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…

Delingpole-she-goes-1

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)

Delingpole-standard-pallet-2

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)…

delingpole-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)…

delingpole-bitgreen-460

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?”…

delingpole-wheres-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.

delingpole-last-460

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.

Commentary

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.

and

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.

    Roger

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

Blog

‘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)

Share

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

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

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)

Share

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

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

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?
    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/10/20/vaclav-klaus-an-anti-human-ideology/
  2. Dora the Explorer says:23rd October 2010 at 1:42 pmAfter you’ve seen that watch this to cheer you up.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmBnVjy4vag&feature=player_embedded

  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.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qog4z2lSUCo

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


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naOdHcbiGvg

  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.

‘Biodiversity’: the new Big Lie | James Delingpole

October 22, 2012

Climate Change is dead. Long live the new Eco Lie

Climate Change is dead. Long live the new Eco Lie

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)

When I say shameless, I’m talking so amoral it makes the Whore of Babylon look like Mother Theresa; so flagrant it makes Al Gore’s, ahem, alleged drunken “Love poodle” assault on the Portland Masseuse look like an especially delicate passage from Andreas Capellanus’s The Art of Courtly Love.

Consider this summary of the UN’s two-week Convention On Biodiversity, launched on Monday:

Delegates from nearly 200 countries are being asked to agree to new 2020 targets after governments largely failed to meet a 2010 target of achieving a significant reduction in biological diversity losses, a goal set at the last biodiversity conference in 2002. And one of the same issues that led to failure the first time around could jeopardize this meeting: money.

Developing nations say more funding is needed from developed countries to share the effort in saving nature. Much of the world’s remaining biological diversity is in developing nations such as Brazil, Indonesia and in central Africa.

Do you see what’s going on here?

OK. Here’s an even bigger clue. Here’s something, unbeknownst to the world’s taxpayers and free citizens, which the UN technocrats stitched together in June.

Busan/Nairobi, 11 June 2010 – History was made, Friday, in the South Korean port city of Busan, when governments gave the green light to an Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

The independent platform will in many ways mirror the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which has assisted in catalyzing world-wide understanding and governmental action on global warming.

The new body will bridge the gulf between the wealth of scientific knowledge -documenting accelerating declines and degradation of the natural world – and the decisive government action required to reverse these damaging trends.

Its various roles will include carrying out high quality peer reviews of the wealth of science on biodiversity and ecosystem services emerging from research institutes across the globe in order to provide gold standard reports to governments.

“Gold standard”, eh? Now where have I heard that phrase before?

Suddenly it becomes clear why they kept Pachauri on at the IPCC. Because the IPCC simply doesn’t matter any more. Sure it will go on, churning out Assessment Report after Assessment Report, bringing pots of money to the usual gang of bent scientists prepared to act as lead authors. But the world’s mainstream media – especially all those environment correspondents who so lovingly transcribe the press releases of Greenpeace and the WWF as if they were holy writ – will have moved on, according to the dictates of the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) fashionable crise du jour.

“Never mind ‘Climate Change’,” they’ll say to themselves. “Our readers and viewers aren’t really so into that now all the winters seem to have got so very cold. Biodiversity, that’s the thing.”

And guess what? Not only does the great big new Biodiversity scam already have its own IPCC but it even has its own pseudoeconomic, panic-generating Stern Report. This one is produced by a member of Deutsche Bank which – as Hilary Ostrov tells us in an excellent post well worth reading in full – has form when it comes to promoting half-witted, ill-documented, patently political climate change ****ocks.

Hmmm … Deutsche Bank … Oh, yes I’ve heard of that one. Ross McKitrick recently responded to some misinformation they had included in “a report that aims to rebut major skeptic arguments on global warming”. But I digress …

Just read how it’s billed and weep:

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)
Nagoya, Japan, 20 October 2010– The economic importance of the world’s natural assets is now firmly on the political radar as a result of an international assessment showcasing the enormous economic value of forests, freshwater, soils and coral reefs, as well as the social and economic costs of their loss, was the conclusion of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) report launched today by TEEB study leader, Pavan Sukhdev.

