshmallow chunks of whimsy floating on top. Nice back story: shy 23-year old Minnesotan Alex Young uploads his DIY synth pop compositions onto My Space; 50 million hits and two albums later, he’s number one on both sides of the Atlantic with cute and winsome, AutoTune-drenched, undeniably catchy Fireflies. But if you’re expecting sparks and danger from the rest of the album, don’t. What he needs is a Four Tet remix.

Hot Chip – One Life Stand (Parlophone) ****

By spooky coincidence Hot Chip attended the same South London comprehensive as Four Tet. I don’t know what the opposite of a grower is – a shrinker, maybe? – but whatever it was, that’s how I felt about their first two albums. With each listen I got more annoyed by singer Alex’s nerve-jarring faux-tender wheedle, by the odd mix of electronic coldness and dreadful, soupy soft-soul. Here, though, all is forgiven. It’s an immaculate dance album with pretty much everything in the right place: great tunes, clever arrangements, Alex’s vocals sounding not nearly so irksome, and none of that uptightness which made their earlier work such a trial.

Related posts:

  1. Dizzee Rascal speaks up for the City. Probably.
  2. If ever we get out of this economic mess, it’ll be thanks to City AM – not the Financial Times
  3. City bonuses make a comeback but recession never left
  4. Records of the Year 2011
Scan to Donate Bitcoin to James
Did you like this?
Tip James with Bitcoin
Powered by BitMate Author Donations

Climategate: The Official Cover-up Continues

If there’s one thing that stinks even more than Climategate, it’s the attempts we’re seeing everywhere from the IPCC and Penn State University to the BBC to pretend that nothing seriously bad has happened, that “the science” is still “settled”, and that it’s perfectly OK for the authorities go on throwing loads more of our money at a problem that doesn’t exist.

The latest example of this noisome phenomenon is Sir Muir Russell’s official whitewash – sorry “independent inquiry”  into the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) scandal.

The inquiry has not even begun and already it has told its first blatant lie – seen here on its official website.

Do any of the Review team members have a predetermined view on climate change and climate science?
No.  Members of the research team come from a variety of scientific backgrounds. They were selected on the basis they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the issues the Review is looking at.

By what bizarre logic, then, did Sir Muir think it a good idea to appoint to his panel the editor of Nature, Dr Philip Campbell? Dr Campbell is hardly neutral: his magazine has for years been arguing aggressively in favour of the AGW, and which published this editorial in the wake of Climategate:

The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551). To these denialists, the scientists’ scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial ‘smoking gun’: proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.

This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.

Dr Campbell has since resigned his post – and rightly so, as the Global Warming Policy Foundation makes clear. But are we to feel any more confident about the alleged neutrality of another of Sir Muir’s appointments, Professor Geoffrey Boulton?

Bishop Hill certainly doesn’t think so. He notes that Professor Boulton….

  • spent 18 years at the school of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia
  • works in an office almost next door to a member of the Hockey Team
  • says the argument over climate change is over
  • tours the country lecturing on the dangers of climate change
  • believes the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2050
  • signed up to a statement supporting the consensus in the wake of Climategate, which spoke of scientists adhering to the highest standards of integrity
  • could fairly be described as a global warming doommonger
  • is quite happy to discuss “denial” in the context of the climate debate.

You wonder, if Sir Muir really is that determined to keep his inquiry totally unbiased, independent, above-board and scrupulously neutral why he just doesn’t go the whole hog and appoint Al Gore, James Hansen and Rajendra Pachauri. I doubt the conclusions they’d reach would be any different.

Related posts:

  1. Wow! UK parliamentary investigation into Climategate may not be a whitewash
  2. Climategate: the whitewash continues
  3. The case against Dr Phil ‘Climategate’ Jones
  4. Climategate: the parliamentary cover-up

8 Responses to “Climategate: the official cover-up continues”

  1. Rupert says:February 13, 2010 at 10:03 amForgive my naivety but why are all these warming alarmists bothering to engage in any debate at all with the capitalist globalisation running-dog lackeys of the denialist movement over facts, figures and projections. Surely it would be more efficacious to adopt the tactics of the spine wizards at the British Chiropractic Association in dealing with Simon Singh and use England’s celebrated libel laws to silence Messrs Delingpole, Booker, North, Watt etc etc etc etc ad infinitum.
    Or would there just be too many people on the defendants list…?
  2. Tom Forrester-Paton says:February 14, 2010 at 2:58 amRupert – that would result in a TRIAL, a procedure involving forensic logic, a concept clearly alien to them, but which they rightly suspect might prove uncomfortable. It would also probably result in the public airing, under oath, of all sorts of evidence whch might compel hitherto lethargic and compliant prosecutorial services (aka Mr Plod) to act. Bring it on….!
  3. Tom Forrester-Paton says:February 15, 2010 at 12:31 amJames – in view of Dr Pachari’s recently-revealed literary talents, should we not in future refer to him as “Paperback Raitha”? Sorry, I couldn’t resist…
  4. Rupert says:February 15, 2010 at 5:28 pmOnly one man can save the IPCC from the stench of the ordure in now finds itself in. Enter stage left the world’s latest superhero the ever fragrant Doctor Patchouli !!!
  5. Rupert says:February 15, 2010 at 8:50 pmI wonder what Al Gore would really like to do with the multitudinous ‘deniers’? After all his name is an anagram of ‘gaoler’…
  6. David Q. Hall says:February 16, 2010 at 4:23 pmHolocene glacial retreat and sea level rise is an accepted geological fact:

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

    In the past 20,000 yrs sea levels have risen as much as 10-15 meters in a 500 year interval.

    During the Eocene there were temperate forests north of the Arctic circle and tropical forests in the Appalachain Mtns. (West Virginia, USA)

  7. John says:February 17, 2010 at 12:47 amRupert said:

    “a procedure involving forensic logic, a concept clearly alien to them”

    Unfortunately, skeptics are guilty of the same thing. Too much bombast and not enough substance to this debate lately.

  8. Tom Forrester-Paton says:February 17, 2010 at 1:43 pmJohn, I think the remark you refer to is mine. Actually you’re right. I don’t think the Tree Ring Circus are strangers to the scientific method. In truth I think they knew very well that their work was bad science, but were so invested in the AGW industry that they chose to lie, dissemble and obfuscate to keep the grants and the plaudits coming.

    However, when you accuse sceptics of the same lack of rigour, you repeat the mistake made by so many warmists (and, I grant you, too many sceptics) that it is the job of sceptics to present counter-theories to their own. It is not. What matters is whether AGW survives proper scrutiny, not whether those scrutinising it can do any better. I wish sceptics would remember this, but the fact that some don’t doesn’t relieve proponents of AGW of their obligation to present their theories in the form of falsifiable argument. The Climategate emails and code reveal the excruciating efforts of the high priesthood of AGW to do just that, their continuing failure, and the lengths to which they went or were prepared to go to conceal their work, with all its inadequacies, from proper peer review.

    There, that wasn’t too bombastic, was it?

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

Climategate: Mad Sunday

I mean “Mad” in a good way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related posts:

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

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Is Rubbish – Says Yet Another Expert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Simply astonishing. This is a consensus?

Related posts:

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

 

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

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

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

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

Dear James,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inquisitively yours,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr North reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earlier he claims:

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

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

Related posts:

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

 

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

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

February 4, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s Richard North:

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

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

Way to lose, Mr Cameron.

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

Please tell me this is a JOKE !

The day Cameron finally lost the election.

God how I hate these Conservatives.

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

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

Related posts:

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

 

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

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

February 2nd, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

As Booker recounts:

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

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

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

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

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

As Illarionov wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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