The real reasons why one billion go hungry: wind farms, biofuels, sustainability… | James Delingpole

September 19, 2010

A great post from Roger Pielke Jr. (H/T Roddy Campbell)

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has just released a preview of its flagship report The State of Food Insecurity in the World. And guess what?

The preview has some good news: the number of people worldwide in chronic food shortage dropped 10% over the past year to “only” 925 million.

So that’s over 90 million people in the world taken out of starvation in the space of a year. How did this miracle happen?

Here’s what the UN says:

The 2010 lower global hunger number resulted largely from renewed economic growth expected this year — particularly in developing countries — and the drop in food prices since mid-2008.

In other words the UN is – in this rare instance – admitting what some of us say all the time. That economic growth means fewer hungry people.

And why the big spike in hunger in 2009?

According to FAO last year (PDF), one primary reason was the cost of fuel:

Given the increased importance of biofuels and the new linkages between agricultural and energy markets, increased cereal yields, if achieved, may not necessarily continue to lead to lower cereal prices. Because the world energy market is so much larger than the world grain market, grain prices may be determined by oil prices in the energy market as opposed to being determined by grain supply.Thus, higher priced energy means more hungry people.

Yes, it really is that simple. But not so simple, unfortunately, that people like celebrity lion-impersonator Jeremy Irons can understand it. Up above, you’ll see a video he made for the UN’s campaign. A noble cause. Problem is, it’s being co-ordinated by the very organisation responsible for promulgating global poverty through its misguided climate policies.

Read up on the UN’s Agenda 21. Discover what “sustainability” – the invention of the UN-sponsored Brundtland commission – really means. The UN is ideologically committed to combatting economic growth, not stimulating it.

Related posts:

  1. ‘Wind farms cure cancer, save kittens, create world peace’ says new wind industry report
  2. Wind farms: even worse than we thought…
  3. Official: wind farms are totally useless
  4. I don’t need my ice cream to ‘educate’ me about the glories of gay marriage or wind farms


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

Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’! – James Delingpole

September 19, 2010

Holdren: yep, a total AAAS

Holdren: yep, a total AAAS

President Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren is worried about global warming. Having noticed that there hasn’t actually been any global warming since 1998, he feels it ought to be called “global climate disruption” instead. That way whether it gets warmer or colder, wetter or drier, less climatically eventful or more climatically eventful, the result will be the same: it can all be put down to “global climate disruption.”

And that will be good, because it will give Holdren the excuse to introduce all the draconian measures he has long believed necessary if “global climate disruption” is to be averted: viz, state-enforced population control; a rewriting of the legal code so that trees are able to sue people; and the wholesale destruction of  the US economy (“de-development” as he put it in the 1973 eco-fascist textbook he co-wrote Paul and Anne Ehrlich Human Ecology: Global Problems And Solutions).

Holdren is not the only person having problems with the “world not warming and everyone growing increasingly sceptical” issue. So too is Dave “Grocer” Cameron’s excuse for a government. Its solution? Work out ways of brainwashing the populace with state-funded propaganda.

One solution, proposed by some bright spark at Bristol Poly – whoops, the “University of the West of England” as it now grandiosely refers to itself – is to have all climate sceptics classed as delusional freaks. His name is Professor Paul Hoggett and, as Dennis Ambler recalls in an excellent new report for the SPPI,  last year he organised a whole conference on this theme:

Conference – Facing Climate Change, Climate Change Denial
University of the West of England, 7 March 2009
“Man-made climate change poses an unprecedented threat to the global ecosystem and yet the response, from national policy makers right through to individual consumers, remains tragically inadequate. The Centre for Psycho-Social Studies at the University of the West of England is organising a major interdisciplinary event Facing Climate Change on this topic at UWE on 7 March 2009.

Facing Climate Change is the first national conference to specifically explore ‘climate change denial’.

This conference aims to strengthen our awareness of the challenge facing us and to enhance our capacity for effective decision-making and action. It will do this by bringing together a group of people – climate change activists, eco-psychologists, psychotherapists and social researchers – who are uniquely qualified to assess the human dimensions of this human-made problem.

Professor Paul Hoggett is helping to organise the conference, he said, “We will examine denial from a variety of different perspectives – as the product of addiction to consumption, as the outcome of diffusion of responsibility and the idea that someone else will sort it out and as the consequence of living in a perverse culture which encourages collusion, complacency, irresponsibility.”