“TEEB has documented not only the multi-trillion dollar importance to the global economy of the natural world, but the kinds of policy-shifts and smart market mechanisms that can embed fresh thinking in a world beset by a rising raft of multiple challenges. The good news is that many communities and countries are already seeing the potential of incorporating the value of nature into decision-making,” said Mr. Sukhdev, a banker who heads up the Green Economy Initiative of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

He was speaking at the launch of the two-year study, which has involved hundreds of experts from around the world, at the Convention on Biological Diversity’s 10th Conference of Parties meeting (CBD COP10) in Nagoya.

The TEEB study calls for wider recognition of nature’s contribution to human livelihoods, health, security, and culture by decision-makers at all levels (local to national and business to citizens). It promotes the demonstration, and where appropriate, the capture of the economic values of nature’s services through an array of policy instruments and mechanisms.

Here’s the UN’s Achim Steiner – you’ll have seen him recently on a BBC news report where David Shuckman, was it? got to go on a nice freebie to Kenya in the guise of bigging up, you guessed it, biodiversity – telling us just how SERIAL this business is.

This year’s Global Biodiversity Outlook-3, prepared in close collaboration with UNEP’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre, points to ‘tipping points’ fast emerging – changes for example in freshwater systems that soon may be irreversible.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005 concluded that 60 per cent of the services provided by the world’s ecosystems that support human well being are now either degraded or heading that way.

Changes in biodiversity as a result of human activities were more rapid in the past 50 years that at any time in human history, it concludes.

The report, the output of more than 1,300 scientists from more than 90 countries supported by UNEP, the Global Environment Facility and many other partners, underlined that rather than exercising the brake the world continues to choose the accelerator.

What? Only 1300 scientists this time, was it? I’m sure the figure which used to be bandied about with global warming was more like 2,500.

Ah well, what the hell. It’s not like the “little people” are going to be able to do anything about it. That’s the beauty of the United Nations. The European Union too, come to that. Democratically unaccountable, lavishly funded, and with over a half a century’s expertise at spreading big lies round the world before the truth has got his boots on.

Related posts:

  1. When you hear the word ‘Biodiversity’ reach for your Browning
  2. I’m loving being middle aged
  3. Giles Coren says: ‘Climate Change. It’s SNOW joke!!!’
  4. Dave, you’re a disappointment – but there’s still time to change that

 

Rod Liddle knows even less about Climate Change than I do about Millwall FC

Rod’s clumsy play for publicity

Young Rod - in cap, lower middle - enjoys some clean sporting fun with his pater at Millwall, 1935

Young Rod – in cap, lower middle – enjoys some clean sporting fun with his pater at Millwall, 1935

In a shameless attempt to win some readers for his little known Spectator blog, Rod Liddle has thrown together a desperate post with the highly offensive and almost certainly libellous headline The Politically Correct James Delingpole. It’s about my reaction to Richard Curtis’s ecofascist snuff movie No Pressure, which Rod reckons was overdone.

But there is something which does not quite ring true in his attacks upon a film made by Richard Curtis for the 10:10 climate change movement, exemplified by his piece in this week’s magazine. He has been ranting and raving about this film for ages and I cannot tell if his outrage and lack of humour is real, or post-modern ironic.

It’s puzzling that Rod should be puzzled because I did in fact spell the whole thing out on my You Know It Makes Sense column this week.

So let me explain for those die-hard defenders of ‘No Pressure’ why it wasn’t funny on any level whatsoever. And no, it isn’t because of the exploding children. Not per se. Sure, it’s a risky business, in the age of the suicide bomber, trying to extract comedy out of gruesomely atomised kids. But that doesn’t necessarily put such things beyond the pale. In comedy nothing ought to be beyond the pale, for that is part of its purpose, as the safety valve which allows us to say the unsayable. What matters is its context and its satirical point. Only then are we in a position to judge whether the sketch ‘works’ or whether it has failed horribly.

