BP oil spill: ‘mass hysteria on a par with the Dutch tulip bubble’ | James Delingpole

 November 16th, 2010

Some of the more hysterical members of the ecotard commentariat are still banging on about the BP Oil Spill as if it were the worst environmental disaster in the history of mankind. Right up there with Chernobyl, they’re saying. And in that comparison at least they’re absolutely right. Like Chernobyl, the BP Oil Spill was an accident far more terrifying in the press handouts of environmental lobbyists than it proved to be in real life.

Just consider, for example, the latest reports from the Gulf of Mexico which show that fish stocks have rebounded with the kind of teeming piscine vigour that will give George Monbiot nightmares for months.
Here’s Lou Dolinar on the case in National Review Online:
The catastrophists were wrong (again) about the Deep Water Horizon oil spill. There have been no major fish die-offs. On the contrary, a comprehensive new study says that in some of the most heavily fished areas of the Gulf of Mexico, various forms of sea life, from shrimp to sharks, have seen their populations triple since before the spill. Some species, including shrimp and croaker, did even better.
And meanwhile, the media has greatly exaggerated damage found in studies about coral, which is in some ways more vulnerable to oil and dispersant. Most of it is doing fine.
The growth of the fish population is not occurring because oil is good for fish. Rather, it is occurring because fishing is bad for fish. When fishing was banned for months during the spill, the Gulf of Mexico experienced an unprecedented marine renaissance that overwhelmed any negative environmental consequences the oil may have had, researchers say.
Even the researchers themselves, however, were surprised by the results. “We expected there to be virtually no fish out there based on all the reports we were getting about the toxicity of the dispersant and the toxicity of the hydrocarbons, and reports that hypoxia [low oxygen] had been created as a result of the oil and dispersant,” says John Valentine, who directed the study. “In every way you can imagine, it should have been a hostile environment for fish and crabs; our collection showed that was not the case.”
Also surprising was how quickly the populations grew. “In the cosmic scheme of things, a matter of four or five months led to this huge difference in everything, sharks, fish of all forms, even the juvenile fish found in sea-grass beds. That’s a pretty interesting and unanticipated outcome, I would say,” says Valentine. The surge is so robust, he says, that it may be impossible to determine whether the oil spill has had any effect on sea life at all.
You’ll see further down the piece that Dolinar is not trying to argue that the BP Oil spill was a good thing. The Louisiana tourist industry has been hit hard; Gulf fishermen have suffered enormously, first from being unable to fish, and now from the reluctance of consumers to buy their produce in the mistaken belief that it is tainted. But you can bet your bottom dollar this won’t stop unscrupulous eco-fascists from dismissing Dolinar – and me of course – as the kind of Gaia-raping scumbag who thinks it’s just fine and dandy if Big Oil companies spew their toxic slicks of evil, carboniferous death sludge into the watery playgrounds of smiling dolphins and cute gulpy pelicans.
Er, no – I think I can speak for Dolinar too here – that’s not what we think at all. What we do think, though, is that the way environmental disasters are reported ought to reflect the truth rather than the masochistic fantasies of the environmental lobby.
Chernobyl was much the same in this respect. According to Cherie Blair’s favourite Lefty historian Tony Judt, for example, “30,000 people died as the result of the Chernobyl explosion of 1996”. This is quite simply not true, yet it is the kind of made-up factoid continually brandished by libtard commentators – and “I reckon” sub-blog commenters – as gospel evidence as to why Nuclear Power is a Bad Thing.
In truth, according to the Chernobyl Forum (H/T Catweazle) – an authoritative survey conducted over two years by representatives of 8 UN organisations including the World Health Organisation (not a body known for its Right-wing sceptical views) – fewer than 50 deaths can be directly attributed to Chernobyl’s radiation, most of them highly exposed rescue workers in the early stages of the disaster.
Nor did the predicted epidemic of cancer and genetic mutations materialise. In fact the incidence of cancer has actually turned out to be lower in the regions most exposed to Chernobyl fallout than elsewhere. Not, of course, that you’ll hear this much from the Ukrainians who have as much interest in promoting their Chernobyl victim status as the Maldives does the existence of “Man-made global warming”.
But lies, hysteria and misinformation were ever the stock-in-trade of the green movement for – as befits the Leninist method to which so many ecotards adhere – the truth is a malleable commodity which can cheerfully be suborned to the noble end of destroying the capitalist system and creating a noble new world order run along lines advocated by such freedom-loving guys as George Soros and Maurice Strong.
As I said at the time, there’s nothing greenies like more than a nice, juicy oil spill disaster. For your amusement and edification, let me reprint the words of one of the commenters who got weally cwoss about that particular column, accusing me of callousness and insensitivity to a tragedy which – natch – was going to destroy the Gulf coast till the end of time.
“But the idea that there is any bigger ecological moral to be drawn from this is as poisonous as it is stupid.”
With comments like this it is no wonder the world is in it’s current form. I wonder if it is the fact that the British press has barely reported on the oil gushing in the Gulf of Mexico that such ignorance about the state of affairs spews forth from British bloggers and comment sections or something else… some need to prove yourself superior to the Americans.
The British press has been sorely lacking reporting on the tragic accident from day one, so perhaps some of you have an excuse? But, do you only read the British press? Do you not read the international press? Are you as small-minded as you claim the Americans to be?
Maybe the spill should come over and affect the British coastline. Maybe tankers with an equivalent amount of oil should come dump them on British shores. What will it take for you to understand the magnitude of this tragedy? When will you see what has been done? Only when you are personally impacted, will we hear a peep from you, I am afraid. Cannot get outside of yourself for one moment to understand someone else’s situation. Must always think of yourself first.
Well, that’s back to my original point and how we all got here. From the prattle in this blog, I am sure you will not consider that. Why change, when you can go on living your self-destructive life. Who cares about others or future generations? No. Just think about yourselves, all these problems will just magically fix themselves. Right?
Her name was Ellie Star. What are my chances, do you reckon, of getting a fulsome, grovelling apology.