Scarier still, though, is this new report from the Climate Change Communication Advisory Group – an “independent” body part financed by the government’s Economic and Social Research Council – called Communicating Climate Change To Mass Public Audiences.

Essentially, it is a propaganda advisory document designed to help the government correct its populace’s false consciousness. Dr Goebbels, I’m sure, would have been full of admiration for sections like this:

Encourage public demonstrations of frustration at the limited pace of government action….Climate change communication could (and should) be used to encourage people to demonstrate (for example through public demonstrations) about how they would like structural barriers to behavioural/societal change to be removed.

Can this be for real? Here the government is being advised by one of its own think tanks how to railroad through its climate policies by encouraging mobs of activists to stage ’spontaneous’ protests demanding action which the majority of the electorate don’t actually want. I know this sort of thing happens all the time in Pyongyang, Teheran and Caracas. But in Britain?

Related posts:

  1. ‘Global warming? What global warming?’ says High Priest of Gaia Religion
  2. Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
  3. Official: Icelandic volcano with unpronounceable name was caused by Man Made Global Warming
  4. Whoops! CO2 has almost nothing to do with global warming, discovers top US meteorologist

Posted on 19th September 2010Author jamesCategories Blog

3 thoughts on “Global warming is dead. Long live, er, ‘Global climate disruption’!”

  1. Peggy says:27th September 2010 at 6:00 amHi,
    We have been aware that the global warming phenomenon is cooked up, and it is encouraging to see your article published in the Telegraph.
    Do you know of any organization or group that is actively exposing this agenda, as we would be interested to lend our support.
  2. Sandy says:3rd October 2010 at 9:09 pmHi James…

    You’ve got to start checking your facts…

    Nasa says we’ve just gone through the warmest decade on record….

    You should get out of the sun…



  3. Jeff says:4th October 2010 at 5:47 amNASA’s “figures” are based on satellite data that conflicts with actual recorded temperatures on earth. The data from the satellites includes an incredibly high number of obviously faulty data points (suggesting temperatures in the midwestern US above 600 degrees F, for instance, at various times). Moreover, the actual recorded temperatures on earth indicate a general cooling trend, thickening of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, etc… I would refer you to the climate policy study on for more reference if you would like to read the specific peer reviewed papers, along with the questionable reporting techniques of NASA and NOAA (in particular, the composure of executive data summaries that seem to draw a completely different conclusion than the actual data of the paper in order to retain federal funding).

Comments are closed.

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

Why from now on I’m flying Ryanair | James Delingpole

September 14, 2010

O'Leary: passionate about 'Climate Change'

O’Leary: passionate about ‘Climate Change’

Almost the best thing about Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary’s denunciation of “Man-made global warming” as a load of old “$!**@&**s!” is the horror it has engendered in the Independent.

Lest any of its readers have their consciousness led in a false direction by this outspoken “Climate Change Denier”, the Indie has chosen to accompany its report of O’Leary’s outrageous claims with a series of rebuttals from some foxy chick from the British Antarctic Survey.

It has also commissioned one of its leader writers to do an opinion piece headed Why Let The Facts Get In The Way When Your Profits Are At Stake?  – (yep, that’s the real problem: capitalism. If only we could all stop this damned economic growth nuisance, the planet would be sooo much better off) – majoring on the detail that O’Leary got one or two facts wrong about Galileo. And quite right too. The fact that an airline boss doesn’t know that Galileo lived in the Renaissance rather than the Middle Ages really deserves a whole chapter of its own in the next IPCC assessment report as perhaps the most incontrovertible piece of evidence yet that CAGW definitely exists.

I suspect that what the Indie and its readership would dearly love is  for this to become Michael O’Leary’s Gerald Ratner moment: the statement so palpably, disgustingly outrageous that all his customers desert him in their droves.

Problem is, no one who flies Ryanair gives a stuff about their carbon footprint. What they want is cheap flights – something government eco-taxes levied in the name of “combatting climate change” render less and less attainable each year.

