There’s a Right Way to Lose at the Oxford Union. I Did the Wrong Way

They don’t do humour, the Stepford Students. So I’d give it to them straight.

The way not to win a debate at the Oxford Union, I’ve just discovered, is to start your speech with a casual quip about Aids. It wasn’t a scripted joke. Just one of those things you blurt out in those terrifying initial moments when you’re trying to win the audience over with your japeish, irreverent, mildly self-parodying human side before launching into your argument proper.

It only happened because when my turn came to speak there wasn’t any still water for me to drink and I was parched. So various Union officers proffered me the dregs of the other speakers’ half-drunk bottles. ‘Oh my God, I might get Aids,’ I ad-libbed, to no general amusement whatsoever. From that moment things only went from bad to H.M. Bateman.

First it was just the odd groan and hiss of disapproval. But the longer I went on, the more it became clear that even the more tasteful, light and apolitical jokes I’d prepared were going down with the crowd like a cauldron of cold sick. As for my more trenchant offerings — on ‘cis gender’; on feminazis; on the ludicrousness of ‘safe -spaces’, etc — well if I’d just barbecued a kitten and offered round titbits to taste I doubt I’d have got a much less enthusiastic response. We lost the debate by an enormous margin.

Afterwards, the Union’s charming Aussie president explained where I’d gone wrong. ‘You were lost from the moment you joked about Aids,’ he said. ‘Really?’ I said. ‘Really,’ he confirmed. ‘Cis gender, too. You can never joke about that,’ said one of his mates, sotto voce, glancing nervously over his shoulder. ‘Even saying the word makes me uncomfortable. You don’t know who’s listening.’

And the depressing thing is, they meant it. Of course, I should have known this from Brendan O’Neill’s heartfelt piece last year about Oxford’s mirthless, free-speech-averse Stepford Students. But until you’ve experienced it for yourself, you’re inclined to dismiss this stuff as journalistic licence. ‘Surely the place can’t have changed that much since I was here?’ you think.

It has, though. It’s like The Walking Dead. Especially in Wadham, apparently, where pretty much the entire college has been infected. (But then, Wadham, eh? Home of Terry Eagleton, the man who, in the only lecture I ever attended, told me it was just as valid to deconstruct the telephone directory as it was to read Shakespeare.) ‘Actually there probably aren’t all that many of them but their influence is disproportionate to their numbers,’ another undergraduate explained. ‘They’re so shrill and angry and difficult that everyone censors themselves just to avoid attracting their attention.’

Read the rest at the Spectator.

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

Polar Bears Doing Great, Except in Greenies’ Fantasy Computer Models

Which version of events should we believe?

Well that all depends on where you prefer to place your trust: on reality or on computer models concocted by activists who desperately want the polar bear to retain its status as the ursine victim of the man-made global warming apocalypse.

If you prefer to go with reality, here’s the good news from Susan Crockford, who puts the global polar bear population at a very healthy 26,000. This would mean, she has noted before, that the population has increased by around 4,200 since 2001.

Ironically, the IUCN—the world’s leading conservation monitoring body, responsible for producing the “Red List” which classifies endangered species—agrees with her estimates. What it won’t do is admit that the news is good. (Well, good if you think having lots of extra polar bears is good. I’m not so sure. I’d agree with my friend Steven Crowder that actually they are evil: one of only two species—the other being the Saltwater crocodile—which deliberately hunts down human beings as prey).

There are two main reasons for this discrepancy of opinion.

The first is that the doomsday scenario for polar bears comes, not from real-world observation but from computer-modeled predictions of what might happen in the future if the ice caps melt, etc. Like all computer models—global warming—these have little if any bearing on reality.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

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

People Who Say Climate Change Is Worse Than Terrorism Are Dangerous Liars

climate change
ERIC FEFERBERG/AFP/Getty Images

Sorry, conservatives: when President Obama describes climate change as the greatest threat we face, he’s exactly right. Terrorism can’t and won’t destroy our civilization, but global warming could and might.

Paul Krugman, Nobel prizewinning economist, public intellectual; New York Times columnist

The thing I love about Paul Krugman is that he’s such a mighty touchstone of wrong. If he told you that day followed night you’d have to go out in the morning to check with a torch; if he told you that The Sopranos was the greatest TV series ever you’d suddenly realize having revisited all 86 episodes that, no, actually even Hannah Montana had sharper acting and deeper insights; so when he tells you that “terrorism can’t and won’t destroy our civilization”, well you know, without even having to think about it, that for once in his political career Jeb Bush has called it dead right, and that yet again, as ever, Krugman couldn’t be further from the right end of the stick.