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

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)


Better that a thousand liberals die than that one Al Qaeda terrorist should be waterboarded! | James Delingpole

November 10th, 2010

From Dubya’s new memoirs:

Of the thousands of terrorists we captured in the years after 9/11, about a hundred were placed into the CIA program. About a third of those were questioned using enhanced techniques. Three were waterboarded.

The information the detainees revealed constituted more than half of what the CIA knew about al-Qaeda. Their interrogations helped break up plots to attack American military and diplomatic facilities abroad, Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf in London, and multiple targets in the United States.

Hmm. So that’ll be three as in the Three Stooges, the Three Graces, the Three Amigos, the Trinity, the Good, the Bad and the Ugly, the number of Avengers, the number of Goodies, and the number of protagonists in the popular Seventies children’s drama Hector’s House. Whichever way you’d spin it, I’d suggest that three is not a very large number of evil terrorists to have subjected to deeply unpleasant, but not fatal or permanently damaging torture in order to gain vital information that could save many more lives from future planned atrocities. It is, for example, 49 fewer than the number of innocents murdered in the 7/7 tube bombings; 199 fewer than the number killed in the Bali bombings; and 2933 fewer than the number of people murdered on 9/11.

But obviously, I know that all the liberals reading this will know better. They will all be able to tell me, hands on heart, that they would happily have sacrificed both their own lives and those of their children for the unalienable right of murderous Al-Qaeda terrorists not to have any form of unpleasantness inflicted on them by Western authorities.

And I salute their principles, really I do. It’s just that I hope, when I fly to New York tomorrow, they’re nowhere near the passenger lists of the flight I’m taking. Guys, I implore you, fly Dhimmi Air instead. There the body-searches are cursory and determinedly non-discriminatory. And in the likely event that your plane does blow up half way across the Atlantic, you will at least have the consolation of knowing as the tiny parts of your body drift oceanwards that you and all your fellow impeccably liberal passengers have kept the moral high ground to the last.


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

2 Responses to “Better that a thousand liberals die than that one Al Qaeda terrorist should be waterboarded!”

  1. Ben Nicholson says:November 12, 2010 at 12:53 pmCongratulations on your Bastiat Prize James! You certainly deserve it. Your articles could save the world, yet.
  2. orkneylad says:November 12, 2010 at 11:36 pmJames, I hope you avoided the body scanners…this breaking story is shocking.TSA Desktop Image Makes Joke of Cavity Searching Children

    The ‘clincher’ for me is the screen’s Specular Reflection at the top of the image, on the metal strip.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)


Life’s Too Short to Be Nice to Lefties

Now I know why so many people hate me. It came to me in a flash during dinner with a group of bright, articulate, well-balanced sixth-formers from Roedean girls’ school. I was banging on in my rabid right-wing way about the importance of free markets and the shortcomings of feminism and suchlike when I happened accidentally to vouchsafe that the proudest achievement of my life had been teaching my children to read. And it was as if, all of a sudden, I’d waved a magic wand and sprinkled myself in fairy dust. The mood softened. You could almost see the thought bubbles above the girls’ heads, saying: ‘Aaah!’ and ‘Gosh maybe he isn’t, like, so totally evil after all.’