Still, every cloud has a silver lining. If Michael O’Leary’s remarks prevent even one Independent reader climbing aboard one of his Carbon-Spewing Horror Machines of Winged Planetary Insta-Death, then it will have done both their moral conscience and that part of the world which doesn’t believe in drivel like carbon footprints the most mighty favour.

Related posts:

  1. Pope Catholic; night follows day; IPCC found telling pack of lies about sea level rises
  2. ‘BBC’s biased climate science reporting isn’t biased enough’ claims report
  3. Pen Hadow: Arctic Pillock – the comedy saga continues
  4. This government simply hasn’t a clue about ‘Climate Change’


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

‘Cut government spending and cute kittens like this will die!’ says hard-hitting, unbiased BBC ‘report’ | James Delingpole

September 14, 2010


It’s not often I feel much sympathy for Dave “Grocer” Cameron’s dismal, grubbily compromised Coalition government. But when you see leftist propaganda as blatant as this on the BBC website, you do begin to appreciate the scale of the challenge ahead of them as they try impose their “cuts” – (which aren’t actual spending cuts at all; rather they are decreases in the increase of public spending) – on the bloated public sector. (H/T Sheumais)

The article is headed “Spending Review: What would you cut?”

It invites readers to slash spending in various departments (Welfare, Health, Education and so on), which might seem easy – but whoa! there are consequences here as the BBC’s handy Guilt-O-Slide makes clear. Every percentage cut you inflict on the relevant department is shown by the BBC’s resident computer whizzes to have grim, real life consequences.

For example, the section on Welfare triggers an animation of an old lady slowly dying the more money you take away from her pension. A two per cent cut triggers the death of her cat Tiddles, which she can no longer afford to feed. A three per cent cut means from now on she has to survive on canned dog meat. A four per cent cut shows her turning blue with hypothermia. Etc.

The section on Defence is particularly effective. A five per cent cut, means that our military will no longer be capable of mounting a peace-enforcement operation in any country larger than Lundy. (The puffin graphics are particularly good on this one). Opt for a ten per cent cut and you are shown the graphic consequences of being no longer able to defend ourselves with anything more deadly than Molotov cocktails and pitchforks: British housewives being violated by invading Soviets, just like in Berlin ’45, while children weep in the background. It was done by the same animation team who did Ed Miliband’s Bedtime Stories drowning pet climate change horror ad, so it’s very moving.

Oh, all right, so I have exaggerated slightly. But check out the web page for yourself – it’s pretty damned nauseating. The cultural assumptions behind it are so nakedly socialistic (Government spending good; low taxes bad) that it might just as well have been produced by Labour party HQ.

Related posts:

  1. ‘Wind farms cure cancer, save kittens, create world peace’ says new wind industry report
  2. Why I keep banging on and on about Global bloody Warming
  3. Frank Field for prime minister
  4. My Coalition verdict: Could have done SO much better


One thought on “’Cut government spending and cute kittens like this will die!’ says hard-hitting, unbiased BBC ‘report’”

  1. Neil Craig says:22nd September 2010 at 1:34 pmChecking the BBC site I am promised that a cut of 30% in the tranport budget will mean a cut of 210 miles in the amount of motorways built annually so if the BBC are wholly honest we must be building 700 miles annually. Their level of honesty diminshing proportionately if the true figure is less than that.

    The true figure is that Labour did not build 1 new mile of motorway last year.

    Or in any year since 2000.

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

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

Opiate for the masses – James Delingpole

September 14, 2010

One of the few things I respect about mainstream TV is how utterly shallow and addictive it is. In many ways it’s like crack: it doesn’t pretend that it’s good for you but it gets you to where you want to go way more effectively than tofu or wheatgrass juice or organic dolphin-friendly tuna caught with rod and line. Sometimes it achieves high artistic standards too, but this is usually a fluke, which happens despite the medium rather than because of it. TV isn’t like film or opera or theatre or sculpture or any of that poncy stuff. Its main job is to get you out of it as quickly as possible — an opiate for the masses.

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. Cult splatter flick director Richard Curtis talks about the film that made him famous
  2. Obama’s won the Nobel Peace – WTF?!
  3. Why you don’t see Hamas firing rockets on TV


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

James Lee is Al Gore is Prince Charles is the Unabomber

Green death

james lee discovery channel

Al Gore’s Church of Climatism has claimed a new glorious martyr. His name is James Lee – the Discovery channel attempted eco-suicide-bomber – and if he’d had his way he wouldn’t have been the only one who ended up in the great recycling bin in the sky. That’s because, as far as the late James Lee was concerned, humans like the innocent Discovery channel employees he held hostage are the scum of the earth.