Yes of course terrorism can and may destroy our civilization.

And the reason it can and may do so has actually very little to do with what the terrorists may do it us. Rather it has to do with what they are helping enable us to do to ourselves.

By “we” I don’t mean all of us – and almost certainly not you. I mean people like Paul Krugman. And presidential contender Bernie Sanders. And Soros-funded attack dog Joe Romm. And CIA Director John Brennan. And Hillary Clinton. And French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius who, just a month ago, in remarks one would like to hope he now very much regrets, declared that “climate change is a threat to peace” and a significant cause of terrorism.

What all the above have claimed about climate change is, of course, completely untrue. No there is absolutely no credible evidence to suggest that climate change is responsible for the Syrian refugee crisis, let alone for ISIS terrorism. In fact there is absolute no credible evidence that “climate change” – in the “man-made global warming” sense – has caused major harm to anyone, anywhere in the world, ever.

There is however no shortage of credible, verifiable evidence to show that terrorism is causing major harm to lots of people all the time. Not the as-yet-nameless “children of the future” forever being invoked by climate alarmists. But actual living, breathing people with names and families and jobs and dreams.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

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

Science Says: Evil Coral Reefs Acidify Oceans

It seems that Ocean Acidification is not, after all, the result of man’s selfishness and greed and refusal to amend his lifestyle. Apparently, according to New Scientist, it’s caused by those hateful Gaia-raping monstrosities we call coral reefs:

Acidic water may be a sign of healthy corals, says a new study, muddying the waters still further on our understanding of how coral reefs might react to climate change.

Andreas Andersson of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, and his colleagues carefully monitored a coral reef in Bermuda for five years, and found that spikes in acidity were linked to increased reef growth.

“At first we were really puzzled by this,” says Andersson. “It’s completely the opposite to what we would expect in an ocean-acidification scenario.”

Andersson’s puzzlement is understandable, given the plethora of articles over the last few years that have tried to big up ocean acidification as the “evil twin” of climate change and inevitably trying to pin the blame on man.

Read the rest at Brietbart.

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

Worst Deal In History: $1.5 Trillion a Year to Reduce Global Warming by 0.048°C

Even if every nation in the world adheres to its climate change commitments by 2030 the only  difference it will make to “global warming” by the end of this century will be to reduce the world’s temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F).

That’s 1/20th of a degree C.

Let’s put this into perspective.

Earlier this year, Climate Change Business Journal calculated that the annual cost of the global warming industry is $1.5 trillion.

If you want to know what that looks like in numerals it is:

$1,500,000,000,000

And if you want a better idea of how it looks conceptually, I highly recommend this infographic visualisation.

To put it another way, even if you’d spent $1 million a day every day since the birth of Jesus, you’d still be less than half the way to reaching $1.5 trillion.

Or, to put it still another way, $1.5 trillion is the same amount we spend annually buying stuff we want and need via online shopping.

The Occupy crowd invite us to feel bitter and angry and cheated by the $700 billion it cost to bail out the US banks after the 2008 crash – and perhaps they’re right. But at least that was just a one-off payment. With the climate change industry we’re talking more than twice that amount being wasted every single year.

Read the rest at Brietbart.

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

Exposed: The Green Activists Who Cooked up the RICO Conspiracy against Big Oil

Before I reveal their identities, let me give you some examples of just how successful they have been.

Hillary Clinton has called for an investigation into what Exxon really knew about climate change. (By weird coincidence, this came just after Exxon stopped funding an organization called the Clinton Foundation).

Sheldon Whitehouse and three other Democrat senators have written to Exxon accusing it of supporting “climate denial” and “anti-climate policy advocacy.”

A bunch of climate alarmist scientists have written to President Obama urging him to use RICO legislation against corporations which may “knowingly have deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.” (Though they’ve been a bit less vocal since one of their number got himself embroiled in the “largest science scandal in US history”)

Two separate journalistic investigations have claimed that Exxon’s scientists “knew” about the threat of global warming as early as the late 70s and that the company is guilty of some kind of cover up. Now Scientific American has jumped on the bandwagon too.

It’s all mendacious nonsense, as I explain here. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that unscrupulous lawyers, shyster politicians and green NGOs won’t go ahead and seize this flimsy excuse to intensify their war on capitalism in the guise of concern about the environment. Exxon, for example, may have no case to answer. But that won’t stop its operations, its reputation and its share value being seriously disrupted by a potential lawsuit, however ill-founded and vexatious.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

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

Study: Global Warming Will Kill Your Sex Life

The study – called Maybe Next Month? Temperature Shocks, Climate Change, and Dynamic Adjustments in Birth Rates – examined how birth rates change over time in the US, depending on the weather.