‘Blimey!’ I thought to myself. ‘That’s where I’ve been going wrong!’ And a plan began to form in my head. My wife has long been telling me that I need to find ways of stopping people thinking I’m such a grade-one Berkshire Hunt, and my Roedean experience confirmed it. Clearly, from now on, I would have to attend all my speaking engagements accompanied by a puppy. With a lovely blue ribbon round its neck. And dozens of photos of me changing my kids’ nappies and helping old blind ladies across the road. And a fund of anecdotes, like the time I spontaneously invited a party of Congolese orphans with leprosy to come and join me in the jacuzzi. (‘Oh, never mind all the floaty bits, kids. These warm soothing jets are the least you deserve after the hell you’ve been through!’) And a T-shirt with a big smiley face on with the caption: ‘Oh. By the way. I’m really NICE.’

No, not really. In fact the conclusion I drew from my Roedean experience was the exact opposite: that in future I will try even less hard to make people like me at public speaking engagements. I think it’s time we on the right fought back against the tyranny of nice; time we told it like it is, without prettifying our arguments with love-me-do asides about how many kittens we saved from drowning this week, and without trying to show our audience how reasonable and balanced we are by conceding that our ideological opponents have the occasional point.

Read the rest in the Spectator.

Happy Climate Fools’ Day | James Delingpole

October 28, 2010

Today is Climate Fools’ Day. To celebrate, here is an essay courtesy of Simon Barnett to show how your money is being squandered by the Coalition on “Climate Change”.

The 2008 Climate Change Act commits Britain to cutting its CO2 emissions by 80 percent by 2050 at a cost of £18.3 billion every year for the next four decades (according to the Department for Energy and Climate Change website).

This is being funded by top slicing the cash from your energy bills. The figure does not include other costs, such as the losses incurred due to the economic damage and opportunity costs of these measures. And obviously the law only seeks only to address CO2 emissions from the UK.

Without pausing to question how that 80 percent target is to be attained short of closing down the entire economy I’d just like to demonstrate the sheer scale of the cost of this bill with a little help from my beautiful assistant, H.R.H. Queen Elizabeth II. Here she is below on the fifty pound note, the largest denomination note in common circulation, and guaranteed to win friends and influence people wherever she goes…


Also assisting me in my demonstration will be “red stick man” who is participating primarily as a visual reference to scale, but you can call him “Red Ed” if you’d like (to apportion blame). Here he is demonstrating that a million of the above notes (50 million pounds) will fit neatly onto a standard pallet… (h/t)


And here he is again, this time demonstrating what one billion pounds sterling looks like (now we’re getting into the real money and Ed seems to have started sweating)…


So the governments own estimate of £18 Billion per year is a huge pile of our cash that would look like this (Are you alright, Ed? You seem to have gone a bit green)…


Remember, our light-green-fingered politicians (of all political stripes) want us fork over a similar pile of cash to their chums in ‘green subsidies’ every year for the next four decades!!! That soon adds up to quite a tidy pile. So now let’s play: “where’s Ed?”…


Assuming that at least some of that cash doesn’t get spent on duck houses, that is one hell of a cure! But can we visualise the size of the problem it is supposed to fix?

Let’s see…

The majority of greenhouse gasses are water vapour. Carbon dioxide represents 2% of greenhouse gasses, and of that carbon dioxide 2% is attributed to human activity (including livestock). So let’s consider the following visualisation of 1000 (double stacked) 55 gallon drums.


The blue drums represent water vapour and the yellow drums represent naturally occurring Co2 (from the oceans, rotting vegetation and volcanoes – note here that a good volcano could easily wipe out several years of any anthropomorphic Co2 savings we might make). We can’t do anything about the anthropomorphic Co2 in the red drums because it is produced in developing countries like China and India who have no intention of hamstringing their economies to keep up with the latest eco-fad.

Anthropomorphic Co2 from the industrialised nations is represented by the green barrels… but wait! Remember the political slush-fund described above is for the UK only. There are over a billion people just in Europe and the US alone, and only 60 million in the UK. So what Co2 reduction does our £18 billion a year buy us in real terms? Out of 55,000 gallons the UKs total contribution is arguably *drum roll* less than one gallon (about six and a half pints). In that context even an 80% cut is – quite literally – a drop in the ocean.


Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t the “cure” sound worse than the problem? A bit like amputating your leg to “cure” your in-growing toe nail? A bit Nongqawuse? But surprisingly few of the politicians, bankers, civil servants, trans-national bureaucrats, academics, activists and energy companies who stand to receive a slice of this funding bonanza seem to see it that way. And who can blame them? Remarkably few of those pallets would be enough to turn most of us into true believers.

After 15 years of what climate science calls “negative warming” (i.e. cooling; and despite unchecked Co2 levels) I must confess I was already sceptical about the likelihood of human Co2 having the catastrophic outcomes described in some academic requests for funding. Especially not when much of their proof comes from weather monitoring stations sited within feet of air conditioning outlets and when we discover that their results are “homogenised” by interpolation with hardcoded variables.