Just read some of the manifesto he posted on the internet and see for yourself:

The humans? The planet does not need humans.

You MUST KNOW the human population is behind all the pollution and problems in the world, and YET you encourage the exact opposite instead of discouraging human growth and procreation. Surely you MUST ALREADY KNOW this!

Does this sound like the ravings of a sad, deranged loner on the wilder fringes of eco-fascist lunacy? Not to me it doesn’t. Strip away the block capitals and what you have, word for word, is the core manifesto of the entire global green movement.

Some greens, such as Al Gore, the Prince of Wales, the Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt or that nice David Attenborough try to express their philosophy more diplomatically. Others, such as James Lee and his kindred spirit the Unabomber, are more forthright. Ideologically, however, there is not a cigarette paper’s difference between them. All cleave to the same fundamental tenet of the Church of Climatism: that humans are the problem not the solution.

It was for just this same strain of dodgy thinking that I castigated Boris Johnson yesterday. And the fact that people like Boris express their concerns about “overpopulation” jovially doesn’t make their stance any less reprehensible. In fact it probably makes it more so. At least with the Unabomber or James Lee you know that you’re dealing with a nutcase. But when an apparently reasonable, decent, pukka fellow like Boris or the Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt or the Prince of Wales or that nice David Attenborough off the TV expresses a similar opinion, there’s a strong risk that what is au fond exactly the kind of poisonous, misanthropy the Nazis took to its logical extreme begins to look moderate and sensible and considered.

What’s really depressing is that the philosophy expressed in James Lee’s (and the Unabomber’s) manifesto – which is also, incidentally, the philosophy expressed in Al Gore’s The Earth In Balance – is also the philosophy that is taught every day to our children in their schools: the world is fragile; human beings are a blot on the landscape; through our greed and selfishness we make everything worse; really it would be better if we vanished altogether and let all the lovely pure noble animals take over.

Or, as James Lee put it: (H/T: Watchman)

Saving the environment and the remaning species diversity of the planet is now your mindset. Nothing is more important than saving them. The Lions, Tigers, Giraffes, Elephants, Froggies, Turtles, Apes, Raccoons, Beetles, Ants, Sharks, Bears, and, of course, the Squirrels.

Not only do our schools teach our children this misanthropic – and deeply ahistoric – rot, but so also do broadcasters like the Discovery Channel. Their sister station, Animal Planet, for example, broadcasts a series called Whale Wars celebrating the real-life adventures of animal rights extremist Paul Watson. (H/T: MSher)

It’s time we woke up to the threat posed by this mass brainwashing of the younger generation. We worry, rightly, about those Muslim children who are being indoctrinated with the extreme Wahaabist version of their faith. Yet we seem astonishingly complacent that every day, in schools of every kind throughout the Western world, our children are being taught by well-meaning teachers to view their world and culture through exactly the same anti-capitalist, anti-human, anti-growth eyes as James Lee and the Unabomber.

The modern environmental movement is not kind, caring or gentle. It is a series of ticking time bombs waiting to blow up in our face.

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

My Holiday Is Being Ruined by Global Cooling. But Try Telling That to the ‘Scientists’

Nursing a climate grudge

The beaches of the future, thanks to global cooling

The beaches of the future, thanks to global cooling

I’m writing this in Salcombe, Devon on a rainy, miserable summer’s day which, I fear, may be all too symptomatic of the climatic rubbish we can all expect for the next 30 years as – thanks to changes in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation combined with a solar minimum – we enter a period of global cooling. Let’s hope I’m wrong, eh?

Well, among those who seems to be hoping just that is an amiable fellow called Sir Paul Nurse, the Nobel prize winning geneticist and president-to-be of the Royal Society, who came round to my house last week to film part of a BBC Horizon documentary on why it is that people are losing their faith in scientists.

I told him people aren’t losing their faith in “scientists”. Just the “scientists” who are behind the junk science being advanced in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s four increasingly tendentious and misleading assessment reports.