The reason Curtis’s joke failed horribly, I went on, is because it worked neither as effective satire nor as comedy of observation.

The joke would only work if all reasonable people thought ‘Christ, climate change deniers are a pain. Wouldn’t life be so much easier if we could just — tee hee — kill ’em rather than have to engage with their tedious, action-delaying arguments?’

What I didn’t mention in the piece for reasons of space, though I think it’s quite an interesting paradox is this: though the original No Pressure video was desperately unfunny, many of the pastiches were funny. The one where children were exploded, for example, for not submitting to the “Religion of Peace” had a readily comprehensible satirical point that Richard Curtis’s did not.

Anyway, of course I wasn’t really offended that Rod chose to embarrass himself by getting things so totally wrong and making everyone hate him and think he’s incredibly stupid and smelly. What I am, though, is disappointed.

Here’s the bit that really disappointed me:

You do not have to agree with Curtis, or 10:10 (though I don’t see what’s wrong with cutting carbon emissions, regardless of whether you sign up to AGW) to find it funny.

Do you see the bit I mean? It’s that trite bit in parenthesis where the normally well-informed, clear-sighted and acerbic Liddle ventures an opinion based on little more than WWF and Greenpeace press hand outs.

If Rod ever took me to a Millwall match – I’m not asking, you understand, this is just a theoretical scenario – I think I’d know better than to declare in a loud, fruity voice that the offside rule was silly, very silly, or that the game would be lot more enjoyable if the players weren’t so infernally competitive and the fans so foul-mouthed, and couldn’t someone teach them to sing the Eton Boating Song instead of all this four letter stuff?

I would expect Rod to show a similar degree of diligence in matters he clearly knows eff-all about, climate change being the most blindingly obvious one. And the same applies, though to a lesser extent, to my blog colleague – and Rod’s old mucker – Andrew Gilligan.

Gilligan has been doing some stormingly good exposes, of late, on the unutterable uselessness of wind farms. But blogging last month he went and ruined an intelligent, well-argued blog with this entirely unnecessary paragraph:

The problem with British greens is not that they’ve misdiagnosed the problem – I’ve very little doubt that climate change is real. Even in the unlikely event that the science is wrong, it’s not a gamble we can afford to take.

And your evidence for that statement is what, exactly, Andrew? Or, to put it another way, how would you feel if I were to write a blog astringently critiquing Lutfur Rahman and suddenly declare, en passant, that I’d walked past the East London Mosque the other day and that its calm, peaceful, delightfully mosquey appearance had left me in “very little doubt” that claims of its extremist tendencies were an outrageous calumny.

The sad thing here is that both Liddle and Gilligan are journalists I very much admire: proper, courageous, counterintuitive journalists who do their research, are never afraid to speak truth to power and write with verve and conviction. One day, I’m sure, they’ll come round to appreciate what many readers of this blog already do – that the Climate Change circus  represents possibly the greatest outbreak of mass hysteria in history, that it’s probably the worst pseudoscientific scandal in history and that it’s being used as an excuse to impose on us the biggest bill in history. It’s a story that is worth proper investigation and the sooner the cause of truth and justice has the likes of Liddle and Gilligan fully onside, the better for us all.

Related posts:

  1. On Plimer, climate change and the ineffable barkingness of George Moonbat
  2. What the liberal elite feel you should know about ‘Climate Change’
  3. Climate change has nothing to do with the Holocaust or 9/11
  4. Why the BBC will always be wrong on Climate Change

 

Professor Hal Lewis is not an irrelevant, senile, old fool

Hal Lewis and the alarmists

Connelly

When Professor Hal Lewis wrote his now-famous letter of resignation to the American Physical Society earlier this week, climate change alarmists were quick to respond with their usual wit, aplomb and generosity. Here were some of the excuses they offered as to why this terrible man must at all costs not be taken seriously.