I know what you’re thinking and I’ve heard about the “consensus” too. But when you can actually prove something you don’t need a consensus. That’s why you never hear about the consensus on gravity, or the consensus on evolution. Saying that 97% of climate scientists believe in global warming is an awful lot like saying that 97% of priests believe in God. If they didn’t at least pretend to believe in global warming climate change climate disruption they wouldn’t be climate scientists – not of the sort that get public funding, anyway. And when those “scientists” have to delete their own source data to prevent it from being released under freedom of information laws they deserve the scare quotes because at that point they have stopped being a credible science and have become just another bunch of religious extremists.

Simply put, the shoddy and disreputable field of climate “science” still has an awfully long way yet to go to actually prove that our six and a half pints of co2 are a problem of sufficient magnitude to justify such an obscene amount of public cash. Not when we are the only nation currently prepared to eviscerate our economy in such a way, making the entire exercise a futile gesture from the outset.

Related posts:

  1. Finally BBC asks: are we maybe a bit biased on ‘climate change’?
  2. Sun Causes Climate Change Shock
  3. This government simply hasn’t a clue about ‘Climate Change’
  4. Oh no, not another unbiased BBC documentary about ‘Climate Change’…

5 thoughts on “Happy Climate Fools’ Day”

  1. Groper says:29th October 2010 at 11:16 pmOh dear Delingpole, green energy bad but spending on wars for oil is alright. Countless £££ billions wasted not to mention the lives lost. All you can do is bash investment into our future energy needs keeping us at the mercy of fossil fuel price fluctuations, taking us back in the stone ages whilst other developed countries are looking to the future. Yep! Looking at this board you certainly are building up a big following to your religion of denialism and hate.
  2. Neil Craig says:2nd November 2010 at 1:03 pmSo Groper if your honest primary objection is to demand for oil creating wars you will be on record as saying we should be allowing mass building of nuclear palnts which can provide immense amounts of energy cheaply, cheaply enough it would even be practical to synthesise oil & of which there is an effectively unlimited supply in seawater.

    In the same way ever single “environmentalist” who honestly believes in the catastrophic warming swindle is on record as supporting mass nuclear as the only practical way of producing virtually CO2 free power.

    Perhaps Gopher you could name some eco-fascists who, by that standard, are not provably personally supportive of resource wars against the 3rd world or some who are not perfectly aware that warming catastrophism is a total fraud by political parasites. I look forward to you doing so & providing evidence that you are entitled to claim membership of either handful.

  3. Groper says:7th November 2010 at 12:14 amNuclear is an option, but if the UK went full nuclear, we would be facing £140 billion cost of decommisioning and disposal after they come to the end of the lifespans. So it can only part of a solution. With China and the US, fossil fuel hungry nations, the biggest investors in renewbles, recognise the world’s ever increasing demand for energy. Delingpole doesn’t offer any solutions. Just disinformation and hate.
  4. Velocity says:25th November 2010 at 9:16 pmGroper

    Know much about markets do you?

    I’ve spent my life as a businessman and the last year as a private investor in the markets. Let me tell you what I’ve learned. Oil, like coal and gas, is coming out of our ears. The only problemo is Gov’t involvement (regulation, subsidy, legislation etc etc) i f**king it up!

    There is NO (ie. zero) issues with oil/gas/coal prices. They are cheap 95% of the time, except for the odd (ie. exceptional) 40 year spike. There is no issue about this BS called ‘energy security’ either. We’ve had a constant reliable safe and secure energy supply for 100 years, and it gets better by the day because ever more countries are finding the stuff.

    Every piece of crap you’ve ever heard from the shrill green empties and the fascist political scum is a big fat lie.

    So don’t worry your little head. Leave it to the free competitive market. It does ALL the work for you. No socialists required.

  5. Groper says:25th November 2010 at 10:53 pmWell if you spent your life as a businessman you haven’t learnt much. Like I said in other post, there’s plenty of oil around. With the Arctic opening up, they’ll be plenty more. But eventually, we’re going to have to dig deeper etc. The price goes up to the point where it becomes economically unviable. When it will happen is the point.

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

When you hear the word ‘Biodiversity’ reach for your Browning | James Delingpole

October 28, 2010

It's OK: I don't want ickle wickle spotty wotty to die either....

It’s OK: I don’t want ickle wickle spotty wotty to die either…

This column comes to you from sunny Rajasthan, India, where I have taken my family to look for leopards (and crocodiles and monkeys and black buck…).