Over the next three hours, Sir Paul and I had a long, friendly, on-camera argument in which he tried to make a distinction between “scepticism” [good] and “denialism” [bad] – an entirely specious distinction, in my book – while I tried to focus on the details of the Climategate emails because it’s only on details that an arts graduate journalist is ever going to win a debate like this with a (feisty, bright, delightful but not a little combative) Nobel genetics laureate.

A trick I noticed Sir Paul trying to perform throughout our debate was to move away from specifics to the general. So, for example, he would keenly assert that “the majority” of the world’s scientists agreed with a thing called a “consensus” on man-made global warming, and whenever I got down to grimy and tedious detail suggestive of the contrary – e.g., Ben Santer’s outrageous rewriting of the “Summary for Policy Makers” in the Second Assessment Report, which seriously exaggerated the unanimity of scientific opinion on AGW – he’d either politely brush it off as if it were far too involved to be of much interest or he’d airily cite the three whitewash enquiries into Climategate as “proof” that the scientists had done nothing wrong.

Perhaps he was just playing devil’s advocate. The impression I got that Sir Paul is a thoroughly decent, very clever man who wants to be as open-minded as possible on the whole AGW debate. But the impression I also got is that, as you would entirely expect of a future president of the Royal Society (which for years has been one of the great cheerleaders for AGW theory, even to the point of writing an official letter to Exxon demanding that it cease funding “deniers”) is that Sir Paul’s view of what is reasonable and balanced has been heavily coloured by that of the scientific Establishment. And, unfortunately, the scientific Establishment’s views on AGW are about as neutral and unbiased and reliable as, say, the BBC’s are about Israel. Or the European Union. Or, indeed, “Man Made Global Warming.”

Related posts:

  1. Signs that show Man Made Global Warming is Definitely Still Happening
  2. 10 reasons to be cheerful about the coming new Ice Age
  3. ‘Global warming’ was always far too important to be left to the scientists
  4. Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming

7 thoughts on “My holiday is being ruined by global cooling. But try telling that to the ‘scientists’”

  1. JLK says:30th August 2010 at 7:28 pmI have been a “sceptic or “denier” (whatever I don’t care what epithets are hurled) since 2005 because, as an economist, I have always analyzed the issue from a “follow the money” perspective. Plus as an American I know what half-crazed sleezeballs Al Gore and his ilk really are.

    I have hundreds (thousands?) of articles over the years and I have always been struck by the common thread in the argumentative replies.

    First: readings, findings measurements etc of the same phenomenon can be 180 degrees opposite from one to another depending on the POV of the issuer. Ocean temps are going up, no, wait a minute they are going down…no,no they are flat.
    Current weather patterns in the Western US are caused by AGW, no they are the El Nino Effect, no, no, they are showing signs of cooling due to solar inactivity.

    Cmon don’t you people see the futility of your angels on the head of a pin arguments are worse than useless…they are meaningless.

    Being from US Pacific NW, Ground Zero of the modern day hardcore Enviro Movement I have observed many smaller battles over timber, airpollutuion,. stream pollution ad nauseum. The strategy is always the same. using the US legal system and a Straw Horse (such as the Spotted Owl) the Greenies have won victory after victory. Unfortunately with AGW they massively overreached with this selfsame strategy.

    This time they came up with a Trojan Horse that was so successful that it gathered a global panoply of greedy politicians, scientists wanting to increase their Grants, corporations “greenwashing” their way into insider status for money machines like Cap and Trade systems and the ultimate fraudster organization, the UN.

    Unfortunately when you get all these disparate interests diving into the same pot someone will slip up and reveal the dirty secrets behind the wizard’s curtain. (IPCC, Climategate) Add the worst recession since the 1930’s and voila’! you find the oh so supportive public is only behind you when it does not affect their pocketbooks. And when they find out they have been lied to on any level it gives them all the rationale needed to turn on you. Saying “well it was only a couple of lies but the science is still real” does not help at this point.

    My advice: go back to basics. Work on real and pressing needs like clean water, world fish stocks, particulate air pollution in China and so many more. Read Bjorn Lonborg with credulity and an open mind. Take one thing at a time and don’t get sucked into a breathtakingly all encompassing issue that will bend the whole of the world to your POV. If it sounds too good to be true…well you know the rest.