1. Professor Hal Lewis is a physicist not a climate scientist and therefore unqualified to comment on climate science.

2. He’s old. Old people are, like, really senile.

3. We haven’t heard of him before. How can what he say matters if we haven’t heard of him before?

4. He’s probably just some shill for Big Oil, like all the other deniers.

5. He hasn’t published enough papers, so he’s hardly a real scientist

6. OK, so maybe there’s a possibility he’s not senile, but he’s definitely too old to have stayed in touch with all the zippy modern climate stuff that the experts at places like RealClimate know about.

Some of these views you’ll see expressed by the host of trolls who flocked to my popular blog on the subject. Others, you’ll find expressed by bloggers like this character here (sample quote: “Who is Hal Lewis? I’ve been studying physics for 30 years, and I’ve never heard of him.”) and this blogger here who calls himself the Stoat but whose real name is William Connolley.

Here is Connolley in action on his blog, scrabbling for dirt:

So, where are the papers? You can’t have a scientific career without papers. There are some early ones – The Multiple Production of Mesons from 1948 with Oppenheimer, no less. Or Multiple Scattering in an Infinite Medium, 1950 – worthy maths-ish thing, I’d guess. But past the late-50’s early 60’s it suddenly gets very thin indeed. I’d guess, without knowing more, that he gave up science and moved into admin.

And here he is, in his role as a Wikipedia editor caught by Watts Up With That  doctoring Professor Lewis’s Wikipedia entry so as to edit out that all-important resignation letter.

William Connolley – a green party activist – has form in this regard. Lots of form – as I first reported here last year – drawing on Lawrence Solomon’s definitive National Post expose “How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles”.

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

Anyway, Connolley’s latest escapade has proved to be the straw that broke the camel’s back for the Wiki administrators. He has now been banned from writing on “Climate Change” for Wikipedia. (H/T Bishop Hill). As too has the similarly fanatical KimDabelsteinPetersen.

This is glorious news for those of us on the side of truth and reality. According to Solomon “he is arguably the world’s most influential global warming advocate after Al Gore”, which sounds like overstatement until you remember that Wikipedia is “the most popular reference source on the planet” and that Connolley managed to skew almost every one of its entries on Climate Change to his fervently warmist perspective. The Climategate scientists tried and failed to disinvent the Medieval Warm Period. But on Wikipedia, Connolley very nearly succeeded by pouring cold water on its significance and by trying to rename it the Medieval Climate Anomaly.

Remember too that it was Connolley who helped up the Warmist propaganda site RealClimate which – despite its reassuring-sounding name – is essentially the black ops wing of Michael Mann’s Hockey Team. So his scalp – (bushy, with comedy bear attachment, see sexy photograph above) – represents a considerable coup for the cause of climate realism.

In fact, this has been a good news week generally for us goodies in the great climate wars. Best of all, of course, are the glorious tidings that cricketlovingjetsettingbeardgrowingrailwayengineeringsoftpornwritingtrollimpersonating Dr Rajendra Pachauri is to stay on as chairman of the IPCC.

Dr Benny Peiser thinks this will be bad news for the IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report:

“As long as he stays the IPCC will not restore credibility,” he said. “ Everybody knows that so there is a risk that the next report will not be taken that seriously.”

Exactly, Benny. Why else do you think we’re all jumping for joy?

Related posts:

  1. US physics professor: ‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’
  2. I’m famous at last — thanks to the internet (and this column)
  3. The Met Office – defending the indefensible, as per usual
  4. An open letter from my old mate David Cameron to the people of Britain

 

Climategate: the Fox connection | James Delingpole

October 18, 2010

Wrong Fox - but no harm done, eh?

Wrong Fox – but no harm done, eh?

A strange story in Bishop Hill about Fiona Fox. You may remember she’s the director of the Science Media Centre who claimed earlier this year that the way BBC could improve its science coverage was to give less space to sceptics.

She said: “To have a sceptic or contrarian in every interview is really misleading the public.”