As you can imagine taking the kids somewhere so exotic at half term is costing me an arm and a leg I can ill afford. But I want them to share with me the almost matchless pleasure of seeing big cats (or big anything else: sharks are good too; and bears; and elephants…) in their native habitat. Being amid unspoilt nature, whether it’s walking in the Welsh or Scottish hills or going on safari in Africa or India, is what makes me truly happy, and I’m sure this will rub off on my miserable, ungrateful, ‘urrggh it’s spicy we hate spicy food isn’t there a Pizza Hut round here?’ kids eventually too.

Why am I telling you this? Well partly in response to the unutterable fatuousness of some of the comments I got last week below my post on ‘Biodiversity.‘ Some of the pillocks who chipped in their tuppeny happeny’s worth seemed to imagine that the world divides into two kinds of people:

Lovely, cuddly-wuddly, caring, WWF and Greenpeace types who want to save nature.


Hateful climate-change-denying, biodiversity-loathing types who want to destroy it.

Uh, no. With respect, morons, that is not how things work. When I attack the concept of ‘Biodiversity’ – and note the inverted commas, that’s kind of key – I’m not voting, as the eco-fascist would-be suicide bomber James Lee so touchingly put it, against “The Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels.” What I’m railing against is the way a noble-seeming concept has been subverted by the watermelons of the green movement in exactly the same way as “Climate change” has and with precisely the same aims: to extend the powers of government; to raise taxes; to weaken the capitalist system; to curtail personal freedom; to redistribute income; to bring ever-closer the advent of an eco-fascist New World Order.

I’ve got nothing against biodiversity. But I’ve an awful lot against “Biodiversity.”

To understand why it’s such a menace, download this PDF put together by the wonderful Donna LaFramboise. Her basic point is this: that the claims of mass man-made species extinction currently being bandied about by liberal activist bodies like the United Nations and the BBC are based on the flimsiest of science.

A few days I ago I wrote about the chapter in the 2007 Nobel-winning climate bible that concludes 20-30% of all the Earth’s species are at risk of extinction due to global warming. I explained that the research paper on which this finding depends has been demolished by experts in that field. According to one of the world’s pre-eminent biologists, the 2004 Thomas study isn’t just flawed it’s “the worst paper I have ever read in a major scientific journal.”

LaFramboise also recommends this essay by Stephen Budiansky, which concludes:

There is no scientific dispute that extinctions are occurring, that they are occurring at a rate above the natural level due to human action, and that strenuous efforts are needed to protect critical habitats, to eliminate invasive competitors that threaten species, and to prevent overexploitation.

But the egregiously bad science that is still being invoked to shore up wholly unsubstantiated predictions of catastrophic mass extinctions is only undermining the credibility of environmentalists, and is already causing a dangerous political backlash that has handed ammunition (exactly as in the case of global warming) to those who want to reject any and all evidence of human impacts on the natural environment.

Are you with me now?

Biodiversity is climate change is ocean acidification is welcome to the New World Order.

Related posts:

  1. Fracking: why have we allowed the left to make it a dirty word?
  2. ‘Biodiversity’: the new Big Lie
  3. Nazis: the gift that goes on giving
  4. Surface pleasure

One thought on “When you hear the word ‘Biodiversity’ reach for your Browning”

  1. Roger says:16th September 2011 at 3:13 amJames,

    Did you find any wildlife? I am curious to learn why you thought it was worthwhile going to India to see leopards etc. when you consider trying to conserve them to be a scam.


Chris Huhne’s favourite yoghurt ingredient | James Delingpole

Huhne: A taste for something better. . .

Huhne: you'll get used to the taste, eventually
Huhne: you’ll get used to the taste, eventually.

Let me explain the analogy, which I first introduced to a nauseated world in a Spectator column penned in bile in the aftermath the Eton Grocer’s spectacular general election non-victory. Here’s the relevant passage:

Quite the most absurd piece of recrimination I’ve heard so far from the Cameroons, though, is the notion that the real people to blame for all this are those 900,000 or so folk who voted UKIP, as well as all those rabid head-banging types like James Delingpole who were so unhelpful in pointing out the flaws in Project Cameron’s splendid policies. If only we’d held our noses and accepted that the Cameroons, for all their flaws, were our last hope of restoring Conservatism to power in Britain, then Dave might be in position right now to effect Real Change.

This is what I call the Dog S**t Yoghurt Fallacy. Suppose your preferred brand of fruit yoghurt manufacturer has been losing sales of late and has decided, after doing a bit of market research, that it may be necessary to alter the formula slightly. What at least some of the punters are clamouring for these days, it seems, is not chunks of fruit in their yoghurt but bits of dog poo instead.