  2. David Hardy says:31st August 2010 at 10:26 amOne cold summers day and we should disregard the largest and most rigorously peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in human history. Put your heads back in the sand with holocaust deniers your time here will soon be over.

    Oh yes do read Bjorn Lonborg ‘with credulity and an open mind’ in todays Guardian

    See beyond the politics dumbasses!

  3. Pete Mac says:31st August 2010 at 3:18 pmWell David. What are we to say to your well mannered and non-insulting comment?

    Who knows where the weather or cl;imate is going to go, do or not? Certainly no-one on this planet. The concensus says we can only reasonably predict three days weather in advance but we’re being asked to rely oin predictions for the next hundred years or so which haven’t been close to righ so far?

    It muts be really irritating. Sitting there supporting warmist theories as they slowly fail and fall about your head. How about we all agree that no-one knows and until we do know we go about our lives as positively as possible? How about we pursue ensuring every person on the planet has enough food and doesn’t go to bed hungry? How about we send a large proportion of the money spent on climate change to people who need a a good quality home to live in. How about we make sure everyone on our planet has access to cheap energy so they can go about their lives comfortably.

    Please bear in mind that if you want to live a very low carbon foot print life you can always do that anytime you like. No use of electricity or gas at all for you or at a push you could have some intermittently only when the wind blows and at the proportional national grid generation rate for wind power (windmills). No public transport. No flying. No buying any goods you haven’t sourced within cycling distance. No drugs if you get ill apart from what you can grow. No coffee unless you grow it. Maybe you should even grow your own food?

    No one knows what will happen.


  4. JLK says:31st August 2010 at 9:15 pmThanks Pete

    I actually thought David was being facetious about “The Most Peer Reviewed” yadda yadda yadda. So there are people out there still actually believing that?

    Should have known when the two words “The Guardian” came up as a source for anything outside of a chuckle or two. Now that I think about it…I think they still are true believers along with the NY Times…oops they are sliding away, the Economist , nope they are turning themselves literary pretzels trying to justify spending trillions on unproven science, BBC? seems as though they are having a few internal arguments over their “former stance. Oh…I know Rolling Stone and Mother Jones.


    PS: Thanks again to Pete for actually restating what I meant (in shorthand) by taking Lonborg seriously.

  5. Frank Tavos says:1st September 2010 at 3:56 pmThanks for your incisive, deeply thought-out critique, David Hardy. I am now convinced of the error of my ways. I can’t believe that I once thought global warming was just another progressive MacGuffin designed to revive the fortunes of socialism after it was completely discredited by the fall of the Soviet Union and its satellites.

    Now I see that I was mistaken and that “The Guardian” is the keeper of all scientific truth. Where do I sign up to give all of my freedom and property to Big Government?

  6. Watchman says:1st September 2010 at 8:42 pmHere’s proof positive that the eco-facists are a lot more dangerous than they make themselves out to be – an eco-tard hostage taker who has a vendetta against the Discovery Channel and “human filth”:

  7. Gus Walters says:2nd September 2010 at 8:23 am“……. your time here will soon be over.”

    David Hardy:

    Do we have time for another cup of tea ?

Comments are closed.

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

Battered but triumphant | James Delingpole

August 26th, 2010

Big River Man (part of More 4’s ‘True Stories’, Tuesday) was one of the most gripping and brilliant, infuriating and disappointing documentaries I’ve ever seen.

(to read more, click here)


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

One Response to “Battered but triumphant”

  1. Manuel says:August 27, 2010 at 2:36 pmIn answer to your question, you can’t even wear a wetsuit on a cross-channel swim, let alone flippers, due to the added buoyancy.

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

It Is Not Drugs That Cause the Problems, It’s the Wholly Unwinnable War on Drugs

As a spliff fan, myself. . .

At a dinner party a couple of years ago I was lucky enough to be sat near one of my heroes, Roger Scruton — like being a couch away from Socrates at a symposium. But then, halfway through, the great man began sounding off on one of the two things he is completely and utterly wrong about (the other one being pop music): drugs.

By ‘drugs’, of course, dear, brave, brilliant Roger didn’t mean to include the alcohol he had been quaffing all evening nor yet the highly addictive yet legal nicotine death sticks of which the Fawn and I had partaken before dinner. What he meant was yer proper, actual, tabloid horror drugs: cocaine, ecstasy, LSD, heroin, and the deadly, evil ‘gateway’ drug they call ‘spliff’.