Then, amusingly, she dropped two of the BBC’s more shameless eco-activists in the dudu by commenting:

“With Climate Science there’s been a real change with people like Richard Black and Roger Harrabin fighting internally to say ‘We don’t have to have a sceptic every time we have a climate scientist.’”

How Rich and Rog must have thanked her for this revelation!

And now she’s in trouble of a different kind. It seems she took part in a practical joke which went horribly wrong, summarised here by the Bishop:

She is also apparently a close friend of Jim Devine, a former Labour MP who is now facing fraud charges over his expense claims. She appears to have got herself involved in a bizarre and rather nasty practical joke involving Devine and his office manager, and which has now led to a substantial damages award against the politician.

Unless it involves Al Gore, masseuses and the phrase “love poodle” I’m not generally that interested in reporting sordid, sorry tales about people’s rackety personal lives – not least because it can’t be long before word leaks out about me last weekend with the hamsters, the dwarves with cocaine bowls balanced on their heads, Jimmy Page and the cast of High School Musical III. (And it’s interesting to note that when Steve McIntyre chose to write it up at ClimateAudit, some of his commenters got frightfully sniffy. “And what, pray does this have to do with statistics or climate science?” some of his more matronly readers wanted to know as they reached for the smelling salts).

Me, I’m much more interested in the Science Media Centre connection and the puzzling question of how Fiona Fox became to become so influential figure in the Climate Change Pseudoscience Alarmism Spin Machine. OK so she’s a former revolutionary Marxist – but so too are her sister Claire, as well as the Spiked Online gang Brendan O’Neill, Mick Hume, Frank Furedi and the rest. And all the latter are ferocious defenders of Enlightenment values, as well as being so sceptical about Global Warming b***ocks generally they make me sound like Geoffrey Lean. Well, almost.

One theory, mooted by one of the Bishop’s sharp-eyed readers, is that she was got at by an organisation called LobbyWatch and bullied in changing tack. But did she really have to go so far the other way as to appoint to her Science Advisory Panel such nakedly partisan figures as (former Government Alarmist-in-Chief) Sir David King, and to her board, such outrageously parti-pris types as Philip Campbell (editor in chief of Nature) and, Lord preserve us, Bob Ward?

“Only connect.” As well as being the epigraph of Howard’s End, this is also the theme of an infinitely superior book coming out soon on the great climate change conspiracy called Watermelons.

Fox, Campbell, King, Ward, Hansen, Gore, Monbiot, Porritt, Connolley….Not without reason do these names crop up again and again in this blog. They may not be sitting round the same table plotting. But they’re all part of the cabal, a surprisingly small cabal, given the vastness of its influence and the almost unimaginable immensity of the bill they are trying to impose on mankind in the name of their religion, Climatism.

Related posts:

  1. What the liberal elite feel you should know about ‘Climate Change’
  2. Climategate: peak oil, the CRU and the Oman connection
  3. Climategate 2.0: junk science 101 with Michael Mann
  4. ‘I want to be remembered for the science’ says Phil ‘Climategate’ Jones to chorus of titters

One thought on “Climategate: the Fox connection”

  1. TDK says:18th October 2010 at 10:20 amThere’s a nice quote here you might enjoyFiona Fox’s elder sister is Claire Fox (Moral Maze BBC radio 4). The difference between them is Claire is a AGW skeptic. Here’s Fiona on her sister’s “anti-science views”I get furious with her sometimes. I believe in an evidence-based approach to science, but Claire is more driven by her political passions. I heard her on [Radio 4’s] The Moral Maze saying the “bloody scientists” are exaggerating the risk of bird flu, and that made me very cross. I phoned her from Center Parcs, and within two minutes we’d both slammed the phone down. Then, because we don’t want to stay on bad terms, we e-mailed. I sent her the research, and she came back with her political point. She takes the same stance on climate change: she knows the evidence is there; her point is that the human race is far more resilient than people think.

    You will recall that Bird Flu has didn’t kill the numbers predicted in 2003.

    What does that say about their relative judgements.

Comments are closed.