“But that’s revolting!” you tell the manager of your preferred yoghurt brand. “Fruit goes way better in yoghurt than dog poo does.” “Look, you know that and I know that, but trust me we’ve crunched the numbers, done the research and it’s the only way. If we don’t put some dog poo in our yoghurt, then people will say we haven’t moved with the times. We’ll be forever stuck in the boring, fuddy duddy age of strawberry, and raspberry and apricot. But under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the public have acquired a real taste for excrement. If we don’t give it to them – we’ll only need a little bit, I promise – then we’ll probably go out of business.”

“No you won’t!” you reply. “There are loads of us who still like fruit yoghurt. And still loads more who’d buy it if you made it even fruitier. Your analysis is barmy.” “Well I’m sorry sir, but our marketing expert Mister Hilton assures us there’s no other way. Surely, you won’t object to just the inclusion of a tiny hint of merde de chien to save our brand from total ruin?”

Call me weird, call me stubborn. But I prefer my yoghurt to taste of fruit, real fruit and nothing but fruit.

As you see, I was talking mainly about the death of the Conservative party. But the analogy applies just as well to the Coalition’s energy policy, as supervised by the appalling Chris Huhne with the full encouragement of the no less appalling David Cameron.

In this case, the fruit element of the yoghurt would be nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is good. It’s what we need, both for energy security and to fill our looming energy gap. Only a total nutcase could possibly be opposed to nuclear energy, as my colleague Louise Gray has been demonstrating with her ring-round of the asylums:

But Mike Childs, head of climate change at Friends of the Earth, insisted the expansion of nuclear power could not go ahead without some form of public subsidy because of the massive costs of construction.

“It is not obvious to see how nuclear will be affordable without some form of public subsidy because the costs keep rising of building nuclear and getting rid of the waste,” he said.

“The only way nuclear will get built is if they [the Coalition] renege on their promise not to subsidise it.”

What, and the supposed green alternative to nuclear – wind power – doesn’t require massive public subsidy on an even greater scale? Pull the other one, Childs. According to Booker, who unlike some has actually been bothered to do the maths, our economically suicidal attempts to meet the EU renewables target are going to add £880 a year to our energy bills.

Which brings us to the poo element in the yoghurt: renewable energy and decarbonisation. There are many within the Coalition and indeed in the country at large who take what they imagine is a ’sophisticated’ line on Climate Change. As to whether or not it’s a serious threat and to what degree it is or isn’t “man made” they don’t much care. What motivates them is a vague sense that some climate change action is better than no climate change action, that it’s probably quite useful to keep the Caroline Lucas fringe onside, and that there might be some green jobs in it for someone somewhere. In other words: “Let’s just put a few lumps of dog poo in the yoghurt, just in case. No harm done if it turns out to have been unnecessary, eh?”

Er, no actually. In the name of the “precautionary principle” on Climate Change, quite enormous amounts of harm are being done. Richard North gives an example of this in his scathing dismissal of Chris Huhne’s new carbon capture project, which will cost the taxpayer £1 billion to no purpose whatsoever:

Whichever way you look at it, £1 billion is a lot of money. That is £1,000,000,000.00, and it is our money – more money than you and I will ever see, or ever dream of earning. It is a sum of money that would buy 150,000 hip replacement operations. It would pay the energy bills for two million pensioners for a full year, or pay the university fees for 600,000 students. More specifically, and of some personal interest, it would pay for 100,000 life-saving heart operations.

Yet the ****wit pictured is going to take that amount of money from us to play around stripping plant food from coal-fired electricity generation and bury it deep in a hole in the ground.

This man, therefore, will – indirectly – be responsible for many deaths, lost in “opportunity costs”. The money frittered away on this moronic enterprise cannot be spent on life-saving functions. And we do not have the money to spare. If we waste this money, it is not available for anything else. People will die because of this action.

And what about this:

[Huhne] is set to give the go ahead to a new generation of eight nuclear power stations, alongside an expansion of renewable energy and the creation of up to 44,000 wind turbines.

Anyone care to hazard how much environmental damage is going to be done to our countryside by 44,000 – count ‘em – wind turbanes? How many birds – and protected bats (H/T Ian Smith)- are going to be liquidised? How many views spoiled? How many householders impoverished?

Oh and let’s dispense once and for all with the idea that renewables bring any economic benefits. The green experiment has already been attempted in Spain and Germany and has failed dismally. Why? Because renewables only make economic sense if they are subsidised by the taxpayer – which means of course that they make no economic sense at all.

Here’s a report on the Spanish disaster (H/T Global Warming Policy Foundation)

Spain stands as a lesson to other aspiring green-energy nations, including China and the U.S., by showing how difficult it is to build an alternative energy industry even with billions of euros in subsidies, says Ramon de la Sota, a private investor in Spanish photovoltaic panels and a former General Electric Co. executive.