As something of a spliff enthusiast myself I thought this was a bit much. Especially coming from a man whose philosophy generally springs from the most rigorous logic and the soundest libertarian principles. And I was about to speak my mind when an elegant, distinguished fellow with a double-barrelled name sitting opposite did so for me. ‘When I was in the City I used heroin for ten years,’ he said. ‘It never did me any harm. Rather enjoyed it actually.’

Britain has a serious drug problem. The world has a serious drug problem. And the serious problem is this: we have collectively decided to make criminals of the billions of otherwise law-abiding citizens who wish to pursue the perfectly natural human instinct to seek occasional chemical or herbal escape from reality. We imprison people who shouldn’t be imprisoned. We waste money which would be better spent elsewhere. We increase crime, corruption and violence. We deny cash-crop farmers a living. We finance narco-wars. We enrich criminals. We destroy lives. The drugs ‘problem’, in other words, is almost entirely of our own making.

(to read more, click here)

Related posts:

  1. Worrying about pop stars who don’t do drugs
  2. Meet Finland’s answer to Vaclav Klaus
  3. ‘Trougher’ Yeo recants on global warming
  4. The officers who played fireball hockey with me have been scandalously betrayed

3 thoughts on “It is not drugs that cause the problems, it’s the wholly unwinnable war on drugs”

  1. yaosxx says:27th August 2010 at 4:17 pmVery daring article James and on the whole spot on. Can’t thing of anyone else who would dare to write such an article in this way. Loved the ketamine/czarist ball episode!
  2. Dave Stocker says:30th August 2010 at 5:40 pmSpot on from me, too, James. In the TV documentary series you referred to, former Govt drugs advisor Nutt made a telling point. He said something like ‘[the government position] is clearly not about the science, it’s about morality.’ I have yet to hear a politician from either end of the political spectrum confidently articulate just which moral principle is invoked to justify drug prohibition. Could it be that pleasure ought to be earned thru’ hard graft, without shortcuts, or is it about protecting the vulnerable, or both, or something else? I’d like to hear what members of our new government would answer to a carefully-crafted question along these lines.

    As I understand it, evolution is about the interaction between the individual ‘organism’ and the ‘environment’. Recreational drugs are increasingly part of the contemporary ‘environment’, and should perhaps be considered as an evolutionary force. Those who don’t handle them respectfully or are taken over by them will simply die, and it shouldn’t surprise us.



Comments are closed.

Post navigation

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

Why Conservatives Shouldn’t Believe in Man Made Climate Change

A rationalist’s blind spot

Ed West: "M'Kay, Mister Gore. If you and Michael "ooh I've been to Greenland and seen some ice melt" O'Hanlon say ManBearPig exists then I guess I have to believe you."

Ed West: “M’Kay, Mister Gore. If you and Michael “ooh I’ve been to Greenland and seen some ice melt” O’Hanlon say ManBearPig exists then I guess I have to believe you.”

But Ed’s stance on CAGW is, coming from a rationalist and a stalwart of the right, so weird it’s bordering on the delusional. It’s sad that Ed can’t (yet) see this, but let me offer up an analogy. One of Ed’s most thoroughly worthwhile campaigns this year has been the one he has conducted against a book called The Spirit Level.

He writes:

I wish that everyone who espoused The Spirit Level would read The Spirit Level Delusion, which explains just how dubious the science behind this grand theory is, and what the real agenda is – massive government expansion.

Now how would Ed feel, I wonder, if someone whose intellect he respected and whose politics he shared began buttonholing him about this marvellous new book he’d read called The Spirit Level?

“Ed, Ed you’ve just GOT to read this book. It explains exactly where we’ve all been going wrong. You only have to look at societies where there’s relative equality and then compare them with ones where there’s relative inequality to realise that massive government intervention and a heavily redistributive tax programme are the only way to sort out our problems. And the authors have got all the facts to prove it!”

I can imagine Ed replying, with growing impatience, how the entire thesis has been based on cherrypicked data. Anything that supports the thesis, the authors bunged in. Anything that didn’t support it, the authors carefully excluded. Result? A veneer of statistical authority disguising a farrago of leftist nonsense.