What it found is that on days where the temperature exceeded 80 degrees F there was a large decline in births eight to ten months later.

Though the researchers found that the drop off was mitigated slightly by couples making up for lost time – as shown by a subsequent rise in the birth rate – this increase still wasn’t quite enough to make up for all the babies who would have been bred if the hot weather hadn’t happened.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

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

Bill Gates: Only Socialism Can Save Us from Climate Change

So says Bill Gates in a dogmatic but somewhat confused interview with The Atlantic in which he simultaneously pours scorn on green tech solutions but insists that more of them are needed – on a scale bigger than the Manhattan Project – if we are to deal successfully with a problem whose nature he admits may well have been exaggerated by environmentalists.

Confused? You should be:

Here are some of things we learn about the mysteries of Gates’s mind.

Gates has no patience for climate change deniers – Republican politicians in particular – but is far too grand to explain why they’re wrong.

He didn’t evince much patience for the argument that American politicians couldn’t agree even on whether climate change is real, much less on how to combat it. “If you’re not bringing math skills to the problem,” he said with a sort of amused asperity, “then representative democracy is a problem.”

Gates made his fortune in what used to be one of the least regulated sectors of the US economy. But still he has little faith in free markets as a driving force for innovation.

“Yes, the government will be somewhat inept,” he said brusquely, swatting aside one objection as a trivial statement of the obvious. “But the private sector is in general inept. How many companies do venture capitalists invest in that go poorly? By far most of them.”

He thinks the forthcoming UN climate talks in Paris are largely a waste of space because they’re just not going to be radical enough.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

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

NASA Shock Study: Antarctica Is Growing Not Shrinking

The study – by an organization not hitherto noted for playing down environmental scares – will come as a major blow climate alarmists.  For decades, they have cited Antarctica as one of the bellwethers of global warming catastrophe and have claimed – as the IPCC’s most recent Assessment Report did – that its land ice mass was slowly melting into the sea.

But the satellite measurements used in the latest NASA report tell a different story. Unlike previous studies – many largely based on guesswork because the continent is so vast and inhospitable, meaning that data is extremely limited – they use satellite altimeters to calculate changes in the surface height of the ice. What they show is that the amount of ice lost by glaciers collapsing into the sea has been exceeded by the gain in ice mass from accumulated snow.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

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

NOAA Attempts to Hide the Pause in Global Warming: The Most Disgraceful Cover-Up Since Climategate

Despite being a public, taxpayer-funded institution, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) insists that it is under no obligation to provide the research papers, as demanded in a subpoena by Rep Lamar Smith (R-Texas).

Gosh. What vital information of national secrecy importance could NOAA possibly have to hide?

That question is entirely rhetorical, by the way. The answer is obvious – well known to every one within the climate change research community. And the whole business stinks. When these documents are released, as eventually they surely must be, what will become evident is that this represents the most disgraceful official cover-up by the politicized science establishment since the release of the Climategate emails.

At the root of the issue is the inconvenient truth that there has been no “global warming” since January 1997.

This is clearly shown by the most reliable global temperature dataset – the RSS satellite records – and was even grudgingly acknowledged in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment report. While still insisting that there has been a slight warming – an increase, since 1998, of around 0.05 degrees C per decade – the IPCC had in all honesty to admit that this is smaller than the 0.1 degrees C error range for thermometer readings, and consequently statistically insignificant.

But if there has been no “global warming” for nearly 19 years how can alarmist proselytisers like President Obama and John Kerry possibly hope to convince an increasingly skeptical public that this apparently non-existent problem yet remains the most pressing concern of our age?”

Step forward the Obama administration’s helpful friends at NOAA. It’s not supposed to be a politicized institution: its job is to do science, not propaganda. But the memo must have been missed by NOAA scientists Thomas Karl and Thomas Peterson who, in May this year, published a “study” so favourable to the alarmist cause it might just as well have been scripted by Al Gore and Greenpeace, with a royal foreword by the Prince of Wales, and a blessing from Pope Francis.

“Data show no slowdown in recent global warming” declared NOAA’s press release. “The Pause”, in other words, was just the construct of a few warped deniers’ twisted imaginations.

Naturally this new “evidence” was seized on with alacrity by the usual media suspects.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

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