“The government totally overshot with the tariff,” de la Sota says. “Now they have a huge bill to pay — but where’s the technology, where’s the know-how, where’s the value?”

And here is the German energy disaster:

Next year, German households are in for a big price shock: the renewable energies levy, which every household in Germany has to pay as part of their electricity bills, will increase by over 70 per cent to 3.5 cents per kilowatt hour. This was announced by the German network operator on Friday. For an average household this will mean additional costs of around 10 € a month, according to the Federal Environment Ministry.
An end to the price spiral, which is caused by the subsidies for green electricity, is not in sight. Holger Krawinkel, energy expert of the Federation of Consumer Organizations, expects a further rise of the so-called EEG surcharge in the medium term. “It will rise by more than 5 cents in coming years in any case”, Krawinkel predicted in an interview with the news agency DAPD. The reason: The federal government has failed to cut subsidies for solar energy fast and strong enough. Moreover, the impending boom in offshore wind energy is not even included in the green energy levy.

And all because a few plausible charlatans have been able to persuade an awful lot of influential people over the years that plant food is a deadly poison. Thanks Bert Bolin! Thanks Stephen Schneider! Thanks James Hansen! Thanks Al Gore! Rest assured that one day – and let’s hope sooner rather than later – your names will live in infamy for all eternity.

Related posts:

  1. ‘Compassionate’ Conservatism isn’t Conservatism
  2. Led Zep’s favourite folkie
  3. The date of the General Election is:
  4. John Clare: your favourite new old poet


‘Biodiversity’: the new Big Lie | James Delingpole


‘Biodiversity’: the new Big Lie

October 22nd, 2010

And so it begins. With all the shamelessness of a Goldman Sachser trading in his middle-aged wife for a hot, pouting twentysomething called Ivanka, the green movement is ditching “Climate Change”. The newer, younger, sexier model’s name? Biodiversity. (Mega hat tips to: Hilary Ostrov and Ozboy at Libertygibbet)

(to read more, click here)


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

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)


Back to Basics | James Delingpole

Back to Basics

October 22nd, 2010

One of the few professional stand-up comics I’ve met who wasn’t bitter, twisted, malign, graceless, grumpy, chippy, egomaniacal and slightly to the left of Stalin is Mark Billingham. We bonded at the Dubai literary festival earlier this year, and I liked him so much that I very nearly bought one of his bestselling crime thrillers.

The reason I didn’t in the end was that I decided a) if I liked it, it would make me jealous and hate him, b) if I didn’t like it, I wouldn’t be able to look him in the eye and c) I don’t really do bestselling crime thrillers because when you’ve read one series about a detective with a rackety personal life investigating a serial killer with an unusually vile and pervy modus operandi you’ve pretty much read them all, haven’t you?

So, imagine my surprise when I watched the first episode of Thorne: Sleepyhead (Sunday, Sky 1), starring Billingham’s creation DCI Thorne and discovered that, for a change, it was about a detective with a rackety personal life investigating a serial killer with an unusually vile and pervy modus operandi. Actually, putting aside sarcasm for a moment, there really was one major difference between this and most of the others: it wasn’t incredibly annoying.

AdTech AdI blame Inspector bloody Morse. The problem with Inspector bloody Morse was that he was such a character, his quirks started taking over the entire programme. So by the time you’d done with the foaming pint of ale in Oxfordshire pub stuff and the ‘Morse drives classic Jag through agreeable countryside’ stuff and the ‘Morse is really into his opera’ stuff and ‘Morse’s sidekick is dogged, loyal and thick’ stuff and the ‘Morse always makes mistakes and fingers the wrong culprit’ stuff, all you were left with was a strong urge to hang yourself — probably from a bell rope in a picturesque church like the pretty classical violinist daughter who had secretly been abused by the stuffy don with the fruity wife whom Morse half-fancied but only in a wistful, late-middle-aged way for nothing would ever come of it.

I also blame Prime Suspect, which would insist that TV detective dramas had to be about issues. In this case, the issue was: ‘Ooh, look. Have you noticed she’s a woman in charge in a man’s world? Can you imagine the sexism she’s going to have to put up with? It’s OK, no need to imagine — I’m going to show you with the help of my magic sledgehammer. Oh, and just in case the sexual politics get a bit heavy for any of you men viewers, here’s Jane getting her kit off. And here’s a juicy murder or three.’

And Cracker. I’m not pretending I didn’t like Cracker — it was great — but from then on, everyone seemed to take it as a challenge to see just how unbelievably messed-up and larger-than-life they could make their investigating heroes. ‘Hey, I know: I’ll call him Inspector Quirke — the quadriplegic, heroin-addicted whale breeder who is a grandmaster at Go and flies around in his gyrocopter spotting serial killers by the effect they have on cloud formations.’