And I can imagine his friend annoying him further by saying: “Yeah well of course you’d say that Ed. You’re too set in your ways to accept the necessary changes in your lifestyle you’ll need to adopt if Britain is to create a truly fair and happy society.”

Yet on the issue of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), Ed is doing exactly what that annoying, imaginary friend I have supplied for him has done. He has read (or at least had interpreted for him by the biased Mainstream Media) the four increasingly hysterical Assessment Reports of the IPCC and accepted them with just the same gullible alacrity and reluctance to dig beneath the surface he so deplores in all those left-liberals who’ve been getting big in their trousers over The Spirit Level.

Happily for Ed, there is currently a superabundance of stories which should help steer him towards the path of righteousness. I’m sure if he has a glance at them he will begin to see sense for they all indicate just how thoroughly unreliable is the so-called “consensus” science which charlatans like Al Gore have been citing in support of their bankrupt theory.

Here’s a scoop from John Sullivan showing the flaws in the satellite temperature data which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – (the US government agency responsible for one of the world’s main temperature records) – has tried to cover up. No prizes for guessing in which direction (hotter or colder) they exaggerated climatic change.

Here’s a story from New Zealand where the New Zealand Climate Coalition is suing the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) – the Kiwi equivalent of our own disgraced Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia – for having exaggerated warming trends in its temperature records using heavily biased data adjustments. (Hat tip: Richard Cumming).

Here’s a story in which Michael Mann’s infamous Hockey Stick has been thoroughly debunked yet again, this time in a prestigious statistical journal. If you’re unfamiliar with the territory – as Ed must surely be if he’s a believer in CAGW – then this story about the new McShane Wyner paper will seem involved and unimportant. And that’s certainly how subscribers to Al Gore’s consensus would wish you to view it. But let me explain, briefly, why it’s not.

Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick was a chart purporting to offer near-definitive proof that late Twentieth century temperature rises were catastrophic, unprecedented and – by inference – driven by man-made CO2. Though debunked – twice – by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, it is yet still defended by warmists as essentially sound. This latest report uses the same data that Mann used (palaeoclimatological samples from tree rings and such like), subjects them to statistical analysis and shows that even if one were to accept Mann’s claim that his data was not cherrypicked it still doesn’t prove what he says it does.

In other words one of the central planks in the argument for the existence of CAGW has been demolished for a THIRD time. How many more times does it need to be shredded and splintered before the eco zealots who gather to froth and foam at warmist sites like Real Climate accept that their flimsy theory has been falsified beyond credibility?

Related posts:

  1. ‘Climate Change’: the new Eugenics
  2. On Plimer, climate change and the ineffable barkingness of George Moonbat
  3. Are climate change deniers worse than paedophiles?
  4. Sun Causes Climate Change Shock

5 thoughts on “Why conservatives shouldn’t believe in man made climate change”

  1. Russell says:19th August 2010 at 11:52 amWhy you running this blog if all entries merely link straight to the Telegraph?
  2. Tom Forrester-Paton says:22nd August 2010 at 5:50 am@Russell – perhaps James has other reasons for running this blog, but an excellent one is that since the mouth-breathers that run the DT site won’t accept my registration, it’s the only way I can tell him how right he is about most things.
  3. charles nelson says:22nd August 2010 at 7:15 amDear James,
    Just saw that your Telegraph location has been blitzed with comments.
    I think you hit a nerve there!
    You probably know the quote, from Ghandi apparently…
    “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they attack you, then you win.”
    Look into this Satellite malfunction thing a little deeper.
    By the way, I laughed out loud at your ‘literary piece’.
    Keep up the good work.
  4. Mike Paterson says:22nd August 2010 at 5:42 pmTom F-P: Me too. Have made numerous attempts to be a DT commenter – following their instructions to the letter, and receiving confirmations from them by email – still thwarted. How the other commenters managed it, I can only guess.
  5. yaosxx says:25th August 2010 at 11:54 amMike Patterson – If you sign into the log in box on disqus the cursor doesn’t feature first time round – you need to refresh the page and then the cursor will then appear and then you can comment. If you refresh a third or fourth time you lose the box and have to start the whole process again!!!

Comments are closed.

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