Anyway, what I really liked about Billingham’s Sleepyhead is that it’s very much back to basics. DCI Thorne (David Morrissey) has his inevitable traits — drinks too much, can chop onions at least as well as Harry Palmer in The Ipcress File, etc. — but you’re not asked to waste any of your time trying to grapple with whether you like him or not. You do, because he’s popular with his colleagues, he’s almost supernaturally good at his job, he gets the girl and he’s more or less indestructible: the kind of ’tec, in other words, that they don’t make any more.

Same with his sidekicks, who again provide just the right amount of superficial colour without your ever feeling you’re having too much art ground in your face: there’s DI Dickensian — the actor with the slightly odd phiz perfect for Dickens adaptations, whose special feature seems to be that he’s a fastidious dresser; there’s Not Annoying Detective Woman who, though a Woman and a Detective, is amazingly not annoying; there’s whacko, tattoo-loving Queer as Folk pathologist who, though gay, whacko and tattoo-loving, never quite outwears his welcome.

It could be partly down to casting, of course. Besides Morrissey they’ve got Natascha McElhone, Aidan Gillen, Eddie Marsan, as well as top-notch director Stephen Hopkins — Sky has gone to town on this and wants to make it work. But I suspect a lot of credit for it ought to be Billingham’s. When I went to hear him speak (and read extracts from his books) in Dubai, he struck me as that very unusual thing — a writer who is totally happy in his skin. And I think that easy fluency comes through in his writing. As a stand-up, he has paid his dues and he knows what an audience wants: it doesn’t want its intelligence insulted but it does want to be entertained. He’s also, it goes without saying, very funny. His evil hospital consultant is one of the most glorious wankers I’ve ever seen on screen.

(to read more, click here)


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

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)


I’m sure Richard Curtis doesn’t really want to kill my children. Well, I say that … | James Delingpole

October 22, 2010

For some time now I’ve had this idea for a running gag in a comedy sketch series. It would star a character called Unfunny Observational Comic. Each week we’d see him dying a death with his ‘Have you ever noticed…?’ comedy of recognition before an appalled audience. He’d say things like: ‘You know how it is, when you’ve broken into your neighbour’s house to rummage through her knicker drawer…?’ and ‘Gerbils. Just what is it about gerbils that makes us all want to shag ’em?’ The humour would lie, of course, in the Observational Comic’s tragic inability to apprehend the gulf between what he thinks is normal and what everybody else does.

Unfortunately, it’s not going to work any more, a) because I’ve explained the joke, and b) because Richard Curtis has beaten me to it…

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. Cult splatter flick director Richard Curtis talks about the film that made him famous
  2. Richard Curtis’s snuff movie: A joke? A canny marketing strategy? I don’t think so.
  3. 10:10: who are YOU going to kill to help save the planet?
  4. Richard Madeley reveals that the green blight has finally sunk Cornwall

4 thoughts on “I’m sure Richard Curtis doesn’t really want to kill my children. Well, I say that …”

  1. winston says:22nd October 2010 at 5:49 amDid you see this?
  2. Dora the Explorer says:23rd October 2010 at 1:42 pmAfter you’ve seen that watch this to cheer you up.


  3. Th says:24th October 2010 at 9:43 pmTwo new climate videos

    The Skeptics Eleventh Commandment 1:03

    The viewer is requested to guess at the final words of the 11th commandment for skeptics. Hint: it comes from a famous speech by an American politician.


    No Pressure-gate and the Juan Williams Firing 3:26


  4. Roger Dandy says:28th October 2010 at 8:20 pm10:10 still have their BBC friends onside, it appears. I reference today’s “Costing the Earth” on Radio 4, which devoted itself to 10:10’s “Lighter Later” sister-campaign to lose GMT and put us onto European Time.

    Of the 27:50 running-time, just five and a half minutes were given to “sceptics”, as represented by two farmers and someone from the Royal Horological Society [so clearly a selfish-minority who put tradition and cattle-counting above the lives of our chiiiiiiiiiildrens.]

    Unattributed “studies” were then bandied around, so it was clear the “informed” metropolitans from iffy college departments would trump the hick-conservative viewpoint, due to all these authoritative-sounding invocations of “The Evidence”.

    The prog presented almost as a done deal that the grant-hippies would get their plan to do Socialist Time on us past parliament, when it comes up in December. No mention was made of Lighter Later being a 10:10 wheeze, nor of the recent history of this vile organisation. No, it was described as “a growing movement”. Last time I looked, 10:10 had lost a quarter of their membership following their spectacularly ill-judged, yet revealing film aimed at marginalising the uncommitted by encouraging 10:10’s audience to laugh at them being blown up.

Comments are closed.